Ta-Nehisi Coates vs. Lincoln and MLK on "White Supremacy"

Coates' argument [appears to be] that an eradicable American wish to enslave underlies "white supremacy." - Vide infra

Martin Luther King ... rejected the suggestion of white group guilt implied by Coates' "white supremacy nation" meme. - Vide infra

The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity. - Lincoln, on the Founders' moves to achieve the end of slavery

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808—the very first day the constitution would permit—prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties. - Lincoln, ibid.

In today's article The Case for Reparations: An Intellectual Autopsy, Ta-Nehisi Coates continues asserting that "white supremacy" is the true story of the United States' founding and history:

When I wrote opposing reparations I was about halfway through my deep-dive into the Civil War. I roughly understood then that the Civil War—the most lethal conflict in American history—boiled down to the right to raise an empire based on slaveholding and white supremacy. What had not yet clicked for me was precisely how essential enslavement was to America, that its foundational nature explained the Civil War's body count. ...
In fact there are people who don't "have to prep Sunday to Sunday, to get into a good high school." But they tend to live in neighborhoods that have historically excluded children with names like Dejanellie. Why is that? Housing policy. What are the roots of our housing policy? White supremacy. What are the roots of white supremacy in America? Justification for enslavement. ...
The final piece of this was the uptick in cultural pathology critiques extending from the White House on down. There is massive, overwhelming evidence for the proposition that white supremacy is the only thing wrong with black people. There is significantly less evidence for the proposition that culture is a major part of what's wrong with black people. But we don't really talk about white supremacy. We talk about inequality, vestigial racism, and culture.

Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln's opponents as he sought the presidency had a similar argument. The Founders, they said, meant the United States to be a slaveholding nation in perpetuity. Lincoln wrote of the plantation owners' denial of the principle of equality in the Declaration:

The principles of Jefferson ["all men are created equal," etc.] are the definitions and axioms of free society.  And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.  One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities." Another bluntly calls them "self-evident lies."  And others insidiously argue that they apply to "superior races."

As Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in earlier days:

On the eve of War, Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy explicitly dismissed [the] Jeffersonian view of slavery: ...

The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.  ...

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. …  Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2011/05/in-defense-of-slavery/239719/

 
Coates seems not to have mentioned any of Lincoln's powerful arguments against the "white supremacy" position. In his Peoria Speech, Lincoln cited numerous instances in which the Founders, sometimes "in apparent hot haste," began the work of dismantling slavery:

The argument of "Necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory---the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

Remember that Coates' argument above was that an eradicable American wish to enslave underlies "white supremacy":

What are the roots of our housing policy? White supremacy. What are the roots of white supremacy in America? Justification for enslavement.

Lincoln utterly denied the position that a wish to degrade, debase, and enslave another people was the hidden essence of the Founding.

As John McCormack wrote:

In Lincoln's famous 1860 Cooper Union speech, he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 22 had voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories. Twenty of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution's framers--George Washington--signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories. At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation: "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly...."

Turning to Martin Luther King, the great warrior against racial discrimination rejected the suggestion of white group guilt implied by Coates' "white supremacy nation" meme. From a post on this weblog last year:

One answer is suggested by the example of Martin Luther King Jr. The civil rights leader said several things ... He said, "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He did not draw a distinction between one group of humans and another. "God is not merely interested in the freedom of brown men, yellow men, red men and black men," King said. "He is interested in the freedom of the whole human race." From such a perspective the problem with theories of group guilt is that it divides King's "human race" into two separate, unequal categories, one part burdened by accusation and shame, the other indignant, resentful, and inclined to feel justified in seeking retribution.

In seeking reparations.

