Home » Blog » Failed Conservative Values: Arun Akkineni on Self-Righteousness
Blog for America
Failed Conservative Values: Arun Akkineni on Self-Righteousness
Linked to groups: East Bay for Democracy, Oakland DFA Meetup, Lake Park, San Francisco for Democracy, Alameda for Democracy, California for Democracy, Courage Campaign, Take Back Red California, Capitol Area Progressives (CAP) , What are Progressive Values? Study Group, DFA-Link Organizers, Walnut Creek DFA, Blog For America, Blogs United, DFA Film Club, DFA-Marin, DFA Night School, Silicon Valley DFA, brought to you by Dean Democratic Club of Silicon Valley, Framing Committee, Florida DFA, NJ for Democracy, Democracy for Florida, Democracy for New York, Democracy for Texas, Democracy for NYC, PA for Democracy, Democracy for Washington
If you think that you are where you are just because you worked hard, it is easy to become self-righteous and make classist moral judgments about others. Charlotte Bunch
I interviewed Arun Akkineni about Failed Conservative Values. He felt that self-righteousness is a Failed Conservative Value and it's scary and dangerous. With self-righteousness, you see the world as black and white and don't see the nuances. You also don't incorporate other peoples ideas, which makes for poor decision making. He points to the current conservative administrations creation of the war and occupation of Iraq, as an example.
Failed Conservative Values: Arun Akkineni on Self-Righteousness
I’m Arun, and I’m here to answer a few questions about progressive values. I’m from Alameda, California.
There’s something very fundamental that I look at in regards to conservative values which is from the perspective of so-called righteousness. It seems to be very engrained in conservative thought that you have to be righteous – that’s a given value.
But now as someone who’s progressive or liberal, I’m more accustomed to looking at values from the perspective of different opinions, being more open to thought and perception, more open to the changes around me. And I find that my opinions based on what I learn from others.
At the same time, the collective opinions that helped me form my opinions are actually far broader in scope than something that’s based on a degree of righteousness that I proclaim. So that’s a fundamental difference between what’s conservative versus what’s really progressive in many ways.
EDWIN: Is that righteous or self-righteous?
ANSWER: I would put it down to self-righteousness. If I would take a few conservative speakers – I wouldn’t like to name any – but you do see a great degree of self-righteousness in them. And self-righteousness can be a bit dangerous, especially because a lot of things are quite relativistic in this world, and you can’t have a black and white reality to things.
Our current president is an example of someone who takes black and white, which doesn’t really work in civil society as we know it, because as mature individuals, and as mature, rational human beings, we actually think in terms of various perspectives, and we know that there might not be one given answer to a certain issue. So you can have two or three different solutions. But some solutions might be better than others. But a certain self-righteousness can extend to where you really live by it and proclaim it. It could be dangerous. I would say it’s fatalistic.
EDWIN: How has conservative self-righteousness actually failed in American society?
ANSWER: I think the war in Iraq is a good example of it. You know, the whole idea of extreme private economic liberalism, and the way things are being orchestrated in Iraq, the private military enterprises that are going in, is an example of an extreme degree of thought – you know, a belief in the righteousness of a certain ideology rather than actually putting in the perspectives of various people. Because good policy really happens when you have taken the opinions of people and you enact on top of the opinions that the public actually talks about or wants something.
So if you don’t really take the public into consideration, you can’t really have effective policy. The policy that you see being derived are frustrated in Iraq in terms of the foreign policy itself. It’s very disjunctive from the requirements of what is really needed on the ground.
Of course, it’s a whole other debate. Even going to Iraq was a mistake altogether. But you can definitely see this aspect of conservative policy which actually doesn’t really inculcate the values of the people who are on the ground. It seems to be very biased to the bureaucratic thinkers who are setting the policies, and who want them that way.
So that to me is a bit scary. It’s like when you live in a civil society or in a society that’s democratic, and you’re trying to talk about democratic values at the end of the day, then the opinion of people matters. So you need to have policy thinkers who are able to actually incorporate the values of people, rather than being encompassed by self-righteousness ideologies. And this is one thing that is very scary, in my opinion.
One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others. Moliere
Self-Righteousness Definition:
http://onelook.com/?w=+Self-Righteousness
- Convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
- Believing that your ideas and behavior are morally better than those of other people:
- Confident in one's own righteousness, self-assured, smug.
The book of Job warns us against self-righteousness, since no man can justify himself to God.
- Confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.
'Well, self-righteousness is better than no righteousness at all, isn't it?
