>If you're arguing that there's a lack of decency and principle in contemporary American society, you won't get any disagreement from me. But to establish a causal relationship between the absence of such values and the decline of urban America is problematic. To some extent cities have always been repositories for outsiders' imaginations; non-urban dwellers have long projected images of rot and decadence onto the city, and we should keep such historical prejudices in mind when we examine the issue of urban America.<
Agreed. Nevertheless I do not contend that merely urban America is in decline. There has been a very measureable increase in suburban crime and decay. Social pathologies, adultery, divorce, suicide and despair have everywhere increased, and this, significantly. There was a time when people literally could sleep overnight under the stars in their neighborhoods and in the cities with their cars and homes unlocked. Small children could attend zoos and museums alone, trusting the general benevolence of society to chaperone them should they lose their way. This sort of thing is simply not wise today, and this lack of trust was not caused by guns and whatnot, but by a fragmentation of Americans along moral lines. We do not all hold to the same things concerning fundamental decency and principle.
>But IMHO, the causes of urban blight, are far too complex to be shoved into William Bennett's neat little paradigm. I think people on all sides of the political spectrum deserve some blame, as well as average American people who let their racism get the best of them and abandoned ship to suburbia.<
I think the average American not very racist at all (though I would imagine we all hold some sort of racism). The average American is remarkably stupid, and depending upon the right conditions this stupidity can easily convert to an assignment of negative attributes to a certain race. Were there to exist 10 industrious people of dark skin and 10 of white skin, and were seven of the white skinned people poor, slothful, hurting and prone to crime, it simply will not occur to the dark-skinned people (and perhaps not even to the 3 industrious white skinned people) to consider why such a disproportionate number of whiteskins act as they do. The darkskins will not care. All that will concern them is their comfort and the protection of their families. In truth, the darkskins have no moral obligation to remain amongst those who statistically will harm them.
But should the three whiteskins who hold to the same industrious values as the darkskins decide to live amongst the darkskins, then the darkskins would be quite illogical in determining out-of-hand that these three are by virtue of their skins unworthy to do so. One might expect some fear and initial discomfort, this is reasonable given the statistics involved; but after the hard work and decency of the three whiteskins is made evident, the darkskins will generally come around saying, "Hey, they are not like the bad whiteskins, they are like us". The statement is crude, yes; but it actually contains more acceptance than anything. It expresses surprise that the three whiteskins exist against the perceived trend to live lives very much like those of the darkskins. Over time, the color of the whiteskins will become terribly irrelevant, particularly as they, by virtue of their unique personalities begin to contribute to the overall society. The darkskins will appreciate them for the things they do and not for the passive things they innately are.
>Johannes, attributing social problems to a lack of decency and principle presents a practical quandary: how do you infuse society with those values? Do you legislate morality? Do you simply urge others to live by certain codes? Better to concentrate on enhancing people's economic stature and hope they act decently and with principle once they're financially secure (fat chance!) than to urge them to take up what they likely see as archaic values.<
I posit that without decency and principle, one cannot acquire financial security, even were it handed to one on a silver platter. Honestly achieving and keeping financial security requires principle and decency (or an awful lot of good luck). To create worthwhile and fundamental change in this country, we are left only with the choice of infusing society with the values of decency and principle. So then how do we infuse these values into our society?
The answer is simple to state, but in our now morally corrupt culture impossible to implement. We see the problem when we look at the evil that is adultery. We all claim to believe it wrong to commit adultery. If we believe this then we as a society should not wink at adultery when it occurs, especially in a president. As far as I know, none of our political leaders have claimed Clinton should be impeached because of his repeated adultery, but they all should have resoundingly and repeatedly condemned him for it. The problem here is so many of our political leaders (on both sides) are adulterers. The voting public then should resoundingly and repeatedly condemn them all for their adultery. The problem here is, so many of the voting public are themselves adulterers. So then who is left to condemn the voting public? Religious folk (many of whom themselves are adulterers) and the children who are the crushed victims of adultery. And we see here how impossible it is to infuse morality into our society.
