Context in terms of the water we all swim in in varying degrees of murkiness. But priority and urgent concern is life-threatening poison. I speak as one tiniest speck in the 8 billion (2022 Nov) in the universe. I have no tribe except the family I was born in and the trajectory of my own personal growth. I am also limited by the confines of my own cognitive, conative and spiritual spheres.
Congratulations!! Truly excited about this PostLiberalOrder podcast launch. Good stuff efficiently delivered.
3+ years ago when I first discovered on Twitter the writings of the 4 people who put together PostLiberalOrder, my heart skipped a beat. "Oh God!", I said to myself, "Something good finally happened! At long last!"
It was as if a bright light, an intense beam, shines at the end of a dark, interminable, tunnel that had threatened a dead end.
___
Still listening, about 2/3 way thru the 1 hr 17 min material. But can't resist urge to say CONGRATS!!
Hear, hear. Well said, Sally. Fantastic to see this podcast get off the ground. Congratulations! Proud to be a subscriber and look forward to listening to the rest of this.
Yes David. It is fantastic indeed! Thx for your chiming in!
What I am enthusiastic about is how the thoughts of 4 deep thinkers @PostLiberalOrder matter. They work assiduously to re-steer the direction of Liberalism, a word and concept so cruelly maligned by 2022 it is, in many political arenas, unrecognizable except for an excuse to let the "Id" rule. A civil society cannot be made up of all "Rights" and no "Obligations".
In Dobbs, right liberals celebrated returning the issue of abortion back to the states for 50 popular votes on the issue. But left liberals understood that position was as incoherent as Lincoln had found Douglas’ argument for “popular sovereignty. They immediately made it a national issue for the advancement of their vision of the common good.
Right liberals, having no competing vision they promote, meandered and presented such collage of possible end-points to abortion access that their candidates were easy to caricature and demonize.
Of course, “returning it to the states” was always only a cope that right liberals offered to left liberals to make the latter — their friends and their donors — less upset at the right’s obsessive efforts to overturn Roe.
I deleted my last comment because of course no Republicans would have pushed for federal legislation banning abortion while Roe was on the books. Duh. Nonetheless, I don't know if it's cope or even necessarily incoherent as Professor Pecknold said in the context of commitments to the common good (IIRC, he compared celebrating states now deciding abortion to celebrating states being able to decide slavery). That analogy holds only to the extent anything less maximalist moral victories are failures. If the law is a teacher, the law is now teaching in states where abortion is prohibited; it is also teaching at the federal level abortion isn't a constitutional right.
I agree with Prof Pecknold's analogy in that the likeness is not one of quantitative difference but qualitative. Fundamentally, both abortion and slavery concern a moral issue. Ultimately, this moral issue impinges on a larger good - that of the good of the whole society, not just a tribe or sect in it. I also agree with Prof Deneen's decrying the total bifurcation of state and fed legislation on the pro-life v pro-choice predicament, essentially an artefact of partisan politics more than a genuine constitutional law issue (I know, this is a radical thought). Finally, not a cynic on the purpose of law, I think law can and does legislate morality (another radical thought, but consider criminal law. How would a society function without it?) I fail to understand why this point should morph into a titanic bone of contention in a so-called liberal society. The irony is that in claiming to be "Liberal" or "Progressive" or whatever the word is, both L & R or Liberal & Conservative surrender the society to the whims and mercy of either a few in an oligarchy (however defined) or a great many in a mob. None of all that is tenable and sustainable.
With Roe overturned, should conservatives still prioritize whom the next President will nominate to the Supreme Court?
What do right-wingers want the court to DO? After all, Roe came at the very end of a generation of liberal jurisprudence, there were many, many liberal decisions that preceded it. Heck, the entire Warren Court preceded Roe, which was a Burger Court ruling.
What rights do right wingers want affirmed and what decisions do they want reversed? What restrictions do they want placed on left wingers?
My own teacher, John Schaar (ז׳׳ל), used to speak of liberals as Pelagians. So, I am pleased to take this apt observation, made helpfully here in the pod, as canonical
How does Peter Brown fit in to St. Augustine as liberal? I'm flummoxed, though admittedly ignorant, but the City of God was written against the pagans, yes ???