Some Questions for Discussion:
- How would you improve these Progressive Values Stories?
- If self-righteousness is a Failed Conservative Value, what is the alternative Progressive Value? What is the opposite of self-righteousness?
Failed Conservative Values
I ask for your assistance to systematically build the arguments and tell the stories that reveal how Conservative Values have Failed. Join in our effort to create a documentary and book on the subject by contributing articles, posts, chapters for the book and video clips. Check our website for more information and a growing outline of tasks that need to be done on this project.
See More Progressive Values Stories:
Edwin Rutsch
What Are Progressive Values? Documentary Project
http://ProgressiveSpirit.com
and DFA Study Group
http://www.dfalink.com/group.php?id=2285
Show: Expand All Reply
but I will take Obama. Dean for VP!
Our dedicated activst friend Cheryl could use your votes:
http://democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/73-cheryl-r
I hope everyone is going to do what they can in their states to stop McCain. He would be worse than Bush.
said it is not an American's "god given right" to have a job.
- Neither is it a "god given right" for CEOs
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 3:35 PM EDTto take good American factory equipment overseas and donate it to Communist China, for an extra buck and a few hundred $million in salaries.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5V3L/commentary
|
By Christopher Hass - Jun 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm EDT |
Barack just concluded an economic policy speech in Raleigh, North Carolina. The speech marks the kick-off of a two week tour focusing on the current economic crisis and the need for new economic policy:
...
Also on hand for the speech were John and Elizabeth Edwards:
to talk to the people of NC. He made a hit in Va last week.
- RE: By Phil Specht on Jun 9, 2008 1:59 PM
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 3:32 PM EDTEquality is a "higher than thou" set of principles?
Orwell never imagined that wrinkle.
=================
This comment consistent with elitism. You imply that one who disagrees with you is against "equality" in the abstract.
The contention that the way the word "marriage" has been defined (that it is a direct indication of ignorance and/or bigotry against gay people) is a self-righteous perspective, invented by people who think the definition should be changed include gay people.
Of course there are bigoted people among those who think the definition [of "marriage"] should not be changed (a very small minority IMO,)
But for you to call ALL those who subscribe to the traditional definition (roughly half or more of the population) "bigoted" and "ignorant" or "against equality" reeks of elitism and self-righteousness.
That is a higher "than thou attitude," and also a wedge issue, which clearly seeks to bring a very small minority of religious right people into the vote booths in September, who will probably vote Republican when there, since the elitist wing of the Democrats is rallying the gay marriage issue with such condescension and contempt for those who don't agree with them.
Webster's:
- Main Entry: <dd class="hwrd">mar·riage
- Pronunciation: <dd class="pron"> \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ </dd>
- Function: <dd class="func">noun </dd>
- Etymology: <dd class="ety">Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry</dd>
- Date: <dd class="date">14th century</dd>
</dd>
- As I've said, Thankful, Personally I am neutral
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 3:59 PM EDTon the issue, with regard to the principle "to each his/her own" and I am certainly not against a particular religion incorporating what they want to call "gay marriage" into their list of sacraments.
However, to impose an official state definition of a word upon this culture that is different from the prevailing view, the historical definition, without consent, by law, is where the courts overreach.
Constitutional principles should not be used to dictate the redefining of words, unless those words directly effect the equal treatment clause of the Constitution. What you call a gay union does not IMO, especially since there have been attempts to treat gay unions legal equivalent to marriages for legal purposes.
This is legislating by judicial decree.
set out in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that dictates that state governments cannot pass or enforce any laws based solely on a specific classification of person by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age.
http://www.answers.com/topic/equal-protection-clause?cat=biz-fin
Equal protection
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protectionU.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws...Fred, I think you're wound up way too tightly about this. The word is not being redefined in some people's view and is in others. IMO the court did not overreach, they examined years of cases, were very careful in their wording in the decision, and the bottom line is they found no compelling reason to call a union betwee *any* two people something different for one singeld out group.
I accept you see it diferently than I, I respectfully disatree, and see no reason to have any further discussion.
She is a true progressive. You can phone bank for her. I am going to tomorrow.
The contention that the way the word "marriage" has been defined (that it is a direct indication of ignorance and/or bigotry against gay people) is a self-righteous perspective, invented by people who think the definition should be changed include gay people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, the supreme court of California disagrees with you. And thankfully, *they* have the power, not you.
- You are talking about the opinion 4 people
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 4:18 PM EDTAnd three more who disagreed. The dissenting opinion was compassionate and reasonable. The majority ruling is reams of repetitious globetty-gook comparing the plight of gays to slavery (what a cruel joke for struggling single moms) - IMO, a travesty.
