Political and Philosophical Commentary
This blog invites readers to think a little deeper about important issues and news events that affect their lives. Reflection creates the possibility of alternative perspectives.
A blog about News and Politics.
|
de Jouvenal on Power Presidential Candidates analyzed at St. Meinrad Philosophy Conference The Presidential Candidates: Agents of Change or "Partners" in maintaining the Status Quo? Incommensurable Beliefs and Cultural Conflict Is Political Transformation in Modernity possible? Part 1 Is Political Transformation in Modernity possible? Part 2 Notre Dame selects Richard Poirier for Modernity Conference Modernity and The Rise of Individualism Prop 83 - Jessica’s law - Revenge Laws vs. Justice Prop 85 - Parental Notice - Rights & Consequences October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Unlike many presidential debate moderators, philosophers actually seek the truth wherever it may lead. The Second Annual International Society for MacIntyrean Philosophy conference was held this year in the United States, July 30 through August 3, 2008, at Saint Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana. It attracted philosophy, law and political science professors and graduate students from Europe and North America. This year's conference focus was Alasdair MacIntyre's published works on "Theory, Practice, and Tradition: Human Rationality in Pursuit of the Good Life." As a local Californian music industry financial executive, writer and philosopher invited to present a paper at the conference, I felt that all of the conference theme elements were necessarily included in any serious discussion of the impending presidential election. So I presented a rather bold paper entitled "The Presidential Candidates: Agents of Change or 'Partners' in maintaining the Status Quo?"
My presentation examined the societal significance of the presidential election within the context of political power in the modern liberal state. I approached this rather large topic by assessing whether philosopher MacIntyre's observation that a primary feature of the modern liberal state is to not align itself with any specific notion of what constitutes 'the human good' is in fact actually representative of its practices. I did this by contrasting MacIntyre's notion with the public statements of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. I began the presentation by stating, "Alasdair MacIntyre famously ends After Virtue by drawing qualified parallels between the conditions shortly before the Roman Empire's decline into the Dark Ages and conditions facing our own age in Europe and North America. One parallel is that people of good-will reach a turning point when they no longer believe that those in government possess civility and moral integrity -- virtues that communities value. "One difference MacIntyre points out is that Rome's adversarial barbarians were 'waiting beyond the frontiers,' whereas the barbarians of today 'have been governing us for quite some time.' This notion that we are governed by barbarians provides a new frame of reference we may use in evaluating the two major party candidates currently running for president of the United States. This paper examines five questions that may provide insight into today's political barbarians. "First, are those in political power maintaining a great public illusion that we have a representative government that protects and promotes the people's interests, while their only agenda is to instead protect and promote the interests of the ruling elite? Second, are opposing political candidates actually 'partners' - each needing the other as a target - in framing the ideological debate to limit public discussion of vital issues, thus maintaining the status quo as MacIntyre maintains? "Third, are elections for real? Do we have real choices in elections such as voting for 'none of the above' or whether we agree to be bound by laws passed in our name? Fourth, do candidates really support a neutral state, a pluralistic society and the necessary environment in which individuals can pursue the good life? Fifth, has either candidate articulated what constitutes 'the good'? Is there any chance that, if promoted properly, such a view could reach a public consensus?" Regardless of one's point of view of the candidates, this paper will provide the reader with new reference points in which to judge the candidates and the nature of politics in our time. The full presentation is available on Richard Poirier's Political and Philosophical Commentary blog on the Bakersfield link below. http://people.bakersfield.c... Postscript note: This article and the blogged paper that follows was posted before the election. A choice having now been made in the election makes this paper no less relevant in judging Obama's future actions and what becomes of our country as a result of his election. The issues remain the same notwithstanding who won the election. We now have four years to think about the choice that was made in this election and why it was made. Did we get fooled again? We can also start thinking about what can be done to change the election process itself and our available choices in the next election. That would be a real change. Read the full blog paper to fully understand what I mean by this.
|
