Wednesday, February 15, 2012
"Merits and Motives": A response to Bob Hockett
I'm happy to agree with Bob that, as a general matter, it is better (and more Christian) to examine the merits of actions and proposals, rather than to speculate about or insinuate regarding the motives of those acting or proposing, and that -- generally speaking -- a hermeneutic of charity is to be preferred to one of suspicion.
Sometimes, however, the evidence is what it is, and points where it does. As Bob himself writes: "[t]here are limits to this policy [of charitable interpretation]. Some people ultimately confirm our most frightful fears, and it likely does more harm than good to pretend otherwise in at least some such cases. It just doesn't seem to me that we're at that point here." With respect, when it comes to this issue (school choice & education reform) -- one that I follow very closely and with which I am very involved -- I do think we are at that point. The proposed re-killing of the D.C. voucher program is indefensible on the merits (to quote Poppie, "On this issue, there can be no debate!" [insert disarming smiley-face emoticon here]), and the low-and-partisan-motives hypothesis -- considering the relevant evidence, history, and context -- best explains the phenomena. As Bob says, "it . . . does more harm than good to pretend otherwise[.]"
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/merits-and-motives-a-response-to-bob-hockett.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
With respect to the need for charitable assessments, and evidence of low- and partisan- motives, I have this to say. I think charitably about others. I voted for President Obama. I've never voted for a Republican for president in my life. President Obama sold himself as a new and different kind of politician. I had high hopes. The dropping of the defense of DOMA was partisan and not legally required (ask some line DOJ attorneys who handled the cases); the compromise-that's-not-a-compromise was ham-handed, insensitive, and legally suspect; and now the vouchers (which I know nothing about and don't really care about, but will take RG's word for it). I'm a Democrat, and a supporter, and a charitable thinker, and I'm dismayed by the low- and partisan- actions of our president. It's sad, really.