Jonathan Rauch, IGF's co-managing editor, is described as a "radical incrementalist" in a Q&A over at reason.com, here. Excerpt:
I've come to have a lot of respect for institutions that have evolved in society over time.... I'm very anti-radical. It puts me in an odd position because I'm a big advocate of gay marriage, but I square that circle by saying the right way is to try it in a few states, to do it slowly. Remember, we're messing with an age-old institution. I'm very much in that square.
And more:
To me, the gay revolution-and it has been a revolution in the culture-is Exhibit A in what a good job the culture can do changing itself when people appeal to persuasion, to try to better their lives and change the world mostly from the bottom up because that's what happened there....
[A]t least in the long term, not always in the short term, the compassion and reasonableness of the American public never ceases to amaze me.
Just don't try telling that to Larry "Everybody Hates Us" Kramer!
32 Comments for “For ‘Radical Incrementalism’”
posted by Pete on
I agree with Mr. Rauch?s let-the-States-experiment argument. I only wish more states were willing to experiment more. However, it is dependent on State?s Rights, and I wonder what Mr. Rauch and others think the impact of recent Supreme Court rulings (like upholding the ban on partial birth abortion or Lawrence v Texas) does to his State?s Rights argument. It always cuts both ways.
The State experiments seem as though they should be a strength of the Federal system. But what likelihood is there that states actually learn and adopt best practices from each other rather than simply becoming further polarized? Or does it matter?
posted by Xeno on
I can see a majority of states having civil unions or same-sex marriage in two generations from now, but for some reason I can’t see states like Alabama, Mississippi, or South Carolina following suit, unless they’re overrun by Hispanics and demographics make a major shift. From what Pete stated, it will polarize in a very ugly way. Since they’re still are having education and race issues in the South, how can we expect these loser states to tackle gay issues? Time there runs like molasses, and because of that, I bet they will suffer economically in the long run, to the level of third world countries.
Honestly the US Federal government should be disbanded completely. Why should prosperous states be in the same country as those dragging it into hell?
posted by Craig2 on
Well, you could always secede, and join Canada
Craig2 😉
Wellington,
New Zealand
posted by Lori Heine on
States’ rights must be respected, in the legislation of ALL issues (but especially the controversial ones), not simply because it might be better for this issue or that one. They must be respected because (A) States’ rights are a very basic and crucial principle upon which this country was founded and (B) without a return to the founders’ understanding of this, the United States will simply not survive.
Social issues will literally tear this country apart if people persist in trying to shove their own views (whatever those may be) down the throats of people who disagree with them. Human nature shows no sign of changing in this regard.
I am of the belief that the founders of this country knew a great deal more than many people give them credit for having known. Their views were quite advanced, not only for their own time, but (unfortunately) even for ours.
posted by Brian Miller on
“States’ rights” are a sham, a fraud, a completely illiberal concept for one very simple reason.
Governments don’t have rights — people do.
It doesn’t matter whether the jackboot on your throat is a federal, state or local one — it’s still a jackboot. So many of the people who wrap up their rhetoric in trendy faux-libertarianism forget this very simple fact.
The reality is that, as our founders noted, “all men are born with inalienable rights” including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There was nothing in that declaration about the “rights of the states” somehow trumping the rights of the individual.
To the degree that government violates those core rights — at any level, for any rationale (including “we’re messing with an age-old institution” and other bromides) — government is wrong.
Shifting oppressive laws around the levels of government is just window-dressing for statism. And those who place the “rights” of state governments above the fundamental rights of humans are statists. Plain and simple.
posted by Brian Miller on
agree with Mr. Rauch?s let-the-States-experiment argument. I only wish more states were willing to experiment more.
Incidentally, states alone cannot provide “legal marriage” due to. . . federal policy. All those lovely conservative “states’ rights” activists created lots of new laws like DOMA to ensure that states who disagree with them on their social policies are penalized.
It seems that “states’ rights” only apply to discrimination — against blacks, women and gays — rather than equally in all categories. Yet another reason why it’s a sham.
posted by Lori Heine on
We who refer to states rights are referring not to governments, or to certain parcels of land, but to the people who live there. Attempting to argue that any advocate of states rights is claiming those rights reside in the government, rather than in the people themselves, is simply bizarre.
