Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktBecause, after all, we are a political blog!
“The State”, South Carolina’s biggest newspaper, has endorsed Jon Huntsman this morning. As they say,
Mr. Huntsman is a true conservative, with a record and platform of bold economic reform straight out of the free-market bible, but he’s a realist, whose goal is likewise to get things done. Under his leadership, Utah led the nation in job creation, and the Pew Center on the States ranked it the best-managed state in the nation.
He also is head and shoulders above the field on foreign policy. He served as President George H.W. Bush’s U.S. ambassador to Singapore and President George W. Bush’s deputy U.S. trade representative and U.S. trade ambassador, and the next entry on that resume is even more impressive: He was a popular and successful governor in an extremely conservative state, well positioned to become a leading 2012 presidential contender, when Mr. Obama asked him to serve in arguably our nation’s most important diplomatic post, U.S. ambassador to China. It could be political suicide, but he didn’t hesitate. As he told our editorial board: “When the president asks you to serve, you serve.”
I would like to test embedded blockquotes, said Kevin Willis, editing this post. This should be removed later.
We don’t agree with all of Mr. Huntsman’s positions; for but one example, he championed one of the nation’s biggest private-school voucher programs. And with George Will calling him the most conservative candidate and The Wall Street Journal editorial page endorsing his tax plan, independent voters might find less to like about his positions than, say, Mr. Romney’s or Newt Gingrich’s.
What makes him attractive are the essential values that drive his candidacy: honor and old-fashioned decency and pragmatism. As he made clear Wednesday to a room packed full of USC students on the first stop of his “Country First” tour, his goal is to rebuild trust in government, and that means abandoning the invective and reestablishing the political center.
As a Utahn, and a liberal who wishes the Republicans would put up a realistic candidate, I’d love to see Jon Huntsman get the nomination. I still don’t think he’ll make it past South Carolina because I don’t the the Republican primary voters are in any mood for anything realistic, but there’s always hope for 2016.
Now the Dems just need to start thinking about 2016!
All Things in Moderation 
Why do you consider Romney “unrealistic”? How is he any more unrealistic than someone who spent most of his life organizing communities, whatever that means?
LikeLike
Why is someone who managed to rise to become Speaker of the House now an “unrealistic” candidate?
Also, Mich, would you vote for Huntsman if it were an Obama v Huntsman race? Why? What about Huntsman do you prefer over Obama?
LikeLike
Since I tend to vote Democratic, my view of ‘realistic’ vs. ‘unrealistic’ regarding the GOP presidential candidates doesn’t mean much.
That said, I think Gingrich has a lot of baggage from his Speaker days that will make it hard for him to weather a general election.
Romney is a ‘realistic’ option. He has an extensive campaign organization and money to keep it running. He’s clearly the one to beat, at least for now. Can’t get much more ‘realistic’ than that.
Based on what I’ve seen of Romney, I doubt I’d personally lean his way. But if Huntsman looks like he’ll still be standing on Super Tuesday, I may pay more attention to his speeches and policies as I ponder which party’s ballot to ask for at the polls.
LikeLike
Scott: Romney is unrealistic in that it has been shown that barely 25% of Republican primary voters like him. Plus the Evangelicals are backing Santorum. . . I don’t mean “realistic” in the sense that he will end up with the nomination, but realistic in the sense that Republicans–on the whole–will be happy with his nomination. Or that Americans, in general, would be happy with him as President.
Having seen his reign as Olympics CEO, I firmly believe that most people would be vastly UNhappy with him. He’s a selfish, self-centered, entitled, bitchy SOB. He epitomizes the born with a silver spoon in his mouth point of view.
Right now, I’d be torn between Obama and Huntsman; I’ve seen them both in action and Obama is a huge disappointment (I thought we’d be far farther down the road to regaining some of our civil liberties under him, and have reined in unbridled capitalism far more than we have); Huntsman did some really good things in the face of a ultra-right wing legislature here in the name of pragmatism. . . so if I felt that he’d stand up to the national GOP the way he stood up to the state’s version I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
As for Gingrich, he became Speaker the same way Dennis Hastert and Boehner did–they were the senior guy at the time. All were abject failures at the job.
LikeLike
I think Gingrich became Speaker because he and Dick Armey engineered the ’94 landslide that resulted in a Republican majority House for the fist time in 40 years. There were a lot of Republicans senior to Gingrich at the time (as well as R’s senior to Boehner.) There is a lot to be said about Gingrich but him not earning the Speakership is not one of them.
LikeLike
TMcW, I agree about Gingrich earning the Speakership.
1) He developed a national following of conservatives on C-SPAN by giving primetime speeches from the House floor.
2) He cultivated a loyal following of younger US representatives by helping them get elected to Congress in the first place.
3) He led the charge in getting then-Speaker Wright disgraced and thus weakened the Democratic party’s hold on the House.
4) He followed up on Wright’s resignation with the Contract With America, which was a strategic success.
I’d say he earned the job. He took risks and they paid off. What he did in the next four years….well, not as successful for him or the GOP.
LikeLike
Mich:
Scott: Romney is unrealistic in that it has been shown that barely 25% of Republican primary voters like him.
Interesting. In the only primary so far to date, New Hampshire, Romney got 39.3% of the vote. In 2008, our current president got only 36.5% of the vote in the same primary.
I don’t mean “realistic” in the sense that he will end up with the nomination, but realistic in the sense that Republicans–on the whole–will be happy with his nomination.
This strikes me as odd. You said that, as a liberal, you want the R’s to put up a more “realistic” candidate, and by that you say you mean a candidate that Republicans on the whole will be happy with. Yet you also seem to prefer a candidate that will rein in “unbridled capitalism”. Republicans on the whole wouldn’t even refer to something like “unbridled capitalism”, much less would they be happy with a candidate who declared that it should be “reined in”.
so if I felt that he’d stand up to the national GOP the way he stood up to the state’s version I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
So the thing that makes Huntsman more attractive to you than Obama is the notion that he might oppose his own party even more than Obama opposes it. And this, to you, would be a “realistic” candidate about whom Republicans on the whole would be happy? Really?
I have a strong sense that when liberals speak of a “serious” or “realistic” Republican candidate, what they mean is a liberal who is quite literally a Republican in name only.
LikeLike
Different races, different dynamics. Obama was up head to head against Hillary. A better parallel is Kerry in 1994 (for more reasons than NH). He won New Hampshire won with 38 percent of the Democratic primary vote (Romney at 39.3%), followed by Dean with 26 percent (Paul with 22.9%), Clark with 12.3 percent (Huntsman with 16.9%), Edwards with 11.9 percent (Gingrich at 9.4%), Lieberman with 8.5 percent (Santorum at 9.4%), Kucinich with 1.4 percent (Perry with 0.7%). I was a bit surprised at the parallels in the votes.
More important, is an implicit argument about intensity. Probably a quarter likes Romney, but he’s acceptable to a plurality, possible turning into a majority. That’s the discrepancy. Again, there’s a good Kerry comparison. He looked presidential. He had a record as a war hero. [Swap in businessman for Republicans and vulture capitalist for swift boat.] Both could easily be cast for a role in West Wing.
Obama generated passion. Both for and against. I could live with a Romney presidency in the same way I wasn’t broken up over Bush 41 beating Dukakis. If Romney wins the nomination, this looks more like putting in the Obama vs. generic Republican candidate. For that election, it’s the economy stupid.
BB
LikeLike
Edit. Kerry in 2004.
BB
LikeLike
ScottC:
I have a strong sense that when liberals speak of a “serious” or “realistic” Republican candidate, what they mean is a liberal who is quite literally a Republican in name only.