Those who ruled in favor were doing a pontius pilate act, (washing their hands) I suspect, laying the groundwork for the battle in November, which would get them off the hook either way. Don't forget, they were Republican judges. All but one.
- I don't want the bogus "power" these judges exercised
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 4:22 PM EDT"Well, the supreme court of California disagrees with you. And thankfully, *they* have the power, not you"
=================
In this case, the people of California have the power, and thankfully, your ego-centric judges do not.
But unthankfully, Democrats could lose the golden state over this bogus issue.
about California on this issue especially. We've been here before and since then, minds have been opened and enlightenment has taken place, and that includes other parts of the nation. Not enough, I would dare say, for some but thankfully they don't count up to much.
- If you want to call yourself "enlightened"
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 4:53 PM EDTFor believing the definition of the English word "marriage" should include homosexual unions, well, fine. I have no objection.
But you have no right to label those who don't share your opinion as bigoted, ignorant, and contemptous towards homosexuals. That is a self-righteous attitude. And judges certainly have no right to call such a definition-change (without legislation) a matter of equal protection. That is the kind of nonsense ruling that perpuates the myth that wing neocons have a valuable role to play in our culture.
chill Fred, life is not so binary as all that
Just trying to distill the argument, which has a tendency to fly off into idealistic platitudes, which is characteristic of a gender indentity issue.
Too often do people accumulate all the anger and injustice of that nature, that they've ever seen, and make it directly germaine to an issue that has no direct or practical relationship to such animosity.
- No - your imagination is taking you to assholeness
By Thankful2Thankful4Dean on Jun 9, 2008 6:05 PM EDTIt is you flying off post after post. It is you who in post after post say it's ok for someone to have their opinion, but yours is right. It is you and your m.o. of pounding an issue into the ground that evokes animosity - it's far past being about the issue, it's, frankly, that you are getting quite annoying.
- Who, exactly, used those descriptors?
By Denise in San Mateo County on Jun 9, 2008 5:19 PM EDTWho is saying anyone is bigoted or ignorant? You keep using those words but I haven't seen them being used by anyone else. Are you assuming that is what people think you are? If so, this is not about gay marriage at all.
Stick to the freaking subject. My answer was about California not voting Democratic in November. How you came to this response is beyond me (as is usual with some stuff you post).
- "Descripters? What descripters? I don't see no descripters Oh! THOSE descripters"
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 5:41 PM EDTgimme a break. Anyone who disagrees with your contention is bigoted hateful scum. That has been stated pretty clearly here
So buzz off if you're going to start making stuff up. And direct your comments to those who have used those words. I have not.
- It is the foundation of your whole schpeel
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 5:51 PM EDTPeople who don't want to call it "marriage" hate gay people, and are igorant, bigoted neocons.
I'll point it out to you next time it is insidiously or clearly stated
BTW mind your blog manners. I'm feeding two kids and running cable.
bbl
- Sorry Denise, don't have time to search quotes
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 5:47 PM EDTBut the insinuation is made indirectly at the argument, not personally. That is the foundation of your argument, as Phil stated this morning, to deny gays the legal title of "married" is bigoted, ignorant, and hateful.
- No time to go in circles with you either
By Denise in San Mateo County on Jun 9, 2008 5:54 PM EDTAnd you of all people should not be preaching about manners.
Go join the small crowd on this blog who interpret things that just are not there. Thankfully it's a small crowd.
Courts have often declared existing law unconstitutional. It happens, and then legislatures have to deal with the ruling. What you've been saying here is the same argument that went against inter-racial marriage. It didn't work then and it will no longer work in the 21st Century.
With regard to Gay marriage in particular. Your arguement would hold water if you were talking about a lifestyle choice rather than a genetic difference between Gays and Heterosexuals. You are confusing between what people are as opposed to what they choose to do. This is bigotry, pure and simple.
- We are talking about definitions of a word here
By Fred from Oregon on Jun 9, 2008 5:38 PM EDTSubway - you are making that bigger than life, and the law. That is what the judges did.
I'll stand by what I said above. I would have loved to perform at my Brother's wedding. I don't care if a particular church officiates in the ceremony. I want legally sanctioned marriage, withe all the rights that go with it.
It doesn't make gay people a race or even an ethnicity. It cannot be proven, and won't ever be proven that all gays are congenitally gay. For some it is, for some it is a choice, for some it is a neurosis (there are similar hetero illnesses)
By the same token, asexual people have the sameparameters. It is not strictly genetic, and two friends homo, or hetero, who have no interest in sexual indulgence, but simple live together, do not have a "right" to marriage.