The whole rationale behind states rights is that the decisions people make as to how they govern themselves should be as localized as possible — and thereby as in touch with the will of those people as possible. It has nothing to do with giving state governments rights or powers as entities in and of themselves, somehow separately from those of the people who live in those states.
posted by Brian Miller on
We who refer to states rights are referring not to governments, or to certain parcels of land, but to the people who live there.
No, you’re referring to the will of a majority of people who happen to show up at the polls who live in a particular land area to use government to regulate those they don’t like — with impunity.
The whole rationale behind states rights is that the decisions people make as to how they govern themselves should be as localized as possible
Ergo, if a majority of the people of Alabama decide that slavery is a good idea, that gays should be executed for sodomy, that interracial marriage should be punished with 20 years in prison, and that only Christians who are reborn in Christ should hold state office, it would be an egregious violation of Alabama’s rights to have unelected judges from the federal circuit step in to overrule them, right?
After all, the Constitution holds that only CONGRESS is forbidden from making laws to regulate speech, establish religion, etc.
Mix in a total gun ban in Massachusetts, perhaps some wholesale property confiscation in California transferring property from the “rich” to the “poor,” and a Texas law imprisoning anyone criticizing the war in Iraq for “sedition,” and you’ve got the perfect “states’ rights” society.
Sorry, I prefer individual rights and government — at all levels — strictly limited by the US Constitution.
posted by Mark on
Well Brian, the Federal Constitution severely restricts the ability of the federal government to interfere with state laws. I didn’t write it, but that’s how it is.
You fail to realize that while the Federal government can impose a bad law on the entire country, a state law can only be imposed on one state.
If Alabama would decide to reimpose slavery, you could always move out of that state. You can’t easily move out of the country.
posted by Brian Miller on
the Federal Constitution severely restricts the ability of the federal government to interfere with state laws
Well, except that pesky 14th Amendment brought the protection of the Bill of Rights to state and local government as well.
If Alabama would decide to reimpose slavery, you could always move out of that state
Not if you’re a slave. And the whole “if you don’t like it, move” thesis is a fallacy as well.
There’s literally no question that the whole idea of America is as a country where individual rights come first, where government cannot make human rights “alien” (hence “inalienable rights”), and where majority rule cannot unduly oppress a minority. To that end, “states’ rights” is an ex-post-facto invention designed to perpetuate oppression rather than a bona-fide institution.
Note that those who advance it only advance it in certain situations — and completely reject it in others. That’s really all you need to know.
posted by dalea on
Brian sez: To that end, “states’ rights” is an ex-post-facto invention designed to perpetuate oppression rather than a bona-fide institution.
Bingo. You got it. ‘States Rights’ and its slightly less sleazy companion ‘Federalism’ are antithetical to libertarianism. Even Ayn Rand used to denounce the concepts 50 years ago.
posted by John on
This web site is serious dweeb clueless libertarian – Big Time. Please have me banned before I visit again!
posted by dalea on
By my count, three commentators here are anti-slavery. Brian Miller, Craig from New Zeeland and me. Everyone else can come up with some reason to endorse chattel slavery.
This is what libertarianism today amounts to.
posted by xstate on
In reality, there is no such thing as federal supremacy. The reason why state’s rights are so important is because the states are sovereign countries. The Civil War never ended that, it just placed military governments in them. Yes, some state governments are more repressive than others but then again, not every country in the world is a good place to live. Even if the feds took over the state completely, let’s say Alabama, and forced the state to allow for gay marriages and LGBT rights, I can guarantee you that Alabamans would fight tooth and nail to throw out Uncle Fed. Likewise, Massachutsetts would probably fight back if the Feds decided to place a criminal ban on homosexuality, and they’d be beating up the anti-gay groups in downtown Boston.
FWIW, I think most people in general are making some really foolish assumptions regarding politics and reality. Just because people advocate for state’s rights doesn’t mean that they advocate for freedom on a personal level, and just because a state votes “blue” or “red” or orange or whatever doesn’t necessarily dictate whether that state/country is a free country or not. The REd State/Blue State view of the world is illogical because it ignores three basic rules of politics, and it also ignores history.