Some libs perhaps, not all. I’m on record above as deeming Romney as realistic. I’ll leave it to those who consider themselves Republicans to decide whether he’s a RINO.
I grant that Romney may not be the social conservatives’ first choice. And there’s the possibility of unrest/revolt at the national convention. But defeating Obama seems to be rising to the priority one spot, if it’s not there already, and if Romney seems to be winning that race.
LikeLike
msjs:
I’ll leave it to those who consider themselves Republicans to decide whether he’s a RINO.
I don’t think he’s a RINO. But it seems to me that a Republican who would oppose the Republican party in the manner that Mich seems to want would be pretty much the epitome of a RINO.
LikeLike
“But defeating Obama seems to be rising to the priority one spot, if it’s not there already,”
I’m not trying to be snarkey, but isn’t that generally the opposing party’s goal, defeating the incumbent? I’m not accusing you of this but when I read left-wing blogs, I see the same comments, time and again, namely outrage over McConnel’s statement that the Republican’s #1 goal is the defeat of Obama. Wasn’t that the focus of the Democrat’s in 2003-4, to defeat Bush? I remember reading diaries on Kos in’08 from people absolutely convinced that Bush was going to declare martial law and, er, increase his dictatorship.
Again, not accusing anybody here of doing it, just wondering why McConnel’s statement is so outrageous to many on the left.
LikeLike
It’s a fair point. I can’t find the right quote, but I’ve heard something along the lines of what’s the point of winning if you don’t carry an agenda with it. If you will, Bush 41 was a caretaker for the Reagan presidency. Then again, in many ways, so was Clinton. Bush 43 pushed in the opposite direction in a number of ways (Medicare Part D, DHS, NCLB). So, what was the point of electing a Republican if he’ll grow government anyway?
Also, defeating the opposing party’s candidate is the number one point of an election. I doubt many (other than Bob Dole) would attack Republicans for making a deal with Clinton over welfare reform. That apparently sealed Clinton’s victory in 1996.
BB
LikeLike
I used the wrong word, I guess. “Realistic” to me would be somebody who, even if I didn’t vote for him/her, would be somebody who’s governing style would be one that I could live with if not relish. Reagan. Or even Poppy Bush. Obama, for that matter, in his first term.
I guess i’m also too young to have realized how Gingrich got the Speakership, because I didn’t know that that was how he ended up in that role–all I remember is what a disaster he was once he got the gavel.
There isn’t a Republican in the field, other than Huntsman, who is somebody who I’d trust to run this country. . . and I’m also worried about the Democratic field in 2016. As long as we have a two-party system which shuts all other contenders out, we need to have strong candidates from BOTH parties, or else we’re going to end up with campaigns like the 2008 (general election–I’d argue that the Democratic primary between Obama and Hillary actually gave us some good campaigning from the point of view of knowing what a candidates’ governing priorities would be) and 2012 ones and governing like we’ve had since 2000 (which has been weak, poll-driven, and largely focused on re-election rather than governing).
And, George, McConnell’s statement was outrageous because it implied that governing the country was secondary to ousting the President. I don’t care if McConnell doesn’t like Obama as President, but he shouldn’t place defeating him ahead of legislating, which is presumably what he was elected to do. By saying what he said, he implied that legislating for the good of the country isn’t that important to him.
LikeLike
I see the same comments, time and again, namely outrage over McConnel’s statement that the Republican’s #1 goal is the defeat of Obama. Wasn’t that the focus of the Democrat’s in 2003-4, to defeat Bush?
I mostly agree with you that McConnel’s quote seems pretty standard for any party that doesn’t control the White House. I guess if you take that quote in conjunction with… say Limbaugh’s quote about hoping Obama fails there becomes a sense that Republicans would be fine if unemployment skyrocketed and people felt a ton of pain so long as Obama was a one term President. I could also argue that Republcian obstructionism also backs up that sentiment, but I think many (probably most) of the obstruction is related to concern over the debt and actual ideological differences rather than a wish to see Obama fail. I still reserve the right to scoff a little at the Republicans suddenly caring about spending now when they don’t control the purse strings to the extent they used to.
LikeLike
This is a fuller context to McConnell’s quote:
“MCCONNELL: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NATIONAL JOURNAL: What’s the job?
MCCONNELL: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
He was trying to manage expectations since even if they won big, Obama’d still (unfortunately) be President and would veto the R legislative agenda. If the voters wanted the R’s in charge, and expected things to get done, then they’d have to defeat Obama.
I have no qualms with the legislature manipulating their activities to try and hurt or help the President. I guarantee it has happened since they were first gaveled into session. There’s a reason Senator Reid puts politics above good governance, he’s trying to protect his Majority. The Senate has not produced, for example, a budget, which their are required to do by their own laws.
LikeLike
But it seems to me that a Republican who would oppose the Republican party in the manner that Mich seems to want would be pretty much the epitome of a RINO.
Scott, you don’t live in UT so you didn’t know the context of what I was saying about Huntsman standing up to the GOP in-state. They don’t necessarily govern so much as they hold grudges and legislate accordingly. They don’t like Salt Lake City and so they write legislation to punish the City and award tax money to suburbs governed by “friendly” mayors. . . whether or not it makes fiscal sense. They don’t like the University of Utah because it’s too liberal and anti-Church (despite facts to the contrary) and so they withhold money that is supposed to go to the school to cover teaching professors’ salaries. They’re Mormon and so they write legislature denying liquor licenses to businesses, whether or not it is good for the community to have those restaurants and pubs. Huntsman’s point was to govern for the people, not the Party–which is what made him such a wildly popular governor. I think a President–from whichever Party–who did the same thing would also be wildly popular with Americans, although probably not so much so with the GOP or Democratic Party establishments.
LikeLike
Mich:
There isn’t a Republican in the field, other than Huntsman, who is somebody who I’d trust to run this country
Perhaps I am wrong, but I can’t see that as anything other than an expression of pure ideology. I think your “trust” is likely exclusively a function of how much they agree with you politically. I suspect you will dispute this and, as you have done above, claim that you’d trust Reagan or Bush I. But I wonder if you would say the same if this was 1980 or 1988. I am highly doubtful.
Frankly, if one ignores ideology, it strikes me as utterly absurd to think that anyone who “trusted” Obama in 2008 to run the this country could not also “trust” Mitt Romney or even Rick Perry, both of whom actually have extensive executive experience running a government, whereas Obama had quite literally no experience running anything whatsoever.
LikeLike
TMcW, yes, the number one goal of the oppo party is usually to unseat the incumbent.
There had been some chatter a few months back that some conservatives would sit out the general if Romney was the GOP nominee (I wish I could find the links), but that seems to have died down.
LikeLike
Mich:
If by trust you mean as a matter of character, ie to do what he said he would do, then I don’t see why you should trust Obama any more than anyone else.
LikeLike
I actually think the full context makes it worse if anything. Do you really think the message from the 2010 election was that the job of Republicans was to make Obama a one term President? That was the most important message of that election? Anyway, the more I read that quote the less sense it makes as a whole. All the more reason to not make a big deal out of it.
LikeLike
ashot:
I always thought that way too much was made of the Limbaugh quote about wanting Obama to fail. Imagine a Republican got elected running on a theme of fundamentally transforming the country, vowing to reduce government spending dramatically and get the government out of the welfare business. What Democrat in the nation not would hope that such a president would fail?
LikeLike
Yes and no. I listened to Limbaugh the morning after Obama won. He was very clear. America needed to be punished in the same way that a misbehaving child needs punishment. Bad thing should happen after a liberal wins the presidency, not that bad thing will happen after a liberal wins the presidency. That is a distinction with a difference.
