Behind the scenes, Susan and I have continued the exchange on "intrinsic evil."
We agreed that discussion about the theological concept of intrinsic evil certainly does not preclude a prudential political analysis about the means to reduce the evil - but current political debates often skip this second step. One reason for this may be that candidates who emphasize the moral categories are significantly weaker on the more practical and prudential aspects of the political analysis.
However, there is a second element. While one side in this debate tends to emphasize moral categories and ignore practical and prudential aspects of the policy analysis, the other side tends to be unwilling to entertain the moral dimensions at all. As Susan put it so well, "I think you have to have two sides willing to discuss the issue in moral terms before the issues of effectiveness of approach will make it to the table." (On abortion, for example, if the party line is that nothing less than total free access to abortion under all circumstances can even be on the table, many are not about to engage in a discussion of effectiveness of achieving the moral aim.)
Perhaps this is, in some ways, an expression of what David Brooks in his 10/2/04 NY Times oped framed as a tension between "Sense and Sensibility." He saw in last week’s debates not so much "a clash of ideologies, or a clash of cultures. It was a clash of two different sorts of minds. . . . The atmosphere of Kerry's mind is rationalistic. He thinks about how to get things done. He talks like a manager or an engineer. The atmosphere of Bush's mind is more creedal or ethical. He talks about moral challenges. He talks about the sort of personal and national character we need in order to triumph over our enemies. His mind is less coldly secular than Kerry's, but also more abstracted from day-to-day reality."
"Each cast of mind comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. The mechanically minded Kerry is much better at talking about realities like securing the Iraqi border. On the other hand, he is unable to blend his specific proposals into guiding principles. . . . . Bush, by contrast, is steadfast and resolute. But his weakness is statecraft. That is the task of relating means to ends, of orchestrating the institutions of government to achieve your desired goals. Bush sometimes acts as if it's enough for a president to profess his faith. But a coach can't just dream up a game plan. He has to understand what his specific players can and can't do, and adapt to those realities."
Yet another example of the need for variety in political parties and political perspectives - and the potential in the course of the exchange to balance each other out?
Amy & Susan