1. Human nature abhors a repressive environment. I can guarantee you that if DC was to criminalize all sexual behavior outside of whatever the religious types want, you will have a backlash that this administration will be completely unprepared for. Regulating businesses and corporations is bad but in some cases necessary; regulating humans usually leads to trouble (and sometimes violence)
2. Pure democracy doesn’t work. Given that in society, some people have better access to resources and/or better ‘connections’, very rarely does a democracy ever function by the people for very long. Eventually, a democracy evolves into a dictatorship, either by ignorance or cultural delusion by the population, or by manipulation.
3. Some cultures by their nature don’t make very good forms of government. I think it’s obvious to most people that Christianity is not a good way to run a country, ‘liberal’ or not, and Islam isn’t a realistic view of the world either. Believe it or not, your New Age religions and Eastern ones aren’t very good at running countries either as they don’t have a logical interpretation of the world. I don’t think that something like FEng Shui would be something I would want implemented into law, regardless of how tame it may appear.
From what I read on most political forums, I think most people in the USA recognize storm clouds coming over our country. They’ve been building for some time but they’re more noticable now than a decade ago. What makes me scared is not the shouting and posing online, but the lack of understanding of not only how the United States work, but their history. Most people assume that 40 – 50 years ago, at the height of our country’s dominance over the earth, that life was peachy and happy, no crime, everyone followed the rules, no one talked back to authority, and etc.. If the Internet was around in 1957, I can guarantee that this site and most others would have been taken down in a heartbeat. Also, anyone who was LGBT, or any racial minority that didn’t follow the Jim Crow laws, was tossed into prison or into a mental institution. People assume the 1950s were safe and clean and happy and wholesome and so forth. FAR FROM IT. Domestic violence was very common, and incest and sexual aggression and police brutality were much more common back then versus what you may think. People weren’t necessarily very polite from what I’ve seen and heard, and the economics and politics of the 1950s were not sustainable. The USA, even with the multitudes of problems they face today, is a much more docile and friendlier country versus the 50s or 60s. Today, your war protesters are still treated badly sometimes, but not only in the 1950s were they carted off, the National Guard shot protesters.
I don’t say this to be insulting, I say this because it is true. Look it up.
posted by Lori Heine on
“This web site is serious dweeb clueless libertarian – Big Time. Please have me banned before I visit again!”
— This bit of wisdom, courtesy of John, is only slightly less intelligent than this:
“By my count, three commentators here are anti-slavery. Brian Miller, Craig from New Zeeland and me. Everyone else can come up with some reason to endorse chattel slavery.
This is what libertarianism today amounts to.”
Dalea, you have expressed some smart ideas here. Your record is spotty, but in many ways creditable.
This, however, is utter twaddle. It is exactly the sort of manipulative, ad hominem garbage that has turned political discourse in this country into a kindergarten mudball fight.
The moral issues involved in slavery needed to be resolved — at whatever level the resolution should have happened. Whether they took place at the state level or the federal is hardly the issue. The same issues, today as well, can be hashed out quite well at either level. The conclusions drawn may be right or wrong, but there is as much chance they will be wrong at the federal level as they might be at the state.
The difference is that when we get it wrong at the federal level, we force it on everybody.
To claim that people are in favor of slavery simply because they believe that the same issues settled at the federal level would be better (and more constitutionally) settled at the state level are coming to no particular conclusion as to what those solutions must be.
posted by Lori Heine on
“To claim that people are in favor of slavery simply because they believe that the same issues settled at the federal level would be better (and more constitutionally) settled at the state level are coming to no particular conclusion as to what those solutions must be.”
O-kay…I have NO idea what I was trying to say in that sentence.
What I MEANT to say (I think) was that people can be either right or wrong equally well at the state or the federal level.
This is what happens when I don’t eat a good breakfast before going online.
posted by dalea on
Lori, my participation here goes back to the days when there was a blog. Over 7 years ago I was posting at IGF. If that strikes you as ‘spotty’ so be it. I also took the initiative to organize an IGF group ; we had one meeting. Then the blog was closed for reasons still not clear, and I lost the means of continuing the effort.