Incidentally, I also caught Sean Hannity shortly after the Gulf oil spill. He was calling it Obama’s Katrina. I think not. I haven’t heard a word about from the Republican presidential candidates (and I’ve listened to quite a lot).
BB
LikeLike
Scott:
I think your “trust” is likely exclusively a function of how much they agree with you politically.
Actually, that’s it exactly. I see all of the Republicans, other than Huntsman, as isolationist capitalists who are in it for rich Americans, and rich Americans only. i want somebody who will work with the rest of the world–while insisting that we get treated fairly–to raise the living standard of all people and restore the ability to be successful for any one who’s willing to work hard. I don’t see that now.
In 1980 I voted for Reagan. . . but not in 1984. In 1988 I voted for Bush. . . but not in 1992. And I would probably be up for grabs in 2012 if the Republicans nominate Huntsman. Your comments about trusting Romney and Perry as much as Obama just show that you don’t get what I’m saying (although that is probably just as much my fault for not expressing it correctly. . . but you do have a habit of being too literal and not seeing context in liberals’ comments. :-)) I trusted Obama to care about the common man–something which neither Romney nor Perry have ever expressed. It appears, at least from his first term so far, I was wrong about Obama. I’m hoping I’ll be proved wrong in a second term, since I really don’t think that conservatives on the ground (vs the GOP establishment) are going to get Romney into the White House.
LikeLike
Scott- I agree but if your inclined to be bothered by McConnell’s quote you certainly would be by Limbaugh’s as well. And when you add them together it’s relatively easy to construct a narrative.
LikeLike
Mich:
In 1980 I voted for Reagan. . . but not in 1984.
Interesting. The exact opposite to most people who voted both for and against him, at least as indicated by his winning margin.
but you do have a habit of being too literal and not seeing context in liberals’ comments.
In all seriousness, it’s a bit of a dilemma for me. If I address what liberals say based on what I suspect they actually mean, rather than what they say, i get taken to task for jumping to conclusions. If I address what they actually say as if they meant it, I get taken to task for being too literal. I just can’t win.
Liberals sure can be difficult. 🙂
LikeLike
Liberals sure can be difficult.
It’s what makes us so lovable. 🙂 And why you’re here and not at the PL.
The exact opposite to most people who voted both for and against him, at least as indicated by his winning margin.
And why you can’t always jump to conclusions about someone’s ideology. I’m an idealist (and always have been) who has had to learn to operate in a realistic–there’s that word again–world. Probably why I was damned fine Army officer (my men loved me and would do anything for me) who pissed off the chain of command too much. People like me are always, always hoping for the best. Sometimes we get it, more often we’re disappointed, but we’re eternally optimistic. . . and don’t tend to vote for Republicans. 🙂 We also make pretty good scientists because we’re always curious about what would happen if we try this. . . whatever this is.
LikeLike
“There had been some chatter a few months back that some conservatives would sit out the general if Romney was the GOP nominee (I wish I could find the links), but that seems to have died down.”
Well, if Romney is the nominee, I’m writing in The ‘Cuda and my energies will continue to be down ballot. Think about the ’96 election in which a disapointed Republican base did not turn out for Dole, but kept the House and increased their Senators. Non-primaried Presidential incumbents don’t lose.
LikeLike
Oh, and Scott: if you re-read the last paragraph of the excerpt that I quoted from the editorial, you’ll understand what I’m saying a little better.
LikeLike
Well, if Romney is the nominee, I’m writing in The ‘Cuda and my energies will continue to be down ballot.
George, pretty much what I’ve heard over the last couple of months spent with my conservative relatives. Like I said, I don’t thing that, whatever the GOP establishment wants, conservatives on the ground are going to put Romney in the White House.
I’ll just hope that Obama lives up to my idealistic liberal dreams in a second term! 😀
LikeLike
Mich (from the last paragraph you recommended):
his goal is to rebuild trust in government
Another problem with Huntsman. Government ought not be trusted. We should always…always…be suspicious of government power.
LikeLike
Huntsman just dropped out and endorsed Romney.
LikeLike
Well, there goes that idealistic dream! The cynic in me says that it’s both expediency (tying one’s hope to the best coat-tails available) and religion-driven. Neither, to be honest, has ever been seen by the Church hierarchy as particularly good Sons of the Church. But the Church has a long history of seeing Itself as a Martyr. . .
LikeLike
It’s why we’re America. But we’ve been corrupted by the Watergate/post-Watergate era–government is capable of doing good. Private enterprise is not.
LikeLike
Mich:
I’ll just hope that Obama lives up to my idealistic liberal dreams in a second term!
For the sake of the nation, I hope he doesn’t.
LikeLike
And that’s why we disagree. Welcome to ATiM!! 🙂
LikeLike
Mich:
government is capable of doing good. Private enterprise is not.
Right. Because people who seek to control and wield the legal power to coerce others to bend to their will can be so virtuous, while those who must please and service others in order to entice them to purchase their products couldn’t possibly be virtuous.
Apparently when the government pays people for being unemployed, it is doing “good”. But when private enterprise pays people for doing a job, who in turn pay the government the very money it is handing out to the unemployed, it is not doing good.
When the government pays for the medicine of old people to keep them alive, it is doing “good”. But when private enterprise actually invents and produces the very same medicine, it is not doing good.
When the government provides food stamps to poor people, it is doing “good”, but when a farmer grows the food and sells it to a producer who makes into something edible and then pays a trucker to deliver to a grocery store which then puts it on shelves so the person with food stamps can actually obtain it, that is not doing good.
Rubbish. Without private enterprise, the government is not capable of doing anything, much less anything “good”. Frankly I find the notion you express to be outrageously offensive, as should anyone who makes a living outside of the government.
LikeLike
Guess this isn’t news to anyone here by now, but apparently Huntsman is dropping out and endorsing Romney.
LikeLike
And, George, McConnell’s statement was outrageous because it implied that governing the country was secondary to ousting the President. I don’t care if McConnell doesn’t like Obama as President, but he shouldn’t place defeating him ahead of legislating, which is presumably what he was elected to do. By saying what he said, he implied that legislating for the good of the country isn’t that important to him.
I haven’t spotted what the outrageous comment was, but this is this is one of those assertions that I can’t even get my brain around. If you believe, as I do, that a second Obama term will irretrievably and profoundly damage the country, I can’t see how defeating him shouldn’t be of paramount importance. It is for me. Keep the country out of nuclear war and so on, but getting Obama out is top priority in my book.
As for private enterprise being unable to do good but government doing good, I think that’s not only profoundly wrong but the opposite of our founding principles.
LikeLike
Michi, you don’t really believe that private enterprise is not capable of doing good, do you?
LikeLike
Right. Because people who seek to control and wield the legal power to coerce others to bend to their will can be so virtuous, while those who must please and service others in order to entice them to purchase their products couldn’t possibly be virtuous.
No, because the purpose of private enterprise is to make money. And only to make money. . . and there is nothing wrong with that. THAT is what conservatives are constantly throwing in the face of liberals–that we don’t want business to succeed. We do–but we don’t believe that it is the business of business to look after people. We, as a community, which means “government” should look after people. That means taxes. Your Libertarian Utopia, where we all look after ourselves and private charity takes care of those who, for whatever reason, can’t take care of themselves, doesn’t exist.
Reality is that private enterprise makes money. . . and that’s what it’s supposed to do. Government is a buffer, and takes money from all of us–hopefully in an equitable manner–to take care of things that individually we can’t (like national defense, the interstate highway system, schooling, etc.) so that all of us profit.
