Sam, your “interviews” are turning into must reads for me: is it the quality of your guests or the probing nature of your questions? Doesn’t matter; I love them. But you live in Central Asia? I so pictured you in New York!
Thank you, that was very good. I am befuddled at the idea that "sexual charge" is the runway into politics. I think this is an artifact of TV. A moral education program such as Lefebvre and Rawls are suggesting would encourage people to think of politics and creating a space for everyone's equal participation as simply part of everyday life.
Lol. Lefebvre was a bit befuddled too. This is something I’ve been kind of obsessed with recently - along the lines of Henry Kissinger’s “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” The idea is that power is rooted in inequality and sexual attraction is rooted in inequality and the heart of political power is men competing with each other to impress women. And the people who tend to self-select towards being close to power tend to have a heightened sense of this urge to dominate. I find this to be a kind of iron equation between sexuality and politics that is very difficult to reconcile with the kinds of liberal ethics that Lefebvre discusses.
I mean, your humble correspondent has never watched Jon Hamm play a cop for whom law and order is a way of distilling something very dark inside of him. Would never dream of such a thing. ("The Town" is clearly one such movie. You are obviously supposed to root for Ben Affleck instead but the character is not nearly as dark as Hamm's in "Fargo") Having dispensed with this sarcasm, I would point out that liberalism is in part defined by giving up on the idea that government can make people perfect. People are going to have passions but government gives people a way of turning those passions into a thing that is public-spirited. If I am interested in finding a mate then I can do honorable things in public and become worthy of admiration thus increasing the network that is interested in getting a mate for me.
I also remember the very dark time in late 2010 when even Ezra Klein was concerned that Obama would cut Social Security and told him not to do it. I had to think that the fundamental fiber connecting me to Democrats was that Christian Nationalists are not in power when Democrats are in power. Part of this is preserving sexual freedom but not all of it.
"I’m trying to do interviews with people who have fundamentally changed my worldview..." What better starting point can there be for an interview, and the result is impressive. Really good questions, and answers that makes you take a step back and really reflect. Thanks!
The hinge moment for me was the admission that Lefebvre sends his daughter to a fancy private school whilst knowing this to be inherently unfair. A liberal only part the way down it seems.
I believe that Lefebvre is being too hard on himself on this issue. I believe it’s a parental imperative to impart all advantages to one’s children. I might even go as far as saying if you don’t - it’s borderline abuse. Systems of inequality are much too complicated, and deliberately abstaining from opportunity will not necessarily result in equality. What liberalism bumps up against is the great sacrifice required to move up in class. It often involves leaving one’s family and community in ways that can be psychologically traumatic. Many choose not to do that. Those who do move up find that regardless of the ways in which one might try to merge the two worlds they now inhabit — it is, if people are being honest, impossible. This is often overlooked as a component of how the culture of poverty replicates itself. Rawls' “difference principle” is good but misses the point that just throwing money at it alone won’t solve the problem. Also missing from most liberal policies is helping parents parent and understand finances. They believe that universal Pre-K is the magic bullet. It’s set up to fail because in many cases it’s the home life that prevents learning. It is a brutal and complicated cycle. To break the cycle, you must educate the parents before you can help the child.
Surely this depends on what you consider to be an ‘advantage’. I might consider a comprehensive education to be preferable to a private one - greater diversity, local context, community spirited etc. Your definition of child abuse is bizarre. Liberalism is a political philosophy of privilege. It’s about protecting freedoms one already has. Not too much evidence of liberalism amongst the poor and oppressed, after all. Having said this, I do find many of Rawls’ ideas to be compelling from an ethical standpoint.
What do you mean by comprehensive education? Are there any advantages you have that you would hold back on giving your children in the name of fairness?
Again, the word ‘advantages’ is subjective and contextual. Advantages aren’t ethics free because they usually imply someone else’s disadvantage. Private schools are inherently unfair. A comprehensive education is provided free of charge by the state for all its citizens. The removal of private education would guarantee a better state system, thus increasing everyone’s stock of freedom and opportunity. Only those who enjoy its unfairness, its elitism, wish to keep the private system. As Lefebvre freely admits, his use of the private system is ethically inconsistent with his liberalism.
Removal of private education will not guarantee a better state system. First, public schools comprise the majority of schools in the US: 50 million students attend public schools and 4.5 million students attend private schools. Out of the 8.2% of students attending private school, the majority of those schools are religious — not elitist.
I am not denying there are elitist institutions with outsized influence, but the picture is not black and white not even within prestigious institutions. Just as within public schools there is now stratification with Charter Schools.
The issue of how to educate is complex. It would be nice if we could solve its problems by removing private schools. It’s just not that simple. For those reasons, I believe Lefebvre is too hard on himself on this issue.
The experience of countries like Finland and Denmark suggests that limiting/removing access to private education does indeed improve the state system. Nothing about education is "black and white" or "simple" but the question remains - what is ethical and most fair for the whole of society? Are you suggesting that maintaining private schools is most fair?
Per capita, the number of private school students in Denmark is about 3,263 per 100,000 people, which is roughly twice as high as in the USA (1,676 per 100,000 people).
This shows that while the absolute number of private school students in the U.S. is far larger due to the much higher population, Denmark has a higher proportion of students attending private schools relative to its total population.
Choice is a liberal value. More Danes choose private school than their US counterparts even when their public system is better funded than ours. This highlights the variety of good reasons why people choose a private school. It’s not inherently an unfair practice. I am not ignoring the fact that some people use the private system for less than noble reasons, but the problems with public education in the US are not linked to the few who go to private schools.
Not so much an interview, but a two-sided (and open-hearted) conversation. It made for a wonderful and illuminating read.