There were several hundred bloggers, with about 2 dozen very active ones. AIR, I was the one most sympathetic to religion. And the one least likely to rant about it.
I suspect you do not know much about two of the groups IGF aims itself at: Libertarians and Classical Liberals. The CL’s were never much interested in religion, and tended to regard it as somewhat intellectually suspect. Libertarians tend to be very loud aggressive atheists. Since these are two groups singled out by IGF, the anti religious talk should not surprise anyone who understands these two groups. It is really much milder than it used to be.
Your statements always strike me as coming from someone who does not understand the milieu she is in. They sound clueless. Brian and I make statements that are very typical Libertarian type ways of speaking.
We get jumped on for them, at a space that publicly invites Libertarians to post. By people who appear totally clueless about where we are coming from. Like Joel last weekend.
So, I would suggest that you learn a bit more about Libertarianism before smiting us.
posted by dalea on
From About Us in the upper left hand side of the page:
We share an approach, but we disagree on many particulars. We include libertarians, limited-government conservatives, moderates, and classical liberals. We hold differing views on the role of government, personal morality, religious faith, and personal relationships. We share these disagreements openly: we hope that readers will find them interesting and thought-provoking.
posted by xstate on
Bingo! I think that your real pro-liberty GLBT will likely be more atheist on their beliefs. I am not, and I do not care what you follow. I consider myself libertarian towards individuals and mostly libertarian towards businesses and non-human entities (like corporations). Granted, I don’t think that CL and and libertarianism would work in all parts of the world but I think it’s a more sustainable political view versus the cookie cutter crap from the other parties. Technically, no political party is going to roll back the influence of the government because it would be contradictory to their nature (they are corporations) but I think that libertarianism on it’s own is workable.
I think that it’s a big mistake to assume that just because someone identifies as a D, an R, or a Green or a Constitution Party member doesn’t necessarily mean that they advocate for freedom. Most of the time, the people who vote for more government intrustion into our financial lives usually advocate for more intrusion at the personal level. This is unfortunately how most of society thinks, and this could be why states like CA and MA are just as authoritarian as ID and TN. For the record, even your third parties like the Greens and COnstitutionists aren’t pro-liberty groups. Far from it. I will agree with most people that “true” libertarianism is very rare, maybe 1/10000. In reality, there’s no such thing as liberal or conservative, not in the way that the USA uses those terms. A moral regulation is also a economic regulation (such as the drinking laws) and an economic regulation is also a moral regulation (people with kids get deductions on taxes that those without kids don’t because parents “need” them).
posted by Brian Miller on
Liberty is an unpopular proposition with people who view “freedom” as a buzzword rather than a way of life. It requires a clear assessment of risks and the abandonment of the fallacy that one can be “protected” from logical outcomes of certain courses of action.
Most people want lots of freedom for themselves, lots of restrictions for people who aren’t like them, and total “security” for themselves. In doing so, they build their own cages for themselves.
posted by Lori Heine on
“So, I would suggest that you learn a bit more about Libertarianism before smiting us.”
Dalea, I happen to know quite a good deal about libertarianism. I frequently encounter men, at forums like this, who assume that because I’m a woman, I must be “clueless.”
Somebody should remind you that several of the seminal thinkers of the libertarian movement were, indeed, women. So much for the tired old saw that we are too airheaded, too “dependent,” too “clueless” or whatever other epithet you want to throw at us.
For most of my adult life (I am forty-four), I was what might best be described as a Reagan Democrat. It is true that I have only recently become a Libertarian (capital “L”), though I have had strong libertarian tendencies all along.
Many key thinkers, over the period libertarian thought evolved, were agnostics or atheists. I do not share their religious views. As a significant percentage of us here in America do hold some sort of traditional religious belief, it is probably a stupid idea to try to run us off because we don’t fit the historical pattern. You’re going to need a fair number of us on your side if you ever hope to turn this country around.
The same can be said for women. There is certainly no reason we should be any less capable of grasping libertarian and classical liberal principles. As we constitute more than fifty percent of the population, it would probably be a good idea to begin engaging us at some point, instead of contenting yourselves with fairy tales — of the sort I so often see in libertarian quarters — about how dithery and “dependent” we are.