LikeLike
George:
Michi, you don’t really believe that private enterprise is not capable of doing good, do you?
I don’t expect it to. If it does, it’s ancillary to its prime mission of earning money.
LikeLike
I mean, c’mon, you guys don’t really believe that I haven’t been saving for my own retirement, do you? And you don’t think I own stock?? You’d better believe that I expect the companies that I’m invested in to earn money, and screw everything else–that’s American capitalism and individuality.
But i also believe that there is a strong possibility that I, or someone I love, may have a health issue that costs far, far more than I’m capable of paying for. . . and the insurance that I’ve been paying for my whole life probably won’t cover it. . . because in this country health insurance is a profit-driven business. And that is just wrong. As humans, as Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/religionist of any stripe, to include atheists, it’s wrong.
We are as successful as we are as a species because we care about each other. If you don’t care, you aren’t human. It’s how we channel that care that divides us, and I think that’s silly–we all care.
LikeLike
“Michi, you don’t really believe that private enterprise is not capable of doing good, do you?
I don’t expect it to. If it does, it’s ancillary to its prime mission of earning money.”
Earning money is doing good.
“But look, I’m a capitalist. Capitalism creates wealth. Over the last ten or fifteen years, the global economy has lifted millions of people out of poverty.”
– Elliot Spitzer
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/eliot-spitzer-2011-10/
LikeLike
“And, George, McConnell’s statement was outrageous because it implied that governing the country was secondary to ousting the President. I don’t care if McConnell doesn’t like Obama as President, but he shouldn’t place defeating him ahead of legislating, which is presumably what he was elected to do. By saying what he said, he implied that legislating for the good of the country isn’t that important to him.”
That’s not what he implied.:
““[Obama] seems to me to be pivoting, on a whole variety of things, to be coming in our direction,” McConnell said. “To the extent that he really wants to do that, not just rhetorically but in reality, we’ll be glad to help.””
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/mcconnell-if-obama-can-be-a-republican-we-can-negotiate-with-him.php
Republicans just aren’t going to vote for proposals they don’t agree with, or more significantly in McConnell’s case allow them to be brought to a vote. For many Republicans, not passing anything is a better alternative than enacting a bad bill.
LikeLike
jncp:
Earning money is doing good.
No it’s not, it’s earning money. if you’re going to quote Elliot Spitzer as an example of doing good. . .
That’s not what he implied
Oh, yes it is.
LikeLike
Mich:
We, as a community, which means “government”…
No, it doesn’t. This is one of the big problems with liberal thought, conflating “community” or “society” with government. They absolutely are not the same thing.
We do–but we don’t believe that it is the business of business to look after people.
And yet that is precisely what businesses do all over the country, every single day.
Apparently you think that “good” is determined strictly by motives, not by effect. When the government takes from Peter to give to Paul, you think it is doing “good” because it is motivated by a desire to help Paul. But when a private business actually does help both Peter and Paul by providing them with a way to make a living, and/or producing the goods and services that they want/need, you think it is not doing good because it is motivated by a desire to make money. Again, that is just rubbish. The pursuit of self-interest does not exclude the effects of that pursuit from the class of “good” things.
Private business does multiples…multiples…more good than the government could ever hope to do, including making possible whatever good the government might actually do.
LikeLike
Mich:
if you’re going to quote Elliot Spitzer as an example of doing good. . .
He wasn’t using Spitzer as an example of anything. He was simply providing an example of how private enterprise does good, an example which Spitzer happened to have already articulated.
LikeLike
jnc’s McConnell quote ““[Obama] seems to me to be pivoting, on a whole variety of things, to be coming in our direction,” McConnell said. “To the extent that he really wants to do that, not just rhetorically but in reality, we’ll be glad to help.”” is why I don’t put too much stock in comments like the previous McConnell quote and the Limbaugh “I hope Obama fails” statement. I’m guessing that if Obama suddenly wanted to outlaw abortion, sodomy and gay marriage and cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy Limbaugh would no longer want Obama to fail.
Where I do disagree with McConnell’s full quote is the notion that voters elect Democrats or Republicans and task them with becoming a majority. I think most voters elect someone for any number of reasons, but I think relatively few elect them hoping that it will lead to a Republican majority in the House or Senate. I’m sure some voters do so, but if that’s the case, whey do people seem to care what Romney’s religion is or really what any politician says? If voters only pull the lever hoping their party becomes the majority party all that matters is party affiliation and policy positions only matter to the extent that a candidate goes so far off the reservation as to no longer really represent a given party.
LikeLike
Mich:
We are as successful as we are as a species because we care about each other.
Sorry, Mich, but your premise is just wrong. We don’t “care about each other”, at least not as a general rule or to any great extent. Yes, most people have a surface sense of empathy for others, and everyone has people they do care enough about to be compelled to action But the number of people I care enough about to take action on their behalf is vastly, vastly outnumbered by those who carry no such weight in my thoughts. And I am quite certain I am not an oddball in this.
The fact is that we, like virtually all other beings, are first and foremost self-interested. I guarantee you that, if you would like to see a group of people take action X, you will have far, far more success in convincing them to do so if you first convince them that it is in their own interest to do so, rather than if you attempt to appeal to their sense of “caring” about other people.
This is precisely why embracing capitalism as an economic system has proven to be such a boon to those societies that have done so. It gives people a very strong reason – self-interest – for doing things for other people they otherwise wouldn’t care about.
LikeLike
Scott:
The fact is that we, like virtually all other beings, are first and foremost self-interested.
Actually, biological altruism is something that is pretty common in the animal kingdom. Species from slime molds up to mammals display altruistic behavior, defined as behavior that benefits others at a fitness cost to oneself. This forms the basis of group or kin selection, reconciling these altruistic behaviors with Darwinism.
Michi’s premise is likely based on her understanding of the biological bases of evolution.
LikeLike
(Yes, it was. Thanks, Mike!)
LikeLike
Mike:
Actually, biological altruism is something that is pretty common in the animal kingdom.
Perhaps, but that does not contradict that fact that we are first and foremost self-interested, as are most (all?) conscious beings.
BTW, I am doubtful that much behavior described as altruistic, ie sacrificing one’s own well being for another, actually is that. Sure, there are undeniable occasions, like when a soldier dives on a grenade to save those around him. But many things which are often called altruism are actually examples of sacrificing one value in order to achieve a greater, and perhaps longer term, value. That is self-interest, not altruism.
LikeLike
Scott:
If you are saying that we are self-interested when we are not part of a society (i.e., in competition with other species), then I would agree with you. But in the context of a complex society, your argument that virtually all beings are primarily self-interested is not correct. That is the whole basis of kin selection and why we have evolved to have clans/families/packs.
Sacrificing one’s life for others is not the sole example of altruism, though obviously Christianity holds this pure form of altruism as its ideal. But there are many gradations of altruism. Performing acts that benefit others, at one’s expense, with the conscious or subconscious intent on improving the overall fitness of the society are a form of altruism. The extreme biological example, I suppose, is the social insect colony, where thousands of workers (who cannot breed) serve the queen and her offspring.
LikeLike
Mike:
If you are saying that we are self-interested when we are not part of a society…
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that most of the conscious choices the we make are made to advance what we perceive are our own interests.
That is the whole basis of kin selection and why we have evolved to have clans/families/packs.
It seems to me that my own survival is more assured when I am a part of a clan/family/pack. If/when that ceases to be the case, I am very likely to choose something different.
Performing acts that benefit others, at one’s expense, with the conscious or subconscious intent on improving the overall fitness of the society are a form of altruism.
