progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL There are other dimensions or neo-progressivism that are worthy of analysis also. Deliberative Democracy is one back door approach to neo-progressivism in that it proposes group ways to influence and ultimately control the individual. Amy Gutmann is a major proponent of that philosophy and she and Dennis Thompson on the topic of Deliberative Democracy. I will use their latest book, Why Deliberative Democracy, as the source for my current comments. Gutmann is currently President of the University of Pennsylvania and has written extensively on this topic as well as having commented extensively on Rawls and other academic neo-progressives 182 . In a discussion on Rawls, Gutmann presents an interesting and somewhat compelling discussion on Rawls and a comparison to Habermas. The issue at hand is a comparison between political freedom and personal liberty and the issue of what Habermas called cooriginality. This of course is at the heart of the discussion. Personal liberties is the core of individualism whereas political freedom is a more expansive term. My interpretation of Gutmann's view of what personal liberties entail is that they are not what we would assume are essential to individualism. They appear more ethereal and less fundamental. 6.6.1 Deliberative Democracy Let us begin with a discussion of deliberative democracy. Gutmann and Thompson state 183 : "…we can define deliberative democracy as a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives) justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible with the aim of reaching conclusions that are binding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future." One must stress that in many ways the approach they take is very much akin to Rawls. In the Introduction to the Rawls book in which Gutman analyzes Rawlsian issue Freeman sets the stage for the Rawlsian view of the neo-progressive as follows 184 : "This raises the question of the relationship between the difference principle and the equal basic liberties. Rawls believes the two principles of justice cannot be appreciated or justifies in isolation from one another. To be a liberal conception it is not enough to recognize basic liberties and assign them priority. A liberal conception of justice also recognizes a social minimum, a basic social entitlement to enabling resources, particularly income and wealth. For without a social minimum the basic liberties are merely formal protections and are worth little to people who are impoverished and 182 See Gutmann's work on Rawls in Freeman, Rawls, pp 168-199. See the discussion on pp 172-176. 183 Gutmann and Thompson, Democracy, p 7. 184 Freeman, Rawls, p. 6. Page 182
The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL without the means to take advantage of those liberties. So Rawls contends any liberal view provides some kind of social minimum to guarantee the worth of basic liberties." Namely Freemen reiterates the entitlement position. We will look at the deliberative democracy approach as an alternative yet complimentary approach to Rawlsian justice. Gutmann and Thompson in their book apply their definition of deliberative democracy to three examples of which I will discuss. They are: 1. Iraq War: In essence their argument was that the process failed to meet the requirements of a deliberative democracy by delimiting the discussion and having certain issue inadequately revealed and discussed. They contend that the debate should have lasted longer. In my view there were other issues as well. One was that the "Bush Doctrine" of a pre-emptive war was not fully understood by the populace, albeit the US had done this before, yet not to this scale. Second there was a strange tension in the US between the lingering strain of 9/11 and the massive separation politically of anti-Bush and everyone else in the electorate. I here argue that the political separation was "anti- Bush" and everyone else, because I believe that those not anti-Bush were not necessarily pro-Bush, just anti-anti-Bush. One then wonders in such an environment how the above definition could ever function in the first place. 2. California Governor Recall Referendum: They then critique the 2003 California Referendum on the Governor and basically state that the Referendum process is inherently flawed. They state without any basis in fact that "Because neither the procedure nor its results could be said to be democratic in the simplest procedural sense….judicial intervention to correct some of the defects may be called for…" (p 60) This is amazing because the Referendum process is in and of itself a full Democratic and Progressive process, rant with chaos and confusion, yet a process where one person and one vote counts. It may make California look like Italy but alas it may truly be such. Gutmann and Thompson disdain the true chaos of democracy if one takes their words at face value. However one of the more concerning comments in this section regarding California is the Gutmann comment on Educational systems for she seems to believe that the function of educational institutions is to train people to think correctly. This is a Dewey concept and has always been a keystone in all progressive programs. The progressives see the state education and training of students as the sine qua non way to ensure the right thinking electorate in later years. Furthermore, to train them to think cohesively in a manner compliant with her definition of deliberative democracy. She states: "To prepare their students for citizenship in a deliberative democracy, schools should aim to develop the capacities of the students to understand different perspectives, communicate their understandings to other people and engage in the give and take of moral argument with a view toward making mutually justifiable decisions." 185 185 Gutmann and Thompson, Democracy, p 61. Page 183
Page 1 and 2:
+++ The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM
Page 3 and 4:
The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
The Telmarc Group Preface PROGRESSI
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
The Telmarc Group 4.1.3 Hobbes and
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
The Telmarc Group 4.5.2 The New Fre
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132: The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 147 and 148: The Telmarc Group Hofstadter contin
Page 181: The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 223: The Telmarc Group and the Progressi
show all

progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?