Sam, your “interviews” are turning into must reads for me: is it the quality of your guests or the probing nature of your questions? Doesn’t matter; I love them. But you live in Central Asia? I so pictured you in New York!
Thank you, that was very good. I am befuddled at the idea that "sexual charge" is the runway into politics. I think this is an artifact of TV. A moral education program such as Lefebvre and Rawls are suggesting would encourage people to think of politics and creating a space for everyone's equal participation as simply part of everyday life.
Lol. Lefebvre was a bit befuddled too. This is something I’ve been kind of obsessed with recently - along the lines of Henry Kissinger’s “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” The idea is that power is rooted in inequality and sexual attraction is rooted in inequality and the heart of political power is men competing with each other to impress women. And the people who tend to self-select towards being close to power tend to have a heightened sense of this urge to dominate. I find this to be a kind of iron equation between sexuality and politics that is very difficult to reconcile with the kinds of liberal ethics that Lefebvre discusses.
I mean, your humble correspondent has never watched Jon Hamm play a cop for whom law and order is a way of distilling something very dark inside of him. Would never dream of such a thing. ("The Town" is clearly one such movie. You are obviously supposed to root for Ben Affleck instead but the character is not nearly as dark as Hamm's in "Fargo") Having dispensed with this sarcasm, I would point out that liberalism is in part defined by giving up on the idea that government can make people perfect. People are going to have passions but government gives people a way of turning those passions into a thing that is public-spirited. If I am interested in finding a mate then I can do honorable things in public and become worthy of admiration thus increasing the network that is interested in getting a mate for me.
I also remember the very dark time in late 2010 when even Ezra Klein was concerned that Obama would cut Social Security and told him not to do it. I had to think that the fundamental fiber connecting me to Democrats was that Christian Nationalists are not in power when Democrats are in power. Part of this is preserving sexual freedom but not all of it.
(Sometimes Americans will think of a president in particular as more a surrogate head of household than someone they are attracted to)
"I’m trying to do interviews with people who have fundamentally changed my worldview..." What better starting point can there be for an interview, and the result is impressive. Really good questions, and answers that makes you take a step back and really reflect. Thanks!
Great interview!!
The hinge moment for me was the admission that Lefebvre sends his daughter to a fancy private school whilst knowing this to be inherently unfair. A liberal only part the way down it seems.
I believe that Lefebvre is being too hard on himself on this issue. I believe it’s a parental imperative to impart all advantages to one’s children. I might even go as far as saying if you don’t - it’s borderline abuse. Systems of inequality are much too complicated, and deliberately abstaining from opportunity will not necessarily result in equality. What liberalism bumps up against is the great sacrifice required to move up in class. It often involves leaving one’s family and community in ways that can be psychologically traumatic. Many choose not to do that. Those who do move up find that regardless of the ways in which one might try to merge the two worlds they now inhabit — it is, if people are being honest, impossible. This is often overlooked as a component of how the culture of poverty replicates itself. Rawls' “difference principle” is good but misses the point that just throwing money at it alone won’t solve the problem. Also missing from most liberal policies is helping parents parent and understand finances. They believe that universal Pre-K is the magic bullet. It’s set up to fail because in many cases it’s the home life that prevents learning. It is a brutal and complicated cycle. To break the cycle, you must educate the parents before you can help the child.
Surely this depends on what you consider to be an ‘advantage’. I might consider a comprehensive education to be preferable to a private one - greater diversity, local context, community spirited etc. Your definition of child abuse is bizarre. Liberalism is a political philosophy of privilege. It’s about protecting freedoms one already has. Not too much evidence of liberalism amongst the poor and oppressed, after all. Having said this, I do find many of Rawls’ ideas to be compelling from an ethical standpoint.
What do you mean by comprehensive education? Are there any advantages you have that you would hold back on giving your children in the name of fairness?
Again, the word ‘advantages’ is subjective and contextual. Advantages aren’t ethics free because they usually imply someone else’s disadvantage. Private schools are inherently unfair. A comprehensive education is provided free of charge by the state for all its citizens. The removal of private education would guarantee a better state system, thus increasing everyone’s stock of freedom and opportunity. Only those who enjoy its unfairness, its elitism, wish to keep the private system. As Lefebvre freely admits, his use of the private system is ethically inconsistent with his liberalism.
Removal of private education will not guarantee a better state system. First, public schools comprise the majority of schools in the US: 50 million students attend public schools and 4.5 million students attend private schools. Out of the 8.2% of students attending private school, the majority of those schools are religious — not elitist.
I am not denying there are elitist institutions with outsized influence, but the picture is not black and white not even within prestigious institutions. Just as within public schools there is now stratification with Charter Schools.
The issue of how to educate is complex. It would be nice if we could solve its problems by removing private schools. It’s just not that simple. For those reasons, I believe Lefebvre is too hard on himself on this issue.
The experience of countries like Finland and Denmark suggests that limiting/removing access to private education does indeed improve the state system. Nothing about education is "black and white" or "simple" but the question remains - what is ethical and most fair for the whole of society? Are you suggesting that maintaining private schools is most fair?
Per capita, the number of private school students in Denmark is about 3,263 per 100,000 people, which is roughly twice as high as in the USA (1,676 per 100,000 people).
This shows that while the absolute number of private school students in the U.S. is far larger due to the much higher population, Denmark has a higher proportion of students attending private schools relative to its total population.
Choice is a liberal value. More Danes choose private school than their US counterparts even when their public system is better funded than ours. This highlights the variety of good reasons why people choose a private school. It’s not inherently an unfair practice. I am not ignoring the fact that some people use the private system for less than noble reasons, but the problems with public education in the US are not linked to the few who go to private schools.
Henri ( !!! ) Lefebvre does better…