Only if the overall fitness of society does not itself redound to our benefit. If, in fact, the overall fitness of society is actually something that has value to us as individuals, this is simply a case of giving up one value for a greater value. That is not altruism, it is a sensible, self-interested choice.
LikeLike
Scott:
It seems to me that my own survival is more assured when I am a part of a clan/family/pack
You are intellectualizing an evolved trait. The reason that our survival seems more assured as members of a clan/family/pack is that we evolved that way. That is why most animals live as members of a larger group rather than as individuals or mating pairs. Larger groups are better able to compete because of economy of scale and distribution of responsibility compared to smaller groups, which likely can compete in specific niches. In other words, clans are more evolutionarily favorable, therefore our societal structure reflects a clan/family — how far you extend that family structure is obviously up to you.
Only if the overall fitness of society does not itself redound to our benefit.
True, in cases of altruism, it cannot be known a priori whether a particular act will redound to one’s benefit. I’m just not sure what “many things” you are talking about when you say altruistic acts are actually self-interested. Perhaps you can name a few. For example, giving a homeless person your lunch would be an act of altruism to me — you decrease your fitness because you are giving away something of value and expect nothing in return. It may be that that particular homeless person survives because of that lunch and goes on to develop some new alternative energy technology that makes us energy independent. But you don’t know when you give him that meal that any societal good will come of it. That is altruism. OTOH, giving money to a political candidate is not altruistic because you expect that act to benefit you somehow.
LikeLike
Mike:
The reason that our survival seems more assured as members of a clan/family/pack is that we evolved that way.
Isn’t the exact opposite the case…ie that we evolved that way because our survival is more assured as members of a clan/family/pack? If it wasn’t the case, we would have evolved differently.
Survival of the fittest. Those who grouped together survived, and those that did not died out. Hence, we evolved to group together. Hence, my perception that my own survival is more assured as part of a group is not a function of evolution. It is function of reality. And that reality has resulted in the survival of entities that do form groups.
But I have the sense that this altruistic behavior which you are referring to is not conscious or voluntary. Your description of it suggests you see it as an inherent part of our makeup, not a choice that we make of our own free will.
When I speak of altruistic behavior, I am talking about making conscious choices. Giving a sandwich to the homeless guy is a choice that some people will make and others will not. Those that do make that choice do so because the cost to them, the value of the sandwich, is less than the value they get from giving it…feeling good about themselves, avoiding seeing a person starve, whatever. When Mother Theresa commits her entire life to caring for sick people in India, she does it because she thinks that is what her God wants her to do, and what God wants is of great importance…to her. She values what God wants, and perhaps what she expects to await her in some later life in heaven, more than she values her personal comfort in the here and now. We tout that as altruism, but I think it is ultimately self-interest. What she does is ultimately of more value, to her, than what she gives up to do it.
We are, by our very nature, self-interested. Do you really deny this?
LikeLike
Self-interest is a function of singular self awareness. Altruism is a form of self-interest. Group identification leads to group interest, but our participation is still based on self-interest.
LikeLike
Scott:
Isn’t the exact opposite the case
It baffles me when you completely misunderstand me, but then go on to summarize what I was trying to say. It’s as if we’re not communicating in the same language. Oh well.
Anyways, my point was that we have been selected to want to form groups because that has led to increased fitness and survival. But that selection also hard-wires in a predilection toward altruism because that is what is needed for the group. So, Mother Teresa’s entire life’s work caring for sick people is altruism in the sense that all of her works certainly decreased her biological fitness (no procreation, living in relative poverty, etc.). That she found spiritual value in her privation is an extreme example of how were are evolutionarily predisposed toward group behavior. Obviously, there is a huge spectrum — some people are more self-interested than others; some are so self-interested that we call them psychopaths/sociopaths and lock them up.
Biologically speaking, fMRI studies have shown that altruism, such as donating to charitable causes, activates our mesolimbic rewards center. This same region of the brain is also activated by food, money, sex, etc. So, we respond physiologically to altruism with a “warm feeling” or release of neurotransmitters like serotonin. Again, there is a spectrum so some respond more than others.
In short, yes, I deny your premise that we are by nature self-interested. All of us are on different places of the spectrum, but we are by nature (i.e, physiologically) predisposed to altruism. Whether we choose to act on it is a completely different question.
LikeLike
Mike:
It baffles me when you completely misunderstand me, but then go on to summarize what I was trying to say.
If what I summarized is what you were trying to say, consider me baffled, as well. You said:
The reason that our survival seems more assured as members of a clan/family/pack is that we evolved that way.
This says to me that our perception of reality is determined by our evolution. We think X because we evolved to think X.
I was saying that our perception of reality is determined by the fats of reality itself. While it may be true that the fact of X caused us to evolve in certain ways, to think X is simply to grasp reality. It need not have been “caused” by our evolution. It is simply a fact, and if we are capable of grasping facts of reality, we can grasp the fact of X.
Now, somehow, you are saying that that is what you meant by your original statement? Again, I am baffled.
In short, yes, I deny your premise that we are by nature self-interested. All of us are on different places of the spectrum, but we are by nature (i.e, physiologically) predisposed to altruism.
So, just to be clear, you think individuals are not by nature self-interested, but are by nature altruistic. Is that correct?
What evidence in the real world of experience justifies this belief? I think that the everyday experiences of virtually everyone suggests precisely the opposite is closer to the truth. The reason I demand a paycheck instead of working for free is out of self-interest, not altruism. The reason I went to the movies this weekend was out of self-interest, not out of altruism. The reason I chose not to have children for the first 6 years of my marriage was out of self-interest, not out of altruism. The reason I chose to have kids after the first 6 years of my marriage was out of self-interest, not altruism. The reason I do 95% of the things I do is out of self-interest, not altruism.
Indeed, anyone who has ever spent a day with a group of 3 year olds knows that self-interest is far, far more a natural driving force for human beings than is altruism. I find it quite astonishing that you have somehow convinced yourself otherwise.
LikeLike
Scott:
This says to me that our perception of reality is determined by our evolution. We think X because we evolved to think X.
Clearly, we are not speaking the same language. My statement
The reason that our survival seems more assured as members of a clan/family/pack is that we evolved that way.
was meant to be read as:
The reason that our survival seems more assured as members of a clan/family/pack is that we evolved as members of a clan/family/pack. Nowhere do I say that we evolved to think that we would survive better as a member of a clan/family pack — you are just putting words into my mouth, so to speak. So yes, I am also saying that our perception of reality is determined by the facts of reality.
So, just to be clear, you think individuals are not by nature self-interested, but are by nature altruistic. Is that correct?
The problem you and I have is that your Manichean worldview is not compatible with my “shades of gray” outlook. To you, we are either one thing or another. To me, there is a spectrum of differences and numerous factors play a role in complex social behaviors. I do not deny that we have a natural survival instinct — perhaps that is what you view as self-interest. I do not deny that biologic development of our brains plays a role in our responses. I do not deny that there are people that are much more self-interested than others. But I think the scientific evidence is pretty good that we are hardwired to respond positively to altruistic acts.
Going back to Michi’s original statement, humans have evolved to be social animals, a point on which you and I both seem to agree. Being a member of a social group requires at least a modicum of altruism or, in Michi’s words, caring. That we are successful as a species because of our complex social structure does not seem to be disputable.
LikeLike
Mike:
Clearly, we are not speaking the same language.
That does indeed appear to be the case.
Would you agree with the following: It is a fact of reality that our survival as individuals is more assured as members of a social group?