The few people who have credibility to preach against adultery and dishonesty must simply continue to do so hoping that people will see the importance of living virtuously.
>I once tried to explain the importance of "honor" to a friend. "That's so medieval!" she responded. :-)<
God. That hurt me more than anything you or anyone else here has said.
>In Chicago and New York, a combination of economic factors and policy decisions have helped spark an uprecedented urban renaissance. Chicago's actually gaining in population for the first time in decades, and decisions to tear down two of the most notorious public housing projects on the planet--Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes--have sparked new commercial and residential construction in two troubled, formerly gang-soaked swaths of the city. So though it's nice to talk about principle and decency, wonkish policy types bring home the bacon, so to speak.<
And the gangs haved simply moved to terrorize someone else's neighborhood.
>And that's primarily the level at which people support Clinton--they see the infrastructural and economic improvements that have occured under his watch on the one hand, see his ethical handicaps on the other, and decide the good outweighs the bad.<
There have been no net improvements under Clinton. There has been only a shift of resources from one sector of society to another. When a Republican gets into the presidency the same will occur under him. The same thing happens over and again.
>What good to Joe Sixpack (or Joe Clickpack to designate Web-savvy Americans) are the abstract values of principle and decency compared to the concrete accomplishment of tearing down a housing project, building a park, or rebuilding a school system, as has been done by loyal Clintonite Richard Daley Jr. in Chicago?<
I understand the point. Nevetheless Joe will have to have the wherewithal to think for a few minutes that without those abstract principles his lovely park will soon be infested with crime and his lovely school system will continue to allow ignorance to go unfettered in his community.
>Since the ur-Western urban civilizations of Mesopotamia powerful people with connections have gotten away with things for which ordinary folks would be hung. Only in some priveliged, mytho-pastoral fantasy of America have things ever been any different.<
I submit this was the case long before the civilizations of Mesopotamia. It has been the case for as long as humans have interacted with one another. Nevertheless barbarism is a thing against which all social organizations, however rudimentary, must struggle. When a society invites barbarism within its gates, that society crumbles because barbarism is a beast that will not truck having a specific place. Its nature is to consume everything available to it. Certainly America struggles against barbarism just as have all other societies, but our law is the code by which we aim to keep it at bay. It is our law that strikes barbarism, beating it into submission. When we openly accept flagrant and repeated assaults upon our law, particularly at the hands of a democratically elected leader, then we merely open the door to invite barbarism to sup with us.
>We live in interesting times, don't we? I suggest you read the Economist article good ol' Les posted here recently. Basically, the Economist argues that a history of lawerly excesses and increasing tolerance have paved the way for Americans' great yawn at the whole affair, i.e. they are sick of lawyers and hesitant to judge what they see as the personal lives of others.<
Yes. I read the article. Lawyers are not the problem. It is the lack of principle and decency that is the problem. Many lawyers see an opportunity in a system that was designed for a moral people being used by a people who lack principle and decency. Upon seeing a law that depends upon moral spirit as well as letter, many lawyers present cases that hammer exclusively upon the letter of the law, knowing they will win because the spirit of the law is difficult to codify fully. I have a friend who is head of one of the food manufacturers in this country. The amount of their litigation is stunning, much of it due to a defense against unprincipled Americans and lawyers. One woman, for example, ate one of my friend's products, a tortilla chip, and after swallowing a piece that was too large received a scrape on the inside of her throat (or some such foolishness). She sued, and since it was simply not worth the cost of litigation to the company, it settled for a tidy sum. Were we a country of principle and decency, that woman would never have sued in the first place. Firstly, because she would herself have understood that if she is too undisciplined to chew her food, then the damage she incurs is her own fault. Secondly, she would have known that our legal system would merely laugh at her. Unfortunately we are not a nation of principle and decency, and without principle and decency, we can expect this sort of thing to happen precisely as much as it does.
You are correct about these issues. I am bored by them as you are. I will have to decrease the time spent here, sparing you all my radical and insane views. LOL |