Narrative, Humanity, and Liberal Modernity

“Humans appear to pay attention to related details in a movie for much longer than monkeys do, suggesting that humans integrate events over time in a fundamentally different way.” In other words, it seems that what makes people different is our ability to follow a narrative. ... People fixate on one actor and integrate complex events over time. ... “Monkeys were reacting moment-by-moment instead of assembling and testing a narrative explanation for the scene before them,” the researchers wrote. - Asif Ghazanfar, HT to Andrew Sullivan

With the development of narrative, we became the animal that knows that it will grow old and die, and thus the animal that has art and religion. ... With the development of narrative, we also become the animal that imagines laws and ethics. (Vide infra)

Brandon Watson has a helpful rundown of the most common theories.  I'd like to sketch another, which I might call narrative theory. The paradox of fiction, as Brandon explains it, is that we feel for things we know don't exist.  Narrative theory, as I define it, posits 1) that fictional characters do exist, not as literally existing beings, but as narrative entities and 2) that real people like you and me are also narrative entities. We lovers of fiction and fictional characters have something in common: we're narrative beings. - Kyle R. Cupp

Charles K. Rowley: In 1993, in his book, Post-Liberalism, [John] Gray poked around among the rubble of classical liberal philosophy to determine what, if anything was left. He concluded that none of the four constitutive elements of doctrinal liberalism — universalism, individualism, egalitarianism and meliorism (or human flourishing) — could survive the ordeal by value pluralism and that liberalism, as a political philosophy, therefore was dead. www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_1_rowley.pdf

It seems to me that the character of Imperial Germany after 1878 can best be caught in the term "illiberal." [[I am using the term as the dictionary defines it: "Not befitting a free man . . . not generous in respect to the opinions, rights, or liberties of others; narrow-minded." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1967)]] - Fritz Stern, The Failure of Illiberalism, p. xvii

A major factor in the development of the technological modern world we experience was the symbolic ordering of nature by science. (See earlier post The Liberal Founding.) What is seldom realized is that all of us are constantly ordering the world. We don't live in the world as it is, but in a narrative drama which we construct by "integrat[ing] events over time." In this gestalt formation we perceive connections between the past and the present, and to a certain extent become able to know about the future.

As Ghazanfar and the other researchers argue:

The bulk of the overlap was driven by the two species’ shared interest in complex scenes, particularly faces, body movements, and social interactions.

But the researchers also found two intriguing differences between the monkey and human gaze paths.

First, “humans appear to look at the focus of actor’s attention and intentions to a much greater extent than do monkeys,” Ghazanfar and Shepherd wrote in a fascinating review published in the film journal Projections. Second, “humans appear to pay attention to related details in a movie for much longer than monkeys do, suggesting that humans integrate events over time in a fundamentally different way.”

In other words, it seems that what makes people different is our ability to follow a narrative. Whereas monkeys look and react to scenes quickly, people fixate on one actor and integrate complex events over time. In a clip showing two monkeys, for example, people tended to look squarely on the monkey sitting quietly in the center of the screen. Monkeys, in contrast, looked at the more active second monkey, even thought it was jumping out of view of the camera. “Monkeys were reacting moment-by-moment instead of assembling and testing a narrative explanation for the scene before them,” the researchers wrote.

With the development of narrative, we became the animal that knows that it will grow old and die, and thus the animal that has art and religion.

Part of postmodernism's attack on liberal western civilization was the attempt to deconstruct "metanarrative." In the current Wikipedia, "A metanarrative is a grand narrative common to all. The term refers, in critical theory and particularly in postmodernism, to a comprehensive explanation, a narrative about narratives of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society legitimation through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealised) master idea."

In this point of view, narrative at times goes beyond projecting the future as a continuation of a pattern emerging in the past, visualizing what ought to be. With the development of narrative, we also become the animal which imagines laws and ethics.

"As you read a log," blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote, "you have the curious sense of moving backward in time as you move forward in pages—the opposite of a book. As you piece together a narrative that was never intended as one, it seems—and is—more truthful. Logs, in this sense, were a form of human self-correction. They amended for hindsight, for the ways in which human beings order and tidy and construct the story of their lives as they look back on them. Logs require a letting-go of narrative because they do not allow for a knowledge of the ending." [Emphasis added]

Orwell argued that to write clearly is a political act: "To think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers." The well-structured, coherent novel of "one increasing purpose" is the verbal art form of our time. Its antithesis is deconstruction's concept of the postmodern novel, fragmented, ironic and self-refuting.