If so, would you also agree with this: The above being the case, it is in our own individual self-interest to be a member of a social group?
The problem you and I have is that your Manichean worldview is not compatible with my “shades of gray” outlook. To you, we are either one thing or another.
That is completely false. I don’t have a Manichean outlook. I have acknowledged that humans have the capacity to be both altruistic and self-interested. I even gave an example of the former. I have simply stated that our primary nature is to be self-interested, and every day experience tends to support that notion. Most of the conscious choices I make are made because I perceive them to be in my ultimate best interest in some way. Obviously I cannot get inside anyone else’s head, but I doubt very much I am particularly unique or extreme in my motivations.
Let me ask you this: Do you make most of your conscious, every day choices because you think they are in your best interests, or because you think they are in your group’s (however you define that) despite the fact that they are detrimental to you personally?
But I think the scientific evidence is pretty good that we are hardwired to respond positively to altruistic acts.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean we are not also hardwired to respond positively to self-interested acts. (Plainly we are.) And the question, while acknowledging your “spectrum” and individual differences along it, is which is the dominant impulse? You seem to be claiming that altruism dominates, which is counter to pretty much all every day experiences. If you do claim that altruism dominates, then how do you explain, for example, the behavior of 3 year olds? Why must children be taught to share, and why is the most effective way of teaching them to share to show them that sharing will ultimately prove beneficial…to themselves?
Being a member of a social group requires at least a modicum of altruism or, in Michi’s words, caring.
Well, I’m not at all sure that Mich’s “caring” is the equivalent to your “altruism” at all. Your notion of altruism seems to have nothing to do with feelings for others as individuals, and I am pretty sure Mich’s notion of caring does.
That we are successful as a species because of our complex social structure does not seem to be disputable.
And I wouldn’t dispute it. But I also wouldn’t conflate our complex social structure with simply “caring for others”.
LikeLike
Scott wrote: “Do you make most of your conscious, every day choices because you think they are in your best interests, or because you think they are in your group’s (however you define that) despite the fact that they are detrimental to you personally?”
Let’s take this one moment by moment for today. The first one of the day was to get up and handle getting the kids’ breakfast and let my wife sleep in. I’m going to score that as detrimental to me personally in the short term. Of course, my wife is going to be grateful that she got to sleep in, so maybe it’s not so altruistic. I’ll see if I can cash in on this later.
There were definitely some sub-choices involved. I was going to put out some cereal (easy), but Secondo asked for toast with peanut butter and Nutella. Happier kids on the one hand, 5 minutes less to get them ready (more hassle for me) on the other hand. We’ll score it neutral.
Now, Secondo has a serious eczema problem. One matter of treatment is twice daily slatherings of Aquaphor. That does mean additional time and hassle, but it’s necessary. I’m going to score that one for community. Even though it makes my morning harder, he needs it.
After getting the kids on the bus, I headed back home. Definitely a non-altruistic choice there. I finished my tea (tea, Earl Grey, hot) and read the post for 20 minutes before taking a shower. This meant that I wouldn’t have time to swing by the grocery store for milk for the coffee club. So, I grabbed the rest of the 2% we had at home with a plan to pick up some milk on my way home. Tricky to judge that one as it was saving me time, but I was depriving my better half of dairy (we had some whole milk, but she’s losing weight). I put the folks at work ahead of family, so I’ll score that one for community. Then again, I could have picked up some at the Giant on my way to work, but I know Magruder’s discounts milk on Mondays and Tuesdays.
I was a couple of hours late into work today as I volunteered for the Science in the Pod. They get out the various kindergarten classes for scientific experiments. Today’s was about light (I handled transparent vs. translucent vs. opaque). This took several hours and I did it, because I wanted to help out. Well, my entire job is the interaction of light and matter, so I thought it might be cool for the kids to have a scientist for the science experiment. One of my sons (Secondo) was in one of the groups, so I had him as a group of 5 for 8 minutes out of 2 1/2 hours total. I’m going to give myself a community one there.
Work was mostly about working on conference organization. Tricky to judge, that. I was just elected a fellow of the SPIE, in large part because of my work on conferences. I also have definite ideas about how a conference should be organized and take pride in how the conference has grown. I’ll score that one more for self-interest. And that’s just up to noon!
Yes, there’s a faintly ridiculous air to this. Funny thing is that when I look at my actions throughout the course of the day, the original question poses a false choice. Multiple motivations guide actions. If I take an action that might seem detrimental in the short run, maybe there’s a longer term motivation.
Presumably, there’s no moral dimension in my choosing to have a jalapeño cheddar bagel this morning instead of an egg bagel. Sometimes a bagel’s just a bagel.
BB
LikeLike
Farilington:
Funny thing is that when I look at my actions throughout the course of the day, the original question poses a false choice.
No, it doesn’t. The original question was whether we are primarily self-interested or altruistic. That does not exclude the possibility of multiple motivations. It simply proclaims that one is generally dominant. Which of course it is.
If I take an action that might seem detrimental in the short run, maybe there’s a longer term motivation.
Excellent. You managed to grasp my original point after all. I think.
LikeLike
Hmm. I thought WordPress was supposed to be down today as part of the SOPA protest.
Primarily didn’t show up in the quote, though I’d been loosely following the thread, so I’m sure it popped up somewhere. It was meant as a somewhat cheeky response in that relatively few of my day to day decisions involve such considerations. Most of the decisions I thought about weighted short term vs. long term interests.
Even the one that might be considered to have an objective good for society (volunteering at my kid’s school), resulted in some short term gain. I ran into the special education coordinator and learned that the school has transferred one of her aides to another school. We’ll be keeping a close eye on this and hold the school’s feet to the fire regarding his IEP.
BB
LikeLike
BTW…
Presumably, there’s no moral dimension in my choosing to have a jalapeño cheddar bagel this morning instead of an egg bagel.
Moral dimension or not, the choice was almost certainly made by asking yourself “what do I want today”, not “what’s best for society”.
LikeLike
fairlington:
Most of the decisions I thought about weighted short term vs. long term interests.
Yes, but who’s interests? Yours, presumably. And that of those that you care about, because caring about them makes their interests part of yours.
As I have been saying all along, we are, primarily, self-interested beings.
LikeLike
I’ve been following this debate and am not going to go back and read the entire thread before posting my comments, I’m just working from my impressions here. I heartily disagree that altruism is in large part based upon self-interest. One of the characteristics we attempted to instill in our children was actually doing things that were not necessarily in their self-interest but benefited someone else in some small way.
A few examples, some personal, some more universal: We are all of us here blood type O neg, and to a fault at times, and much inconvenience, give blood on a regularly scheduled basis. We have forfeited many family gatherings on the Thanksgiving holiday to work a soup kitchen to the disappointment of nearly everyone. The outpouring of money and time during natural disasters, whether foreign or domestic epitomizes to me altruism. Many people have very little to give but still manage to scrape up a bit of money for a good cause without recognition or reward. I find that most charitable acts are much more altruistic than motivated by self-interest generally. To imply that Mother Theresa was acting in self-interest was, I thought, a rather ludicrous interpretation of her motives. To indicate that walking or running a 5K run for breast cancer, donating time to the local library, volunteering food, money and time at a local food bank, helping an old woman cross the street when you’re going the opposite direction…..etc. etc. etc. are primarily motivated by self-interest is a very jaded interpretation of human nature. If survival of the larger group, humanity, is a self-interest then how could someone also claim survival of the fittest is the motivating interest?
