----- Original Message ----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In a previous message, I cited Robert (not Wilhelm) Reich's view that the Dems - or the anti-Bush people in general[*] - should embrace moral argument (as opposed to policy-speak) and Michael Perelman agreed. We must be conscious that this involves moral conflict (and not just class conflict). The right-wing morality involves hatred of gays and opposition to abortion rights. ============== Anybody here remember the Thirty Years War and the emergence of secularism and capitalism? I've been perusing -very slowly because it is brilliant, rich and intense- Jonathan Israel's "Radical Enlightenment" which goes into the emergence of modern atheism and moral skepticism etc. My guess is that what we need is a reframing of moral argument that massively shifts the justificatory burden onto the Right: "What is the justification for homophobia?" "What is the justification for jingoism and racism in foreign policy?" "What is the justification for denying the sick access to medical care?" The goal of such simple questions could be directed at pointing out just how much capriciousness, anti-pluralism and authoritarianism lurks in the very discursive approach the Right takes on issues of morality; that is, moral discourse itself is the source of a lot of our inability to solve deep problems of social suffering. As Theodore Lowi points out in "The End of the Republican Era" this makes Conservatives very nervous; so Reich and others who think the adoption of moral discourse is something that needs to be done need to be prepared. The non-metaphysical aspects of Theism are far harder to crack than the metaphysical ones. My 2 cents.