A "truth" becomes true by its connection to other elements of knowledge—in effect, by its place in an ordered narrative. The concept of a free citizen of a liberal society, capable of self-government, comes from the acceptance of an ordered narrative describing a rational, informed, ethical being capable of acting in the name of the public good out of enlightened self-interest.

As Richard Wolin wrote in The Terms of Cultural Criticism, to deconstruct the narrative of the autonomous self is profoundly antiliberal:

In the New Republic, Tzvetan Todorov deplored the “dogmatic skepticism” he finds in the academy—the attitude that “there is no such thing as truth or objectivity.” Todorov dramatized the danger by recalling that in George Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother crushes the idea that reality is “something objective, external, existing in its own right.” … Tzvetan Todorov writes that “it is not possible, without inconsistency, to defend human rights with one hand and deconstruct the idea of humanity with the other.” Deconstruct humanity—reduce the autonomous self to the status of a fiction—and you are left with an entity no more responsible for its actions than a puppet manipulated by an unseen master.

After the turning point in our history of September 11, 2001, people hoped for a return to what was fundamental. Some asked, "Is this the end of irony?" What ordered narratives do you credit?

Ta-Nehisi Coates 'White Supremacy' Theme and the Attack on Civility

Here’s the problem if you are a non-African American parent: how do you voice your concern with these issues without being viewed as a racist by some (though not all) black parents at the school? Is there an underlying cultural issue that makes it more likely that kids who are non-Catholic and who come to the school from outside the neighborhood will end up having discipline problems? ... How do I demand safety for my kids without being tarred with the ugly “racist” label? It really is a tight rope walk. - A Nation Defined by White Supremacy? Ctd

The recent controversy over Ta-Nehisi Coates' "A Nation Defined by White Supremacy?" series of articles is of special interest because in these articles TNC seems to have discarded functional evaluation of culture—particularly middle class culture—for an ad hominem validation of uncivil subcultures.

In "Other People's Pathologies", TNC writes,

It’s very nice to talk about “middle-class values” when that describes your small, limited world. But when your grandmother lives in one hood and your coworkers live another, you generally need something more than “middle-class values.” You need to be bilingual.

TNC's cite of Yoni Applebaum in "Black Pathology Crowdsourced" clarifies what he means:

Culture of Poverty is a label attached to a wide array of behaviors. There are behaviors—physical assertiveness—well-suited to that environment that may tend to inhibit success elsewhere.

This misleading critique of the civil culture of Western civilization—characterized by notably successful and peaceful societies—is familiar from the turbulent years of the counterculture. As David Lehman noted in Signs of the Times, “In a Marxist model of knowledge, the superstructure—the tangible products of culture—camouflages and reinforces the hidden reality of class warfare.”

"Physical assertiveness," contrary to TNC's subtle misdirection, is to be deprecated not because it is thought to pertain to an underclass, but because it is dysfunctional. Valuable sectors of any society—women, children, for example—can scarcely compete where the criterion is physical advantage. That is why bullying is in disrepute.

As part of this general theme Coates has been critiquing President Obama for calling for black parents to teach responsibility to their children. In Andrew Sullivan's blog The Dish, a bi-racial parent looks at both sides of the "assertiveness" and responsibility issues:

    It seems like the Dish posts on school suspensions and the argument between Coates and Chait regarding [it] are linked. Let me share an example.

    My kids go to a small Catholic school in the south suburbs of Chicago. I personally chose the school because it provided a solid Catholic education and it is diverse. Many of the schools in this area are all white or all black. I didn’t like either of those options for my kids. I grew up in a very diverse area and want my kids to experience the same thing.

    Unfortunately, discipline problems had progressively been on the rise before the principal resigned last summer. Also unfortunately, many of the kids who have been involved in these discipline problems are African American. They range from calling a teacher a bitch to bringing a knife to school to assaulting a much younger (and white) child in a bathroom.

