"I contend that there is a single litmus that does indeed separate the nation and the world into two opposing camps, and that when you examine where people will fall on the countless issues that affect our society, this alone is the indicator that will tell you how they will respond. The indicator is Responsibility."Victor Davis Hanson's "How We Collapse" had a similar thrust, informed by history. Of the two, however, Bill Whittle has the better essay. Now that's saying something.
In the comments section, Klaatu writes:
"Yes, members of one group feel they have responsibility for other humans. The other group just feels responsible for themselves."
To which I reply:
The most dangerous trap for the second group is lack of empathy for others, or inability to see beyond themselves. One must acknowledge the difficulty of just being responsible for oneself, and the need for that to be the universal starting point, without ending one's horizon there. Otherwise the result can become a casual disregard for others that turns a blind eye to real suffering. If practiced widely enough, it can turn societies into a predator's paradise (and sometimes has). This erodes the legitimacy on which security, and therefore wealth, depends.
The most dangerous trap for the FIRST group is a responsibility that slips all too comfortably into control, and hence inability to grant the other real responsibility because it threatens that control. The result of that slide is the exploitation of others' misery for both psychological ("doesn't matter if it helps, I want to feel good") and material ("New Class" theory) benefit. If practiced widely enough, it can turn societies into a parasites' paradise (and sometimes has). This erodes the wealth on which legitimacy, and therefore security, depends.
Here endeth the lesson.
UPDATE: Maye not. See Wildmonk's comments, and my response.
Yes, members of one group feel they have responsibility for other humans.
The other group just feels responsible for themselves.
The essential trap of the second group is lack of empathy for others, or inability to see beyond themselves. One must acknowledge the difficulty of just being responsible for oneself, and the need for that to be the universal starting point, without ending one's horizon there. Otherwise the result can become a casual disregard for others that turns a blind eye to real problems. If practiced widely enough, it can turn societies into a predator's paradise (and sometimes has). This erodes the legitimacy on which security, and therefore wealth, depends.
The essential trap of the FIRST group is a responsibility that slips all too comfortably into control, and inability to grant the other real responsibility because it threatens that control. The result of that slide is the exploitation of others' misery for both psychological ("doesn't matter if it helps, I want to feel good") and material ("New Class" theory) benefit. If practiced widely enough, it can turn societies into a parasites' paradise (and sometimes has). This erodes the wealth on which legitimacy, and therefore security, depends.
Joe,
I think you give Klaatu far too much credit by defending against his charge as if it were legitimate or serious. This is the essential error that people on the right almost always commit: a willingness to cede the point that policies requiring "responsibility" are equivalent to policies of "selfishness." Klaatu is wrong and possibly even deceitful when he places the "JUST" in front of "responsible for themselves."
It is simply not true that taking responsibility for oneself is a selfish or self-limiting act. I take responsibility for myself - and my family, and my community, and my nation. While I do not grant anyone the right to tell me that they are entitled to a cut of my income, this is critically different from saying that I will not offer help to others or that I do not see myself as part of a larger social project.
Klaatu's underlying point is illegitimate and you forfeit your most potent intellectual weapon - the long-term good of society as a whole is indeed the objective of conservative policy - as soon as you grant it!
Ah. Seems I may have goven the wrong impression.
Taking responsibility for oneself is a profoundly SELFLESS act, precisely because it (a) means you aren't a burden on others like family, etc., and (b) because once achieved, it frees you to assist others and help them enjoy the same achievement.
And it's hard. Really hard. "Just responsible for themselves". If only it was that common!
The problem, when it occurs, happens when people accept (a) but not (b). It's something I have on rare occasions seen in compatriots on the Right, though not nearly as often as many liberals imagine.
As you correctly point out, there are wider levels of responsibility, and they are not exclusive to each other. Legitimate debates can arise over the means of realizing them.
Which puts us right back to responsibility - because Klaatu has also conceded something very important in invoking it. No one is entitled to a cut of another's income, because that's a denial of their own responsibility. We may, as a political body, choose to set taxes for certain things and then give out some of those monies under specified conditions. If you fit those criteria, then here you go because them's the rules. In that sense, you're "entitled". But that eligibility under the rules is conditional - it's also implicit that we can as a polity un-choose. Which has happened, often, in welfare reforms that change (for the better, mostly) the conditions and the things society is willing to support.
Note, too, the end-state goal - to help others achieve that same responsibility. That's the one many liberals either overlook or don't really share, and it profoundly undermines most of their proposed solutions. It's usually, in fact, the fatal flaw.
Which is why I'm very happy to hang the responsibility flypaper, and have liberals come buzzing in to talk about "responsibility for others." Step right this way...!
YES!