Kentucky Focus

For those interested, I have begun a "podcast" of my radio program, Kentucky Focus, a weekly public affairs program aimed at Kentucky listeners interested in what goes on in various parts of the state. You may download the program or subscribe to the podcast, if you're able. If you don't know what a podcast is, then don't worry, it's just a geek term for a geek toy.

I have a few friends I may be bringing to the next meeting. I'm glad it's being held at a place where beer and food can be consumed. Nothing against libraries, mind you.

Lakoff and Understanding Metaphors

At this point, I think I am being ridiculous, certainly not giving uptake to the previous posts, but I would help Caleb and others lay a lot on the table so we could digest what we want when we want. George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, has a lot to say about discourse, language choice, and frames. Here is a link to an article he wrote about conservatives and liberals. I like some of what he says, but by no means do I completely buy into it.

Giving Uptake

A professor I know, Avery Kolers, posted a comment about discourse between liberals and conservatives, or differing political perspectives, from a philosophical viewpoint. He calls it giving uptake. Here I repeat what he said on another blog, U of L's philosophy blog.

I originally posted a version of this as a guest post on Rodger A. Payne's blog. I thought I'd repost it here since it discusses Nancy Potter's work.

“RedAmerica” and “Blue America” are, as some commentators took pains toshow in the days after November 2, misnomers. We share our politicalsystem, a culture, a language, a set of experiences, and much of ouriconography. The vast majority of members of each side are Christian.But when the two sides say “moral values” I suspect that they don’teven share the concept.

Then, each side is shocked—I suspect genuinely—to find itself accused of exactly what it accuses the other of: arrogance,immorality, disregard for democratic procedures, making America weaker,failing to “support our troops,” etc.

Republicans have deluged the local paper with op-ed pieces and letters charging Democrats or liberals with arrogance, elitism, and of course, being sore losers. The only positive judgment they’ve offered is that John Kerry did the rightthing—by conceding without litigation. Generous praise indeed!

On the other hand, liberals and Democrats express their ressentiment by circulating “The Concession Speech that Kerry Should Have Made” (wherein he is supposed to say, “I concede that I misjudged the power of hate”) — not to mention "Fuck the South.”

This is a problem of uptake — a moral concept that Nancy Potter taught me to appreciate. Giving uptake is different from agreeing or evenbeing civil. My brother-in-law and I remain perfectly civil most of thetime, but he gives me zero uptake, and that has made it impossible for us to talk. (Maybe I’m doing the same to him, and can't tell?) To give uptake requires us to see how the speaker could hold acertain position genuinely, honestly, rationally; and then to take itseriously, and, if we disagree, treat it as a legitimate view to be opposed with good arguments. You can be civil simply by saying, “well, you have your views and I have mine.” But that isn’t uptake. Uptake allows the other to make a kind of claim on us; it is not merely tolerating others’ views, but engaging them in a certain way.

A general practice of giving people uptake on their strongly held beliefs, at least about public issues, is a public good, one of themost important public goods to be secured by a democratic government because it makes the difference between a deliberative democracy and a mere contest of interest groups.

One of the most galling things about the Bush administration is its rampant free-ridership on this public good: the stunning lack of uptake on issues that many of us seeas very serious. If you think that looting in Iraq after the invasion should not be stopped, okay, give us the argument; but don’t just shrug off the “messiness.”

If you think that enough safeguards are in place to prevent abuses of the “USA PATRIOT” Act, okay, then explain what those safeguards are and how they work, or at least why we should be less concerned about civil liberties; don’t accuse people of aiding terrorists. If you think it was worth going to war in Iraq even though the main justifications evaporated, okay, give us the argument; don’t just lie about it or ignore the question. Etc.

But one thing that happened in this election was that liberals andDemocrats were accused, at least by the “moral values” voters, of also free-riding on the public good of giving uptake. This was pretty surprising, and disturbing—or so I thought. And maybe, just maybe, the accusation was true. Certainly the responses I mentioned above suggest that it was.

So here’s my question: How do we increase provision of the public good of uptake? How do we increase the extent to which eachside gives uptake to the other(s)?

I hereby call for concerted effort to contribute to the public good of uptake. This may be a prisoners-dilemma-type situation. Those who give uptake may find that they are free-ridden upon, or worse. But if enough of us do it, thenthe public good will be provided, free-ridership be damned.

You might think that it’s impossible, pointless, or even accommodationistto give uptake to someone who thinks you should have no protection against discrimination, let alone the right to get married. You might think the same about someone who thinks your national homeland shouldnot exist as an independent state. Or you might think that the effort will never be reciprocated, so it’s a losing strategy. But what’s the alternative? Secession? Exile? The further erosion of any approximation to deliberative democracy?

Discussions

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting series called Talking with the Enemy, "A series to help Americans bridge the bitter red-blue divide." While I don't like the intensely simplistic Red vs. Blue paradigm, I do think it's at least instructive to help folks learn how to talk to one another.

Another book along the "learning how to listen" vein is Prometheus Rising, by Robert Anton Wilson.



Wilson's approach is to teach you about your own "reality tunnel" and how we all tend to "choose" our own realities, even if we're not aware of it.

Book Suggestions

I recommend the following books for a quick, occasionally painful political education:

Yes, it'll be painful, but there are two books by James Bovard in there. One is an attack on the Bush Administration's War on Terror. The other is an attack on the Clinton Administration's reckless disregard for the rule of law. The other two books simply offer frameworks for looking the political landscape.

Organizational Update, Draft Mission Statement

Seven of us attended the meeting on the 13th and made progress on several fronts. As we have asked participants to define themselves politically we spent several minutes discussing each other's perspective and acknowledging agreements and differences.

One of our goals is to establish a fairly short reading list of books that will aid folks in understanding different opinions and perspectives. So several selections were discussed. These have been posted on our blog; we invite you to add to the list by commenting on the post. We will review and revise the list with an eye toward creating a broad selection of concise material. We invite everyone to offer their recommendations (electronically or otherwise).

As this group has evolved our focus has narrowed and become more defined. In fact, at the last meeting we created a draft of what may become our mission statement. Below are the crude elements of what we've been able to agree on. It is a description firstly, of who we hope to be and secondly, the things we plan to do. Please review the draft and offer any re-wording or additions at or before the next meeting. We plan to adopt a final version then. (This has also been posted on our blog, so feel free to make any comments there).

Mission Statement:

"We aim to be a widely diverse group of people seeking to build common ground while respecting differences. Our goals are to 1.) Raise the level of dialogue, 2.) Promote common courtesy, 3.) Learn about and from each other, 4.) Examine political and social issues from every possible perspective, 5.) Discover other viewpoints and 6.) Provide avenues for community action."

Welcome to the new COFOUND group

Hi everyone. This is the web log (blog for short) for COFOUND, or Coalition for Understanding. People of various political philosophies meet in person, twice a month, in Southern Indiana and Louisville to talk about social and political issues. Members, of which there are at least ten, are free to make blog entries about various social and political issues they want to discuss. Nonmembers are free to post comments in reaction to these posts.