    I’m bi-racial, so I have a kinda distinctive view of the dynamics within the community of the school, which unfortunately is often self segregating. I remember a school function where most white parents sat on one side of the gym while most black parents sat on the other. Since I hadn’t grown up around here and wasn’t used to such a thing, it was very jarring for me. I walk with comfort on both sides of the spectrum, but I would say most here don’t, for whatever reason. It has sometimes been very difficult to get black and white parents together for social events, such as fundraisers.

    The parents of students who live in the neighborhood of the school – which is upper-middle class to downright rich and mostly white – have been very disturbed by the recent discipline issues. There has been a call to be much harsher with punishment, and some want to make the school exclusively Catholic. But that really isn’t workable, because the school has suffered through enrollment declines in recent years due to the economy, and shutting some kids out would probably mean shutting down the school. Catholic schools all over the nation are shutting down in alarming numbers.

    Here’s the problem if you are a non-African American parent: how do you voice your concern with these issues without being viewed as a racist by some (though not all) black parents at the school? Is there an underlying cultural issue that makes it more likely that kids who are non-Catholic and who come to the school from outside the neighborhood will end up having discipline problems? I don’t know the answer, but it is worth thinking about. There are parents here who are racist, who revel in bringing up such issues behind closed doors at parties and such. But I’m not one of them. How do I demand safety for my kids without being tarred with the ugly “racist” label? It really is a tight rope walk.

    This is why I welcome the president making these speeches. He has a credibility that people like me can’t possibly have, despite the fact that I’m very active at the school with both ends of the spectrum. At some point, people like me who are not racist should be able to point out issues like discipline problems at school or poor service at business establishments on the merits without having to worry about the race issue hanging over our heads. I don’t see that happening in the near future. Maybe Barack Obama can help. He’s surely trying, which I appreciate. I voted for the man twice on issues that have nothing to do with this one, but I do like his personal responsibility stance on this.

    I’ve always been a fan of TNC and his writing, especially his historical perspectives. But it seems to me lately that he has fallen to the Jackson/Sharpton point of view, which I find disappointing. Racism is definitely everywhere. I’ve seen it personally, having a father who was DARK brown. I’ve seen it in my own neighborhood from people who I’m friendly with (and from BOTH races). Still, it would seem like blaming the plight of African Americans today solely on white supremacy would be like blaming WWI on one cause. There can be more than one cause.

Coates' position seems to be faux “realism.” The existence of brutish, criminal 'hoods or subcultures does not delegitimize civility or middle class ethics, it illustrates the need for them.

TNC once saw the founders as “reluctant slaveholders.” (In "Why We Fight" he wrote, "Jefferson's generation were, to some extent, reluctant slaveholders. (I shudder writing that.)") He now appears to claim, as one observer said, "that George Washington’s presidency means nothing more than his being a slaveholder."


In Very Hard Choices Spider Robinson wrote, “'The Constitution and Bill of Rights are among the most enlightened political documents the human race has produced so far, and its people are, so help me, some of the kindest who have yet walked the earth. . . . So far nobody's ever been as ashamed of their own racism as we are.'” Ta-Nehisi Coates pretends that one half of the picture does not exist. There are still white supremacists, but to assert over and over, as Coates is doing, that that defines our multiracial society, is to fail to give credit to the most important fact: What he characterizes as a supremacist nation listened to Martin Luther King, then passed the Omnibus Civil Rights Act. If this had not happened, it is unlikely that Coates would be, as his employer states, "a national correspondent at The Atlantic."

Because on balance this is not a white supremacist nation, Coates has the platform from which he claims, as he seems to, that we are always and only racists.