- From DFA to Leslie.. who headed Dean's campaign in NOVA in 2004
By linda b on Jun 9, 2008 3:42 PM EDTTried and True Progressive” Byrne Endorsed by Democracy for America
For Release: June 3, 2008
Contact: Joe Fox
(703) 537-0470
joefox@lesliebyrne.org
“Tried and True Progressive” Byrne Endorsed by Democracy for America
Dean: “Leslie has stuck to her progressive principles and stood up against the odds”
Fairfax, VA–Continuing to build momentum after the endorsement of seven members of the House’s Out of Iraq Caucus and a poll showing her in a dead heat for the Democratic nomination, Democracy for America (DFA), our nation’s largest progressive political action organization, yesterday announced their endorsement of former congresswoman Leslie Byrne for Congress in the primary in Virginia’s 11th congressional district. Calling her a “tried and true progressive,” DFA members have been and will continue to help Byrne leading up to the vote on June 10.
“Leslie Byrne has strong roots in the community, having served the people as a former congresswoman, state representative and state senator. Time and again, Leslie has stuck to her progressive principles and always stood up for what’s right,” wrote Jim Dean, Chair of Democracy for America. “Leslie Byrne stood up against the war before it was the popular thing to do, and we’re confident she will show that same leadership in Congress.”
Democracy for America and its more than 700,000 members work to support progressive candidates and train activists to play a substantive role in the political process and their community. DFA played a critical role in helping the Democratic Party recapture the Senate in 2006 with their work for candidates like Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
- for Volney Simmons a couple of threads back
By Pat in Colorado on Jun 9, 2008 4:17 PM EDTHi Volney,
What you said about a zero/sum argument resonated with me. Sue Wonder who writes in the Home Forum for the Christian Science Monitor lives on a farm in Indiana, I believe. They have retired Belgian draft horses, a few goats, and a dairy herd that has also retired. She writes beautifully. The animals live at their leisure after a life time of contributions.
One of her essays was on communication with animals. She had inadvertently left a faucet running and the goat came and got her, looking at her with what she interpreted as a puzzled expression. She followed the goat and discovered the running faucet.
I think that animals and the earth are far more intelligent that we urban humans realize, and I suspect the knowledge they have is important to us.
As far as euthanasia goes, I don't want animals or humans to suffer when there is no way to alleviate it. And as a human, I'd rather the resources go to the living and the young in particular than to me if I can't think, move, do anything that is a contribution.
Sorry for the interruption into the thread, but I wanted you to know, Volney, that I read your posts.
I just heard that Paul Newman has lung cancer. He's one of the good guys. Keep up the fight, Paul.
My brother and I were just talking about him yesterday, discussing the "H" movies he has done - Hud, Harper, Hombre, etc
Bless you Paul, Joanne and family
- Yes it's not clear - seems, if he does have it, it's been around for awhile
By Denise in San Mateo County on Jun 9, 2008 4:46 PM EDTI interviewed Arun Akkineni about Failed Conservative Values. He felt that self-righteousness is a Failed Conservative Value and it's scary and dangerous. With self-righteousness, you see the world as black and white and don't see the nuances. self-righteousness is a sin not a moral value.
- I found many foreign source references, though, about it
By Denise in San Mateo County on Jun 9, 2008 4:51 PM EDTOne of my facorite Seve Goodman songs is "The Last Dieing Request of a Cubs Fan"
"When I was a boy, they were my pride and joy,
But now they only bring fatigue,
To the home of the brave, the land of the free,
And the doormat of the National League!"
- Saw some messages on gay marriage
By WISH IT WERE HOWARD DEAN on Jun 9, 2008 5:58 PM EDTfor it 100%. Why make laws that strip people of quality? No bans on gay marriage. Civil unions is not enough. imho
to go to a church and have a ceremony, and call it a marriage.
Because if it's a Law then bigots can't question its legitimacy under the Law!
I can't see how you don't get that.
welcome :-)
won't get you insurance or inheritance rights, or child custody rights, or even the right to be left alone. Why not just give everybody equal rights under the Law?
If I said you can "call" what you and your wife share a "marriage?" What if I said that I don't think men with beards should be able to marry? You really sound just as silly.
Deaning on
Progressive values
bloggisms....
I see there's a new thread, gonna go get the linky
- I see Dean people...
By linda b on Jun 9, 2008 3:00 PM EDTand they are the progressives we have been looking for....