One more thought, I find that good parenting and sacrifice for one’s children appears on it’s surface klanish and beneficial to the small group, but the idea that children will reward you for it later is a rather bizarre interpretation of most parents motivation. I’ve met so many people in my life who acted much more out of a general sense of commitment than self-interest that I’m having a very tough time even accepting the premise.
LikeLike
lms:
One of the characteristics we attempted to instill in our children…
Which is to say it is a learned, not a natural, characteristic.
To imply that Mother Theresa was acting in self-interest was, I thought, a rather ludicrous interpretation of her motives.
So you think that Mother Theresa did not believe that to please her God was ultimately in her own best interest? Or do you think that she was not motivated by her belief in what God expected of her?
LikeLike
Scott
Which is to say it is a learned, not a natural, characteristic.
I considered it as more of an encouraged behavior. I raised five children and am actively involved in the lives of my two grandchildren. You have three daughters if I remember correctly so this should be obvious to you. We found that children take to altruism, as you guys are calling it, like ducks to water. On occasion there would be the minor complaint but generally it was just something they did willingly. Most children past the age of 3 or 4 are quite generous in spirit if given the opportunity.
So you think that Mother Theresa did not believe that to please her God was ultimately in her own best interest? Or do you think that she was not motivated by her belief in what God expected of her?
First, I would not presume to know what motivates someone like Mother Theresa, but if I were to hazard a guess, I would assume she saw need and was compelled to fill the void with whatever meager assistance she could offer. I find it highly doubtful that a heavenly reward was a motivating factor.
LikeLike
lms:
Most children past the age of 3 or 4 are quite generous in spirit if given the opportunity.
Apparently California is different from the rest of the country in even more ways than I thought.
First, I would not presume to know what motivates someone like Mother Theresa…
Which is why I asked you what you thought.
I find it highly doubtful that a heavenly reward was a motivating factor.
“Our life of poverty is as necessary as the work itself. Only in heaven will we see how much we owe to the poor for helping us to love God better because of them.” – Mother Theresa
I find the notion that Mother Theresa’s belief in an afterlife, and her relationship to God once there, was not a motivating factor in how she lived her life here on earth, pretty much impossible to take seriously.
LikeLike
scott
I find the notion that Mother Theresa’s belief in an afterlife, and her relationship to God once there, was not a motivating factor in how she lived her life here on earth, pretty much impossible to take seriously.
That’s because that’s not what I said. I said a heavenly “reward” was not to be taken seriously. Obviously, her relationship with God and the poor and what she could learn from them was a motivating factor. I certainly don’t consider that self-interest. I doubt she was sitting around trying to figure out how much more she needed to do to ascend to heaven as a reward for her work. Most Christians don’t make the same sacrifices but still assume they won’t be spending eternity in hell because they bought themselves an ipad or won it online (right ash).
I cannot believe you don’t have the same experience with children that I have had. I’d like to hear from someone else on that.
LikeLike
lms:
That’s because that’s not what I said. I said a heavenly “reward”…
Yeah, but you introduced the term in response to a question of mine which did not use that term at all, so I assumed you were using it as a proxy for what my question was actually about.
I doubt she was sitting around trying to figure out how much more she needed to do to ascend to heaven as a reward for her work.
So do I. That is obviously a simplistic caricature of what motivates people dedicated to doing what they perceive is the work God desires of them. (Why you want to reduce what I am saying to such a caricature is beyond me.) But that they are motivated by a consideration of their own personal relationship to God, and that this represents an example of self-interest, seems obvious to me.
I cannot believe you don’t have the same experience with children that I have had.
My guess is that they aren’t all that different.
LikeLike
I will note again, people operate in their self-interest (even if doing foolish things that turn out to be not at all in their self-interest) all the time, because even a pure altruism would be filtered through the lens of their individual motivations and perceptions, and until such time as larger groups of people, or everybody, has a literal shared consciousness, and shared memory pool, in which everyone can be aware of the situation of the other, people will operate in their self-interest. It’s a limitation of perception. We only have our own self to experience interest with. 😉
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
This debate reminds me of an episode of Friends were Phoebe was trying to find an act that didn’t make her feel good about her self or promote her self-interest. One of the other characters said no such act existed. Eventually she settles on donating money to a telethon Joey is working. Her donation get the charity to its goal and Joey winds up on TV which makes her feel good. So it was no longer completely altruistic because she was glad she had helped Joey. Of course her entire search for such a purely altruistic act was done in the self-interest of proving herself to be right and someone wrong.
Anyway, maybe it’s my political science background, but I tend to side with Scott’s Hobbesian view. The whole point of former communities, societies and governments is to control the self-interest of people. If our primary motivation is altruistic in nature, I don’t see that we would need a government since we would largely all work to benefit each other.
LikeLike
Gotta say that generousity is a learned behavior. After dealing with my own kids and others, it does not come naturally and has to be taught. Cooperation ultimately generates individual reward or at least the expectation or an individual reward.
Even altruism is ultimately done for self interest reasons. I volunteer at a charity because it’s good for society. I benefit from an improved society.
LikeLike
You also volunteer at a charity because you think it’s important, or worthwhile, and it scratches an itch. You get some benefit (or respite from detriment) with any altruistic action, either pursuing the pleasurable feelings of being consistent with who you want to be and living your principles, or avoiding the guilt of not stepping up to the plate, which you have, by definition, decided is at least the lesser of two evils.
But, yes, enlightened self-interest takes into consideration other people, what they need, group dynamics, the local and global environment, and society at large. Of course, each step up that ladder increases complexity, so people have genuine disagreements of what processes will lead to the best possible overall society–socialism, libertarianism, or something in between.
LikeLike
Well, I guess I’m the odd man out here, what else is new eh? Seriously, I never said that people don’t act in self interest but I don’t believe that altruism is always self-interest. Obviously, we’re all a little of this and a little of that and none of us purely altruisitic…………….yikes. Also also obviously, children need to be trained and taught, but none of that negates for me the generosity of spirit that certainly exists in mankind, children and adults alike, that is not motivated purely by self-interest. It’s not black and white you guys, as with everything it’s a little of both. Haven’t you ever known someone who did things because they needed to be done and no one else was doing it? Yesterday, I thought I was cynical, not so much today.
LikeLike
I’d like to reply to this again, but I have to leave for awhile. I’m actually off to a meeting with Hospice……………….more work less money and we need to figure it out. I’ll be back though.
LikeLike
Seriously, I never said that people don’t act in self interest but I don’t believe that altruism is always self-interest.
I think that we end up benefiting from many of the altruistic acts we perform. But I think it’s wrong to claim that the primary motivation for all or most altruistic acts is self-interest. So I think I agree with you, lmsinca. I’m not sure that anyone is making that claim though. Would we work at a soup kitchen if it didn’t makes us feel good to help someone else out? Or would I tithe at Church if it didn’t make me feel better and the Bible didn’t instruct me to do it? You can’t really answer those questions can you?
LikeLike
ashot:
I’m not sure that anyone is making that claim though.
I’m coming close. I don’t say that people will benefit from such acts. I do say that they either do or they think they do.
You can’t really answer those questions can you?
I think I can. No, I don’t think we would work at the soup kitchen if it didn’t make us feel good to do so.
No, I don’t think you would tithe at Church if it didn’t make you feel better and/or you didn’t think it was important for the relationship between you and God.
LikeLike
From Merriam Webster (if I remember correctly Scott likes to use this as a source)
self- interest: a concern for one’s own advantage and well-being
Synonyms: egocentricity, egocentrism, egomania, egotism, narcissism, navel-gazing, self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-interest, self-involvement, selfishness, selfness, self-preoccupation, self-regard
altruism:
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
Synonyms: selflessness, unselfishness
Scott:
The fact is that we, like virtually all other beings, are first and foremost self-interested.