The Liberalism of Martin Luther King

Charles K. Rowley: In 1993, in his book, Post-Liberalism, [John] Gray poked around among the rubble of classical liberal philosophy to determine what, if anything was left. He concluded that none of the four constitutive elements of doctrinal liberalism — universalism, individualism, egalitarianism and meliorism (or human flourishing) — could survive the ordeal by value pluralism and that liberalism, as a political philosophy, therefore was dead. www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_1_rowley.pdf

It seems to me that the character of Imperial Germany after 1878 can best be caught in the term "illiberal." [[I am using the term as the dictionary defines it: "Not befitting a free man . . . not generous in respect to the opinions, rights, or liberties of others; narrow-minded." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1967)]] - Fritz Stern, The Failure of Illiberalism, p. xvii

A politics phrased in the language of a war by the oppressed against oppressors clearly has abandoned the democratic perspective for something darker. - My "Liberalism" Problem—And Ours

The principles of liberalism are universalism, individualism, egalitarianism, and meliorism (human flourishing), according to Professor Rowley, above.

Egalitarianism. As cited in The Liberal Founding, Fritz Stern wrote, "At our country's founding, the spirit of liberalism suffused the Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. " When Martin Luther King asked the mainstream society to live up to its own stated principles, proclaiming, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'" he was citing the passage in the Declaration which outlines the liberal principles on which the nation is based.

Universalism. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." To me this seems to mean that King held that people should not be judged by the group they belong to, but by the type of people they themselves are. King also said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. ... Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." Here, King seems to be saying that injustice, prejudice, denial of civil rights to any individual, whoever it might be, threatens the liberty of everyone of every race. "God," King added, "is not merely interested in the freedom of brown men, yellow men, red men and black men. He is interested in the freedom of the whole human race."

This is in contrast to the particularism of the left. An earlier post, Liberal, Left notes:

The left characterizes virtue as a property of a group (the oppressed). It takes a personalistic approach to evil, in the form of an implied out-group which chains the oppressed worker. The battle against evil, it is implied, will take the form of a war against a group of people who are, as a foregone conclusion, evil.

The brilliance of King's "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" standard is that it avoids stereotyping individual people by the assumed characteristics of the group they supposedly belong to. As Liberal, Left noted, "The process of identifying certain people as members of oppressor groups is profiling. The process of targeting the person profiled is discrimination." Martin Luther King, even while battling against the discriminatory treatment of African Americans, avoided the temptation to demonize the people he was appealing to. Political democracy, after all, is a government of all the people.

Meliorism. Martin Luther King, in Letter from Birmingham Jail:

Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. ... Segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. ... Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Washington concluded his Farewell Address by saying:

I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Both these figures from the nation's history recognize that the purpose of a liberal society is to better the human condition as it affects each citizen. As John Adams wrote to Jefferson,

We may say that the Eighteenth Century, notwithstanding all its Errors and Vices has been, of all that are past, the most honourable to human Nature. Knowledge and Virtues were increased and diffused, Arts, Sciences useful to Men, ameliorating their condition, were improved, more than in any former equal Period.

Individualism. The locus of freedom is the individual, not the group or class. Thus Dr. King, above, upheld "any law that uplifts human personality." And also as noted above, he observed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. ... Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

The preceding section on Universalism discussed the problems inherent in thinking of people in terms of the group they are thought to be identified with: profiling, stereotyping, targeting. It should be added that the notion of group rights is not an aspect of justice. Groups may be unjust to their own members, as John Stuart Mill's passages on "social tyranny"* suggest. In contrast, justice for the single person expands to justice for any groups containing people needing the freedom afforded.


-*---

(*)Mill argued, in On Liberty, "Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."

Aristotle's Practical Advice on the Cultivation of Constructive Habits

Charles K. Rowley: In 1993, in his book, Post-Liberalism, [John] Gray poked around among the rubble of classical liberal philosophy to determine what, if anything was left. He concluded that none of the four constitutive elements of doctrinal liberalism — universalism, individualism, egalitarianism and meliorism (or human flourishing) — could survive the ordeal by value pluralism and that liberalism, as a political philosophy, therefore was dead. www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_1_rowley.pdf

It seems to me that the character of Imperial Germany after 1878 can best be caught in the term "illiberal." [[I am using the term as the dictionary defines it: "Not befitting a free man . . . not generous in respect to the opinions, rights, or liberties of others; narrow-minded." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1967)]] - Fritz Stern, The Failure of Illiberalism, p. xvii

