In Conversation with my Conservative younger Cousin
The other day, I stumbled into a strange conversation. My younger cousin and I found ourselves in a conversation concerning President Obama’s Health Care initiative. I was strongly for and he as strongly against.
He questioned the constitutionality of such a program – at the same time he acknowledged that he had not read nor knew anything about the program over what Rush L had spewed out on his radio program.
I attempted to disabuse him of such by informing him of the similarity of such programs as Social Security, Medicare and the progressive income tax to Obama’s overall policy direction. He continued to simply parrot Rush’s anti progressive case with clearly wrong information.
After further inquires he admitted that had bought into Rush because of a kind of laziness towards sorting through the "real" and complete arguments, which suggest to me that probably more members of my family and others might be suffering from the same weakness.
So with that in mind I thought to start sketching some thoughts on political "conversations" – why they start the way they do, and some of the strategic outcomes they tend to produce. This post won’t change minds – not my issue – it will be a place I can use to forward folks to, if the occasion arises.
For those that might want to see my conversation documents over a span of either time or resources there is a “list” (presentation tool) of the documents that can be played interactively.
I suggest everyone should join Diigo.com just for the annotation and highlighting which you can used to bring together just those elements of the conversation that are to your special interest. It will be my practice to annotate those elements of my argument that I have written on in other post so that my complete line of reasoning can be traced.
The primary reason I am going to such lengths is that one of my overarching goals for writing a blog is the mastery of social networking tools while in a social networking conversation. This exchange offers a unique opportunity for all my interest to come together.
For those that have been following my post this will come as no surprise. For others of you new to by brand of quirkiness , I am hoping that while you here to express your support on one side of our conversation or the other will take a look around.
There is something very strange about political discussions – all too often those engaged seem to not to be talking to each other but instead they seem to be talking pass each other over and over again. Thomas Sowell in his book “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles” focuses on two opposing visions”
· Constrained – human natures as unchanging and selfish
· Unconstrained – human nature is malleable and perfectible
He offers a fairly convincing case that ethical and policy disputes circle around the disparity between both outlooks.
Not that all people are as neatly defined as this might suggest, but even for those that are a closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. So as we look, for instance at whether Barack was being consistent from one audience to the other – some of us see one set of facts while others of us might naturally pick up on a different set.
Visions are what provide consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. The two groups have different visions of how the world works. Therefore our visions are what counts for making the right judgments on the right things or even if the course needs adjusting – no less the direction.
Visions are like maps that guide us through a tangle of bewildering complexities. Like maps, visions have to leave out many concrete features in order to enable us to focus on a few key paths to our goals. Visions are indispensable-but dangerous, precisely to the extent that we confuse them with reality itself!
Some have said these visions or worldviews are a "pre-analytic cognitive act". It is what one senses or feels before constructing any systematic reasoning that could be called a theory, much less deduced any specific consequences as hypotheses to be tested against evidence.
Enter Richard Rorty and others that argue that there is no such process as “pre-analytic” for him it was thinkers such as Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein that enabled societies to see themselves as historical contingencies, rather than as expressions of underlying, ahistorical human nature, or as realizations of suprahistorical goals. This third way of visioning, I claim for my own. This is especially true for a new generation of leaders that have making changes in our societal arrangements as their goal.
Instead of perfecting or standing static, I suggest that we change but the direction is not determined as a goal to reach but as a “play” in language and a collective meme – a virus of the intellect. What happens is the leader creates an opening for a new way of using old terms that revise the collective meaning of the original term while holding on to some of it earliest elements. This is the play the Barack is really under taking from my point of view. So in this sense, I have envisioned Barack’s suggested “perfecting” as repurposing a term had lost its power.
But no matter what which strategy of visioning we use, as the saying goes “it will never account for "every sparrow's fall".

















