Wednesday, April 15, 2009

These were two interesting chapters that I know answered a lot of questions I have about republican liberalism. Dagger makes several clear, practical (insofar as they are things that could conceivably be done) suggestions that helped me understand where he's coming from. As a caveat, much of the criticism I think would be relevant to his argument is based in concern over cultural pluralism/immigration/etc., but I'll hold off on those questions til we get to his defense.

The question of apathy is interesting. As Jasmine brought up in class on Monday and Dagger echoes here, sometimes apathy can be a good thing--particularly in a world with large numbers of uninformed voters. I'm surprised by the small amount of time he spends responding to these arguments; he merely notes that we can't accurately measure preferences and and that low voter turnout decreases the perceived legitimacy of elections. I don't mean to downplay the importance of these arguments, I was just surprised based on how thorough he is elsewhere that he would be so brief too. I think his best argument is an indirect one made later on: that the benefits we associated with apathy (removing those who don't care from the pool of voters) are less likely to be a problem in a world where voter turnout is increased. That was unclear I think. I mean to say that if more people vote (through, say, compulsory voting) people will likely feel the need to be more informed and thereby do so.

Although maybe not a central concern of republican liberalism, the big argument I have in favor of compulsory voting are the potential effects it can have on poverty. Studies indicate that countries that institute compulsory voting see decreased levels of poverty. This makes sense conceptually, given that the lower class tends to vote less frequently and, when they begin to vote, politicians then have to consider their interests. We would be remiss to separate republican liberalism from equality, so this argument could be given in support of his discussion.

On the second chapter, I have only a few comments now but a lot I'd like to discuss in more detail tomorrow. First, isn't it fascinating that as the avenues for communication have supposedly opened up we seem to know less and less about each other? While there is a ton of statistical evidence, one need only think anecdotally to come to this conclusion. We've discussed this some in class, but as I reflect, I can't believe how astoundingly isolated I've become from large groups of people that, in past times, would have been regular conversation partners. I don't think I have a distaste for them or anything, but instead that its so easy to be alone. Interesting.

Second, and this sort of hints at my concerns about pluralism, which groups would be effected in the best and worst ways by Dagger's suggestions? Who gets the most and least benefit? To ask the Rawlsian question, does it work to advantage the worst off in society compared to where they would be otherwise?

1 comment:

  1. Yea it is really interesting to think about how isolated we have become in our lives. We very truly only interact with people we choose to and for the most part dont even notice we are doing it. It is very odd thinking about because we have so manyy people using the internet and cell phones these days which would make it seem that we are more connected than ever and yet we dont have the everyday interactions that used to be so common in living within a community we just have the power to talk to those we want to with greater ease. This definitely plays a role in how we view the community we are apart of. What really caught my interest was the schooling issue. In small schools which is what I went to there is a sense of obligation to be more involved because of the knowledge that without your involvement there is a chance that the activity would stop functioning due to lack of people. This promotes some civil virtue and at the same time the bonds we form with other students and teachers creates a sense where people know the students as individuals which encourages students be more autonomous people.

    ReplyDelete