I find the use of the Weberian concepts intriguing. At least, the way I understand Weber's 'ethic of responsibility' and 'of ultimate ends' is as a distinction between rubrics explaining policymaking and policy stances. I always assumed Weber considered anyone involved in public life could not avoid promoting policies that fall into one of the two categories and would be particularly disposed to an ethic of responsibility because no policy benefits everyone or even all supporters. The question a Weberian might ask is whether a politician steeped in an ethic of ultimate ends could govern and whether alll of these ultimate ends add up to a composite platform for governing.
Ossof is jewish. unfortunately, that may disqualify him to many in today's Democratic party. The same holds true for Shapiro, who I consider to be an excellent candidate.
In fact, the Democrats have a really good crop of candidates, but the Israel war has divided the party to such a point that many of them may be unpalatable to the far left. And the far left is very powerful in today's party.
Surely there must be a politically shrewd way to leverage such scolding from a narrow slice of the Left into credibility with a broadening independent vote. Many voters who were uncertain about a youngish politician from Illinois watched him resist his own party's more radical voices and decided they could trust him to move the country forward while keeping it together.
Why is common sense so hard for the left to understand? Anyone who studies American history should be able to see the sense of Weberian moral pragmatism. Litmus tests of purity have been fatal to many attractive POTUS hopefuls who would have had a fighting chance if their own party had rallied to their side. Are we to learn nothing from the horrors the current regime is inflicting?
Thank you. The vacuum created by the lack of a working class Party in the US is always filled by Protestant moralising. This peculiar US politics arises from decisions made 120 + years ago when US unions rejected the principle of forming a labor union based political party. Doubtless race had a lot to do with that decision. The results have been less than optimal for the US working class of all races and ethnicities. It also partly explains imo, the dominant liberal ideas that support US FP and the lack of any real institutional pushback against them.
Good article. The political Right has the same problem - if you don't toe the line on every issue, you are done. In a country that practically worships at the altar of Individual Liberty, it's amazing how there is almost zero room for individual thought in politics. We are told by charlatans what to think, and like sheep, we obey.
thanks for this David. well said
I find the use of the Weberian concepts intriguing. At least, the way I understand Weber's 'ethic of responsibility' and 'of ultimate ends' is as a distinction between rubrics explaining policymaking and policy stances. I always assumed Weber considered anyone involved in public life could not avoid promoting policies that fall into one of the two categories and would be particularly disposed to an ethic of responsibility because no policy benefits everyone or even all supporters. The question a Weberian might ask is whether a politician steeped in an ethic of ultimate ends could govern and whether alll of these ultimate ends add up to a composite platform for governing.
Ossof is jewish. unfortunately, that may disqualify him to many in today's Democratic party. The same holds true for Shapiro, who I consider to be an excellent candidate.
In fact, the Democrats have a really good crop of candidates, but the Israel war has divided the party to such a point that many of them may be unpalatable to the far left. And the far left is very powerful in today's party.
Brilliant.
Thank you!
Surely there must be a politically shrewd way to leverage such scolding from a narrow slice of the Left into credibility with a broadening independent vote. Many voters who were uncertain about a youngish politician from Illinois watched him resist his own party's more radical voices and decided they could trust him to move the country forward while keeping it together.
"The pointless war"?
Why is common sense so hard for the left to understand? Anyone who studies American history should be able to see the sense of Weberian moral pragmatism. Litmus tests of purity have been fatal to many attractive POTUS hopefuls who would have had a fighting chance if their own party had rallied to their side. Are we to learn nothing from the horrors the current regime is inflicting?
Thank you. The vacuum created by the lack of a working class Party in the US is always filled by Protestant moralising. This peculiar US politics arises from decisions made 120 + years ago when US unions rejected the principle of forming a labor union based political party. Doubtless race had a lot to do with that decision. The results have been less than optimal for the US working class of all races and ethnicities. It also partly explains imo, the dominant liberal ideas that support US FP and the lack of any real institutional pushback against them.
Good article. The political Right has the same problem - if you don't toe the line on every issue, you are done. In a country that practically worships at the altar of Individual Liberty, it's amazing how there is almost zero room for individual thought in politics. We are told by charlatans what to think, and like sheep, we obey.
Strange that you don’t comment on the Platner situation. Do you consider his critics to be moralizers, too?