Humanity in the form of fraternity invariably appears historically among persecuted peop les and enslaved groups; and in eighteenth-century Europe it must have been quite natural to detect it among the Jews, who then were newcomers in literary circles. This kind of hu manity is the great privilege of pariah peoples;... The privilege is dearly bought; it is often accompanied by so radical a loss of the world ... that in extreme cases, in which pa ri ahdom has persisted for centuries, we can speak of real worldlessness. And world less ness, alas, is always a form of barbarism.
In this as it were organically evolved humanity it is as if under the pressure of per se cu tion the persecuted have moved so closely together that the interspace which we have cal led world...has simply disappeared. -Hannah, Arendt, "On Humanity in Dark Times"

Of philosophical idealism Aristotle said:
This form, which exists in the carpenter’s mind, is the formal cause of the table—but it can have no existence except in the carpenter’s mind and at length in his work. To speak otherwise—to say that there is an absolute Tableness floating somewhere that gives form to all particular tables—is “to speak abstractly and idly.” - Thomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter - from Theoretical Mathematis vs Empirical Mathematics

Aristotle is quite clear that it is the rational life which is worth living, but to achieve something by means of one’s abilities is more important than just to have those abilities. - Philosophy and Literature by Ole Martin Skilleas, p. 29

In the following passage from Philosophy and Literature by Ole Martin Skilleas, the author states that becoming a virtuous person (who ‘does the right thing’) comes from developing the habit of doing the right thing. Knowing that one has done right and acted virtuously becomes emotionally rewarding. The habit of acting rightly also becomes the habit of experiencing an emotional reward from good action. There is the harmony and personal wholeness of learning to feel joy in well-doing:

In the Republic every matter of its organization is ultimately derived from the cosmic order, the real world beyond [that] of which we can have sense impressions. ... It is by imitating the order of the realm of the forms that we can achieve the good life. Not so for Aristotle. ... There is no time to sit down and think deeply about what is at hand, you need to act there and then. This is one reason why Aristotle puts such a great emphasis on developing habits. Learning to act correctly, and preferably with the right emotions to match, is very important. In developing habits, the actions we actually do perform are the building blocks. We become what we do, in a way.

Aristotle holds that the passions and emotions are educable, and ‘doing the right thing’ teaches you to match actions and emotions. … In being generous and therefore acting virtuously, and avoiding the extremes of being stingy or extravagant, you also have to feel generous … learning to act and feel in unison. Eudaimonia, and acting virtuously through the use of your phronesis [‘practical wisdom’ or ‘practical knowledge’], involves your whole personality.

In the 2001 Time Magazine article "The EQ Factor", Nancy Gibbs wrote:

In [Daniel] Goleman's analysis, self-awareness is perhaps the most crucial ability because it allows us to exercise some self-control. The idea is not to repress feeling (the reaction that has made psychoanalysts rich) but rather to do what Aristotle considered the hard work of the will. "Anyone can become angry--that is easy," he wrote in the Nicomachean Ethics. "But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way--this is not easy."

Even in the case of anger, to possess the characteristic of knowing the right occasion for wrath is an achievement of right habit.

In Giants and Dwarfs Allan Bloom adds:

Anger ... as Aristotle teaches, is the only one of the passions that requires speech and reason--to provide arguments which justify it and without which it is frustrated and withers.

The Yglesias Award

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time. ~ Abraham Lincoln

This race is not about winning, because winning isn't enough nowadays. Winning without dignity, winning it without honor, winning without authenticity and truth is not winning at all, and we're not in it for that. - Michelle Obama, referring to Hillary's "I'm in it to win it."

We will not be serving our students well if we insist on teaching them what is factually incorrect, even if we imagine that it would be better for them if we did so. - Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out Of Africa

According to an influential blog, The Daily Dish, "the Matthew Yglesias Award is for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticise their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe."