I have no problem with “antireligious talk,” so long as it is mature and reasonably respectful. That has not always been the case here.
On a different thread, some hysteric named John screamed something to the effect that I had consigned him to Hell. Nowhere did I do any such thing, nor would I ever. I am a writer for the GLBT Christian community, and have left quite a trail out there. I would challenge anybody to pick through anything I have ever written and see if I have told anyone they were going to Hell. That sort of base, irrational accusation is unworthy anybody who hopes to be taken seriously.
I am not in the habit of saying anything about religion on a political site — unless it is the topic of the post upon which I am commenting.
You are certainly entitled to try to run off everybody with ideas that differ from your own. But that doesn’t mean we have to meekly run away. I’m afraid meekness is one Christian attribute I do not possess in large supply. With all due respect, sir, nobody runs me anywhere.
posted by Brian Miller on
I frequently encounter men, at forums like this, who assume that because I’m a woman, I must be “clueless.”
Lori, please don’t try to play the sexism card. It’s tacky and, in Dale’s case, completely unwarranted.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Lori, please don’t try to play the sexism card. It’s tacky and, in Dale’s case, completely unwarranted.”
When he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’m going to call him a duck. I will call it as I see it.
The stages through which sexism has traveled have indeed made for an interesting trip. First it was standard practice, then it became a horrible sin seen everywhere, now “we” are officially tired of it and not supposed to see it anywhere. Shopworn putdowns aren’t going to work with me, and cutesy-slogan accusations like “playing the sexism card” are too old and oft-borrowed to be taken seriously.
Please don’t be tedious. Here I have seen every shtick from Grade B Tom Paine revolutionary skeptic to Bill O’Reilly-style feminazi smackdown — with many fun-filled acts in between. Which mask will I see next? I can’t wait.
I happen, for the record, to be very well aware that the regulars on this site are unaccustomed to dealing with the sort of smelly and troublesome rabble who…like…believe in religion and stuff. But when an item about religion is posted on this site, that is indeed the risk you run.
“Dungeons and Dragons don’t have levels (nyuk, nyuk)!”
I think all of us who like this site are species for which the world has no convenient stereotype. Perhaps, instead of being frustrated about this, we should simply enjoy it.
posted by Mark on
“Well, except that pesky 14th Amendment brought the protection of the Bill of Rights to state and local government as well.”
Am incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment according to liberal Constitutional scholar R. Berger, and this interpretation was not advanced by the Supreme Court until well after the amendment was passed.
“Not if you’re a slave. And the whole “if you don’t like it, move” thesis is a fallacy as well.”
I didn’t say it would be ~right~ for Alabama to maintain slavery even if the 13th Amendment did not exist. However, the 13th Amendment makes the Constitutional issue moot.
“There’s literally no question that the whole idea of America is as a country where individual rights come first, where government cannot make human rights “alien” (hence “inalienable rights”), and where majority rule cannot unduly oppress a minority. To that end, “states’ rights” is an ex-post-facto invention designed to perpetuate oppression rather than a bona-fide institution.”
No, state’s rights was part of the original Constitution, and it was designed to increase liberty.
“Note that those who advance it only advance it in certain situations — and completely reject it in others. That’s really all you need to know.”
Speak for yourself.
posted by Mark on
“Bingo. You got it. ‘States Rights’ and its slightly less sleazy companion ‘Federalism’ are antithetical to libertarianism. Even Ayn Rand used to denounce the concepts 50 years ago.”
I suppose centralized big government is compatible with libertarianism then?
posted by dalea on
Uhhh Lori, I said that both you and Joel were clueless. Note I made the comment about a man and about a woman.
posted by Lori Heine on
Dale, thanks for that super clarification.
I hereby stand informed that I am clueless about libertarianism because I, as a person of faith, believe i have as much right to express my opinion as does anybody else. Why Joel is clueless, I am not sure. Perhaps you’ll do him a huge favor and educate him.
One might imagine that the fact more people not part of the little club — people of faith, women and the like — would be a welcome addition because we signify a wider acceptance of the ideas you espouse. But then, that would only be the rational conclusion.
If it’s more important to keep all the unwashed (and apparently “clueless”) out of the clubhouse than it is to make headway in promoting your ideas, then I suppose you’ve got reason to complain.
