@ http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2900
James Kalb is perhaps the most insightful of current writers on political correctness, Liberalism, multiculturalism, non-discrimination etc. And I would regard myself as working towards the same general goals as him.
But of course I would not bother blogging on these topics if I believed that JK was completely right!
The link refers to a mini-debate we had at his blog over the last couple of days.
*
JK: "The problem is multifaceted and multilevel and the response must be so as well."
BC: "My feeling is that if the response 'must be' multifaceted and multilevel, then there will be no response - or, at least, the response will be ineffective.
"And this is indeed the probable future.
"If there is to be an effective (or even partially-effective) response it must be simple and immediately comprehensible.
"Simple responses are indeed simplistic, but that is the nature of politics, in my opinion.
"Complexity in policy is - de facto - either a distraction or merely self-contradictory, rather than truly complex."
*
Jim advocates a complex, hence intellectually-driven, approach to the situation.
My own view is that intellectual approaches have failed, indeed intellectual approaches are now the main problem and are a red herring.
Intellectuals have proved themselves unworthy, have engaged in treason (of the clerks).
Intellectual approaches have created political correctness and relentlessly expanding bureaucracy: have destroyed art, music, literature, science, the military, and are currently destroying the world economy.
Yet by and large, in the vast majority, intellectuals are perfectly happy with their approaches and merely suggest that they need more money, more autonomy, and a little more time.
On the contrary, I believe that is anything is to be salvaged it will come from a non-intellectual approach: from holiness rather than reason (insofar as these can be contrasted) - or, as a stop-gap, temporary fix, from common sense.
*
James Kalb is perhaps the most insightful of current writers on political correctness, Liberalism, multiculturalism, non-discrimination etc. And I would regard myself as working towards the same general goals as him.
But of course I would not bother blogging on these topics if I believed that JK was completely right!
The link refers to a mini-debate we had at his blog over the last couple of days.
*
JK: "The problem is multifaceted and multilevel and the response must be so as well."
BC: "My feeling is that if the response 'must be' multifaceted and multilevel, then there will be no response - or, at least, the response will be ineffective.
"And this is indeed the probable future.
"If there is to be an effective (or even partially-effective) response it must be simple and immediately comprehensible.
"Simple responses are indeed simplistic, but that is the nature of politics, in my opinion.
"Complexity in policy is - de facto - either a distraction or merely self-contradictory, rather than truly complex."
*
Jim advocates a complex, hence intellectually-driven, approach to the situation.
My own view is that intellectual approaches have failed, indeed intellectual approaches are now the main problem and are a red herring.
Intellectuals have proved themselves unworthy, have engaged in treason (of the clerks).
Intellectual approaches have created political correctness and relentlessly expanding bureaucracy: have destroyed art, music, literature, science, the military, and are currently destroying the world economy.
Yet by and large, in the vast majority, intellectuals are perfectly happy with their approaches and merely suggest that they need more money, more autonomy, and a little more time.
On the contrary, I believe that is anything is to be salvaged it will come from a non-intellectual approach: from holiness rather than reason (insofar as these can be contrasted) - or, as a stop-gap, temporary fix, from common sense.
*