Must Read Blogs

Andrew Sullivan
Michael J. Totten
Little Green Footballs
James Lileks
Instapundit
Classical Values
Rachel Lucas
Pejmanesque
USS Clueless
Winds of Change
Samizdata.net
Daniel W. Drezner






 
Archives

<< current












 
Scenes from the front line of life in Portland, Oregon, USA.

Email

Syndicate This Site(RDF/XML)




























Jason Holliston
 
Thursday, November 11, 2004  
Blue State Secession?

While a vast majority of people aren't taking this seriously, there are some that are. A writer on Information Clearing House wrote a long piece entitled, "The Case for Blue State Secession: Why Prolong this Marriage?", arguing for a real, honest-to-God secession of the so-called Blue States from the rest of America, citing irreconcilable differences. Most of it is utter blather, stringing up the usual Conservative stereotypes, and isn't worth anyone's time to take down. Here's an obvious example, with Rene G, the author, using the metaphor of an abusive relationship that no one wants to talk about:

The Blue States cry in the bedroom with a new, fresh bruise on its face, and the Red States is in the living room watching football, occasionally having guilty feelings and clutching a Bible and a beer for support.

It's amazing how many people in this country will bob their head up and down in agreement to that drivel. Then again, about 20% of Americans think that the Sun revolves around the Earth. So, there you go.

What really caught my eye in this piece was this statement:

Morally speaking, no individual should be forced to accept the moral world-view of another; and if we take that logic to its conclusion, no congregation of peoples (in this case, our blue states) should be forced to accept the moral world-view of others (the red states), and vice versa.

I've never seen a more perfect example of moral relativism. This has been bothering me for quite a while, as I hear it quite often with regard to the Iraq War, and the wider war on Islamic fanatics. "Who are we to decide what's right or wrong for them?" Even in our war in Afghanistan, I heard die-hard feminists cry out, "Imperialism!", while we lifted up burqa-wearing women, and let them choose, to a much greater extent, what lifestyle they wished to lead.

So the question comes down to this: is there anything that is truly wrong? Not just for you, or for me, but is applicable on a universal basis. Let's go over the basics, and go from there: murder and theft. These are basic moral wrongs that transcend culture. The definitions do range, somewhat, through the world and through history, but the basics are still the same. We can span out from there. How about assault or rape? Are those considered basic wrongs? To say that no one should be "forced to accept the moral world-view of others" you would have to agree that these are not, necessarily, moral wrongs. It just depends on your world-view, right?

Back to the so-called secessionist idea. I live near Portland, Oregon, a very blue city in a slightly blue state. Idaho is next door -- just about as red as you can get in these maps floating around the Internet lately. What Rene G is saying is that, due to the laws of moral relativism, Oregon should separate from Idaho, since Oregon voted for Kerry by a single-digit margin. Remember, though, that while Portland voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, large sections of Oregon voted for Bush. By her own rules, let's just say that only the cities that voted for Kerry secede, while the rest stay with "Jesusland". Or, we could take that one step further, and say that only those houses that voted for Kerry secede.

I think you get the point. While the author says that it's not right to push your morality on another, she is quite content on pushing her morality on the people geographically near her. I'll assume that, as a Blue Stater, she's likely pro-choice, for public schools, for entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and likely a supporter of gay marriage. Is she only "for" these things for herself, or does she think that everyone should have them -- and pay and accept them? I'm betting that it's the later. This is just a case of someone who is not taking losing very well, I believe.

In any case, I find it interesting that the same people that have a "moral world-view" about a set of things (like mentioned above), and want to make these policies coast-to-coast, do not believe that these ideals apply to anyone outside the United State's geographical boundaries. It's a self-defeating game, in the end. If you logically follow that line of thinking, which is a watered-down version of moral relativism, you're forced to concede that your ideas are only your own. This would result in a true form of anarchy, where government in any form is immoral, since any law passed and enforced is simply the will of the people to force some brand of right and wrong on a people.

What's the other direction of this line of thought? I believe it to be recognizing that there are true right and wrongs in the world, and those wrongs should be stopped whenever possible anywhere they might happen. Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind.

9:38 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment
 

States -- World66



World -- World66



This page is powered by Blogger.