But if commentary about faith (at least from any perspective other than your own) is so verboten, one question remains: why the hell post articles about the subject?
I don’t expect any answer besides the snide and insulting sort I’ve gotten so far. I ought to know better, by now, than to even bother asking.
posted by Brian Miller on
Here I have seen every shtick from Grade B Tom Paine revolutionary skeptic to Bill O’Reilly-style feminazi smackdown — with many fun-filled acts in between
Goodness, Lori, I’m reminded of the attacks on all libertarians as homophobes who want elderly grandmas to live off dog food in unheated slums based on various “schticks” they see as well.
Rather than characterize others inaccurately to score points (such as alternating between amateur psychologist and feminist of convenience), try debating on the actual issues.
I expect stupid buzzwords to be tossed out by right-wingers (“leftist”) and left-wingers (“hateful.”) It pains me to see a self-professed libertarian stooping to such lows. 🙁
posted by dalea on
As a commentary, for Lori. From Wikipedia:
Concern troll
A concern troll is also a fictitious online identity whose proclaimed beliefs are not those its creator really believes and is trying to push. [3]
The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view (for example, Democrats or fans of the Prius), and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals but with some “concerns”.
For example, in 2006 a top staffer for Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a “concerned” supporter of Bass’s opponent Democrat Paul Hodes on several liberal NH blogs, using the pseudonyms “IndieNH” or “IndyNH.” “IndyNH” was “concerned” that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable. [4]
Suspicion of concern trolls is hard to verify without clearcut information about the IP number from which their posts originate, as there are people who naturally behave in such a manner.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, as a repeat, in response to the first time dalea posted this:
So that’s the newest tactic; first gays like dalea claimed that people who disagreed with their bigoted and violent tactics weren’t really gay, then they claimed that they were right-wing plants, and now they’ve moved on to “concern trolls”.
The reason why is obvious; for a person like dalea, for whom their sexual orientation is the excuse for their antisocial behaviors and any problems they face in their life, gay people who disagree with them are not merely disagreeing — they are swinging an ax at the foundations upon which these people have based their lives. It should be no surprise that dalea and his ilk then try to belittle and criticize these people as much as possible, be it through disparaging their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, their gender, or their sexual preferences.
posted by dalea on
As we are on the eve of a major religious festival; Beltain, I thought to post a few musings.
This festival focuses our thoughts on the Many Breasted Mother of All. It is traditionally: Our Sovereign Lady in Her Aspect as the Visible, Manifest and Tangible World. In Christianity some pale reflections of Her remain: Mary etc.
For this joyous festival, complete with traditional Pagan Maypoles and crownings; let me lay out some traditional religious viewpoints.
Point one. Nothing exists apart from the Natural World: that which is, which was and which can be. The Goddess speaks to us across the ages to make this point. The Goddess is the apparent world. She is all that we feel, touch and feel.
Divinity is inherent in the Natural and Apparent World, there is nowhere else for it to exist.
The Divine can be male or female. Or gay and lesbian.
A chant to help make this clear to the impious and irreligious:
We all come from the Goddess
And to Her we all return
Like Drops of Rain
Flowing to the Ocean
Glad Beltain. Remember the Words of the Great Lady as She Charges Us:
All Acts of Pleasure Are My Worship
posted by Lori Heine on
Dalea, you have claimed my “identity” to be “fictitious.”
It’s easy enough for me to prove who I am. I’ve been the same person all my life, lived in the same city all my life, and am widely known as a GLBT Christian writer.
Prove I’m not who I say I am. Go ahead and bring it on.
You are a blithering fool. You can go on making a total idiot of yourself as long as you please.
And as for “debating on the actual issues,” Mr. Miller, that is precisely what you yourself have refused to do. Again, bring on game.
I like to deal with threats as personally as possible. Dalea, if you’re any sort of real man at all, instead of merely asking for a computer-system code number, look me up in person. Meet me face-to-face.
Any time, anywhere. Bring it.
Will I respond like a “fundy housewife,” with fear and dithery trembling? Or will I roundhouse kick your ass?
It would be very interesting to find out. Too bad that, like all cowards, you are all bluster and totally afraid to find out.