Mike:
Actually, biological altruism is something that is pretty common in the animal kingdom. Species from slime molds up to mammals display altruistic behavior, defined as behavior that benefits others at a fitness cost to oneself. This forms the basis of group or kin selection, reconciling these altruistic behaviors with Darwinism.
Scott:
BTW, I am doubtful that much behavior described as altruistic, ie sacrificing one’s own well being for another, actually is that. Sure, there are undeniable occasions, like when a soldier dives on a grenade to save those around him. But many things which are often called altruism are actually examples of sacrificing one value in order to achieve a greater, and perhaps longer term, value. That is self-interest, not altruism.
Mike:
But there are many gradations of altruism. Performing acts that benefit others, at one’s expense, with the conscious or subconscious intent on improving the overall fitness of the society are a form of altruism.
I realize these quotes are taken out of context and both Mike and Scott seemed to indicate we are motivated by both self-interest and altruism. I just happen to believe there are more instances of altruism than Scott and maybe the rest of you are willing to admit. And I also believe in some ways altruism is hard wired into our psyche. You see it all the time in unconscious decisions by the most ordinary people, rescuing someone from a burning car or building, swerving to miss a pedestrian, bicyclist or even a stray dog, jumping into freezing cold water to rescue a drowning man. If these instinctual decisions are part of our humanity why is it so hard to believe that many of our conscious decisions are also based on an inherent value of others over ourselves?
What about the person who donates a kidney to a stranger, or someone who knows they have no more time or money to give to a cause and does it anyway, the child who willingly puts a treasured toy into the toy drive box at Christmas, the teenage girl who lets her hair be cut to make a wig for a cancer patient, I could go on and on.
You’re saying these acts are done out of self-interest because it is for the betterment of society, I’m sorry but most people just don’t think in those terms. They just respond. Obviously, not everyone and not every time, but if I didn’t believe in this I wouldn’t have much to believe in I don’t think.
LikeLike
lms:
The burning car, the freezing water, the kidney to a stranger…the reason these are celebrated is precisely because they run counter to normal human behavior and are, as a result, so rare.
Swerving to avoid hitting a person? Not what I would call altruism, but rather a simple aversion to killing.
The child who willingly puts a treasured toy into the toy drive box? Probably more rare than any other behavior you mentioned. Children don’t do this “willingly”. They do it because they’ve been told by an authority figure that they should do it. It’s entirely learned behavior.
I think perhaps a problem here is that you view the existence of self-interest as somehow devaluing what you would otherwise consider to be a virtuous act. I don’t. What Mother Theresa did, for example, is no less laudable to me if she did it out of self-interest than if she didn’t. I think perhaps you are resistant to the notion that her behavior was, at root, grounded in what she perceived to be her own best interest because you think what she did was obviously virtuous, and therefore it couldn’t possibly be self-interested.
LikeLike
scott
the reason these are celebrated is precisely because they run counter to normal human behavior and are, as a result, so rare.
Are you sure they are as rare as you claim? I’m not. I’ve known, personally, so many instances of this type of instinctual reaction that it would take pages to detail all of them, and I am only one person. You only seem to be aware of the ones that make the nightly news, none of the instances I’m thinking of actually made the news.
Children don’t do this “willingly”. They do it because they’ve been told by an authority figure that they should do it. It’s entirely learned behavior.
Of course they do it willingly in many cases. My own kids have come up with ideas to help others without any prompt from me. I can’t believe you don’t think children are capable of this. I’m not talking two or three year olds, but 5 or 6 through high school? This is one of the most shocking discrepancies we have in real life experience yet.
I think perhaps a problem here is that you view the existence of self-interest as somehow devaluing what you would otherwise consider to be a virtuous act.
Did you see the synonyms for self-interest above? Do you think those are inaccurate? It’s not just me, it’s the damn dictionary. Self-interest is not a virtue, it’s common and steers many of our decisions but it is not a virtue…..it just is what it is, a reasonable response to many choices, ones we all make as living creatures. Altruism is something different that we are all capable of, and do both instinctively and by choice, or not.
LikeLike
lms:
Are you sure they are as rare as you claim?
Pretty sure.
My own kids have come up with ideas to help others without any prompt from me.
Really? They came up with these ideas without you ever teaching them about charity, explaining the virtue in helping others, encouraging them to care for people less fortunate? I’m doubtful. If they didn’t learn these concepts from you, they learned them from someone else.
Do you think those are inaccurate?
In their connotations, yes.
Self-interest is not a virtue
Whether or not it is a virtue is besides the point. I say its existence as a motivation does not devalue an otherwise virtuous act. The value of what Mother Theresa did derived from its impact on those she helped, not her personal motivations for providing the help. To say otherwise is to say that virtue is strictly a function of an internal thought process rather than actual actions.
LikeLike
Scott
Really? They came up with these ideas without you ever teaching them about charity, explaining the virtue in helping others, encouraging them to care for people less fortunate? I’m doubtful. If they didn’t learn these concepts from you, they learned them from someone else.
Unfortunately for you Scott there are numerous childhood studies that do indicate altruism is a built in instinct even in young children. Of course parental influence and other outside influence can either reinforce these inclinations or the opposite.
The value of what Mother Theresa did derived from its impact on those she helped, not her personal motivations for providing the help.
I’m not saying that the motivation diminishes the virtues, I’m saying the motivation can be purely or just primarily more altruistic than you believe. I doubt we’ll ever agree on this at this point and I’ve tried to stay away from personal observations and experiences precisely because I was trying to win you over on the merits of my argument….lol
Neither one of us is budging so I’m gonna call it a night. Good luck with your mom tomorrow.
LikeLike
Mike:
Actually, biological altruism is something that is pretty common in the animal kingdom. Species from slime molds up to mammals display altruistic behavior, defined as behavior that benefits others at a fitness cost to oneself. This forms the basis of group or kin selection, reconciling these altruistic behaviors with Darwinism.
I missed most of this discussion today; good stuff.
Related to Mike’s statement, I read an article today about how in a few weeks, some yeast cultures adapted/evolved into multicellular ‘organisms’, where certain cells would ‘sacrifice’ themselves which helped the species evolve.
http://www.startribune.com/local/137540268.html
LikeLike
Having said that, for a long time I agreed with Scott’s view that in humans essentially all behavior is motivated by self interest. Now I think there are instinctual exceptions.
LikeLike
“Self-interest is not a virtue,
I believe that rational self interest is a virtue, and perhaps the most important virtue. I’ll go further and say that all altruism is ultimately motivated by self-interest or the perception that there is self-interst involved. Think about the kidney donation example (to a stranger), that donation generates, in the donator, a feeling of “doing a good deed” as well as a belief (for some anyway) that that perhaps someone would do the same for them. What’s wrong with that concept? At heart it provides a benefit to society while serving, ultimately, the perceived self interst of the donator.
LikeLike
McWing
Think about the kidney donation example (to a stranger), that donation generates, in the donator, a feeling of “doing a good deed” as well as a belief (for some anyway) that that perhaps someone would do the same for them.
Except the definition of altruism encompasses harm to oneself for the benefit of others. This example is a perfect one of altruism in my opinion. That there be some form of satisfaction over the long term doesn’t negate the fact that it is altruistic. By the same token acting in a purely self-interested way that also benefits others in some way is not a negative. I’m beginning to think we’re all just talking around the edges here. You guys seem to believe that altruism, except in rare cases, is always motivated by self-interest, and I just don’t believe that based upon my interaction with others and what I see and experience around me every day.
LikeLike