Context in terms of the water we all swim in in varying degrees of murkiness. But priority and urgent concern is life-threatening poison. I speak as one tiniest speck in the 8 billion (2022 Nov) in the universe. I have no tribe except the family I was born in and the trajectory of my own personal growth. I am also limited by the confines of my own cognitive, conative and spiritual spheres.
Congratulations!! Truly excited about this PostLiberalOrder podcast launch. Good stuff efficiently delivered.
3+ years ago when I first discovered on Twitter the writings of the 4 people who put together PostLiberalOrder, my heart skipped a beat. "Oh God!", I said to myself, "Something good finally happened! At long last!"
It was as if a bright light, an intense beam, shines at the end of a dark, interminable, tunnel that had threatened a dead end.
___
Still listening, about 2/3 way thru the 1 hr 17 min material. But can't resist urge to say CONGRATS!!
Hear, hear. Well said, Sally. Fantastic to see this podcast get off the ground. Congratulations! Proud to be a subscriber and look forward to listening to the rest of this.
Yes David. It is fantastic indeed! Thx for your chiming in!
What I am enthusiastic about is how the thoughts of 4 deep thinkers @PostLiberalOrder matter. They work assiduously to re-steer the direction of Liberalism, a word and concept so cruelly maligned by 2022 it is, in many political arenas, unrecognizable except for an excuse to let the "Id" rule. A civil society cannot be made up of all "Rights" and no "Obligations".
In Dobbs, right liberals celebrated returning the issue of abortion back to the states for 50 popular votes on the issue. But left liberals understood that position was as incoherent as Lincoln had found Douglas’ argument for “popular sovereignty. They immediately made it a national issue for the advancement of their vision of the common good.
Right liberals, having no competing vision they promote, meandered and presented such collage of possible end-points to abortion access that their candidates were easy to caricature and demonize.
Of course, “returning it to the states” was always only a cope that right liberals offered to left liberals to make the latter — their friends and their donors — less upset at the right’s obsessive efforts to overturn Roe.
It didn’t work.
I deleted my last comment because of course no Republicans would have pushed for federal legislation banning abortion while Roe was on the books. Duh. Nonetheless, I don't know if it's cope or even necessarily incoherent as Professor Pecknold said in the context of commitments to the common good (IIRC, he compared celebrating states now deciding abortion to celebrating states being able to decide slavery). That analogy holds only to the extent anything less maximalist moral victories are failures. If the law is a teacher, the law is now teaching in states where abortion is prohibited; it is also teaching at the federal level abortion isn't a constitutional right.
I agree with Prof Pecknold's analogy in that the likeness is not one of quantitative difference but qualitative. Fundamentally, both abortion and slavery concern a moral issue. Ultimately, this moral issue impinges on a larger good - that of the good of the whole society, not just a tribe or sect in it. I also agree with Prof Deneen's decrying the total bifurcation of state and fed legislation on the pro-life v pro-choice predicament, essentially an artefact of partisan politics more than a genuine constitutional law issue (I know, this is a radical thought). Finally, not a cynic on the purpose of law, I think law can and does legislate morality (another radical thought, but consider criminal law. How would a society function without it?) I fail to understand why this point should morph into a titanic bone of contention in a so-called liberal society. The irony is that in claiming to be "Liberal" or "Progressive" or whatever the word is, both L & R or Liberal & Conservative surrender the society to the whims and mercy of either a few in an oligarchy (however defined) or a great many in a mob. None of all that is tenable and sustainable.
With Roe overturned, should conservatives still prioritize whom the next President will nominate to the Supreme Court?
What do right-wingers want the court to DO? After all, Roe came at the very end of a generation of liberal jurisprudence, there were many, many liberal decisions that preceded it. Heck, the entire Warren Court preceded Roe, which was a Burger Court ruling.
What rights do right wingers want affirmed and what decisions do they want reversed? What restrictions do they want placed on left wingers?
My own teacher, John Schaar (ז׳׳ל), used to speak of liberals as Pelagians. So, I am pleased to take this apt observation, made helpfully here in the pod, as canonical
How does Peter Brown fit in to St. Augustine as liberal? I'm flummoxed, though admittedly ignorant, but the City of God was written against the pagans, yes ???