Here's why. In Conservatives' Phantom Marriage Agenda Yglesias wrote:

One answer that Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam sort of walked up to in their book Grand New Party from several years back is that we ought to return to cruelly shunning single mothers and their children. Treat them really, really, really poorly like we would have 50 years ago. Call them "illegitimate" and rather than try to ameliorate the problems of being raised in a one-adult household, go out of our way to exacerbate them. Make life as awful as possible for single parents and their kids, and in the future you probably will see fewer single parents. The big problem with this idea, however, is that it involves deliberate cruelty to innocent people, which is morally wrong. So wrong that you never see conservatives explicitly avow it. Because it's really obviously wrong to be deliberately cruel to innocent people.

Did you ever wonder what simple transparent honesty (doing good with simplicity) would look like? These words are an example.


In "You Have a Monstrous Ideology": How the United States Has Changed, this blog previously cited Yglesias:

At no point in the films is there any suggestion that one ought to put an abstract ideological or ethical commitment above a specific obligation to family.
Sociologically speaking, this is a classic moral outlook of a low-trust society . . .  - Matthew Yglesias

Postscript: In Not Out Of Africa: How "Afrocentrism" Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History, Professor Mary Lefkowitz wrote extensively about honesty as contrasted with committed academic practice:

Discussions about evidence is what scholarship used to be about, and I would argue that we must return to debates about the evidence. p. 160

There are of course many possible interpretations of the truth, but some things simply are not true. It is not true that there was no Holocaust. There was a Holocaust, although we may disagree about the numbers of people killed. [...]

Not all bias amounts to distortion or is equivalent to indoctrination. If I am aware that I am likely to be biased for any number of reasons, and try to compensate for my bias, the result should be very different in quality and character from what I would say if I were consciously setting about to achieve a particular political goal. [...]

Drawing a clear distinction between motivations and evidence has a direct bearing on the question of academic freedom. p. 161

When it comes to deciding what one can or cannot say in class, the question of ethnicity or of motivations, whether personal or cultural, is or ought to be irrelevant. What matters is whether what one says is supported by facts and evidence, texts or formulae. [...]

Are there, can there be, multiple, diverse "truths?" If there are, which "truth" should win? The one that is most loudly argued, or most persuasively phrased? Diverse "truths" are possible only if "truth" is understood to mean something like "point of view." But even then not every point of view, no matter how persuasively it is put across, or with what intensity it is argued, can be equally valid. I may sincerely believe that Plato studied with Moses [...] but that will not mean that what I say corresponds to any known facts. Moses lived (if indeed he lived at all) centuries before Plato [...] In order to be true, my assertion about Plato would need to be supported by warranted evidence. And it cannot be. The notion of diversity does not extend to truth. p. 162

It is not possible for the same thing to be at once false and true. p. 163

Courses that are designed to conceal a considerable body of evidence, or that are intended to instill resentment and distrust in place of open discussion, have no place in the curriculum. p. 164

I was trying to draw attention to the differences between freedom of speech and academic freedom. Freedom of speech gives me the right to say that Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt, provided that it is clear that what I am expressing is my opinion, and that I do not pretend or assert that it is factually accurate and true in every respect. One can say many outrageous, untrue, and cruel things in this country, and on the whole it is better to have such license than to restrict free expression.

Whether freedom of speech extends to the classroom is another question. Academic freedom and tenure are not intended to protect the expression of uninformed or frivolous opinions. p. 165

There are many valid ways to read a literary text, although here again one expects instructors to have professional credentials, to be able to provide an argument for their way of reading the works of literature that they profess, and to show that they know its basic content (Hamlet is not the hero of Macbeth, for example).

But in certain subject areas motivation and identity have been taken as the equivalent of professional credentials. For example, does being a woman automatically guarantee knowledge of Women's Studies? p. 166

We will not be serving our students well if we insist on teaching them what is factually incorrect, even if we imagine that it would be better for them if we did so. If some students were comforted by being taught that the world was flat, would that justify the inclusion of Flat Earth Theory in the curriculum. Shouldn't we object if a geographer repeatedly taught that the world was flat, and did not mention that most other geographers happened to disagree with her, or describe fairly the reasons why they did so? p. 167

Academic freedom is the right to profess a discipline according to its recognized content and procedures, free from constraints and considerations extraneous to that discipline. p. 170