Left2Right
By Everyone’s linking to this new blog started by Velleman, whose work I don’t personally know, but who I know is a big name in philosophy.
But the rest of the roster brings the star-studded, high-flying world of tenured political theorists into the blogosphere. Such luminaries as Elizabeth Anderson, Don Herzog, David Estlund, David Schmidtz, Josh Cohen, Kwame Appiah, Richard Rorty, Debra Satz, and George Sher. And more. For those who don’t know political theory, trust me, it’s a distinguished and impressive list.
I haven’t read all the posts, but at first glance, they’re a bit uneven. This post is rather unfortunate–David V. suggests it would be strategic to punt Roe in favor of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion to some unspecified point in the second trimester, after which point they would be significantly restricted. Presenting this as a strategic matter doesn’t make much sense, as such an amendment isn’t on the political table, while Roe clearly is. Of course, Roe may be vulnerable, but that’s no reason to assume this or any other legal/constitutional guarantee of abortion rights would be just around the corner, as Scott has patiently explained at some length in this space. But perhaps worse is that David V. reveals, for reasons unspecified at this juncture, that he considers abortions after around 18 weeks morally objectionable. Now he’s an ethicist, and from what I’ve heard a pretty good one. If he thinks abortions after 18 weeks are immoral, he should say so, and tell us why. Be an ethicist! (Perhaps he has in other forums, I don’t know). But one of the first lessons of thinking strategically about politics is to remember that your political preferences and good political strategy may not go hand in hand, and you’re doing no one any favors when you pretend they do.
This one doesn’t sit well with me either. It begins by suggesting the academic community needs to do a better job defending itself from David Horowitz’s nonsense (you’ve got me so far!), proceeds to a suggestion that faculty list secondary interests in race and gender issues to signal political affiliation, and in no time at all is suggesting that Brian Leiter’s hypothesis that maybe (just maybe) moreacademics vote Democratic because, well, the Democrats are actually, y’know, right (or more accurately, as Leiter might say, less demonstrably insane and morally depraved) is beyond the pale. I’ll be the first to admit that such an assertion is impolitic, but as an empirical matter I think it’s worth some exploring. Frankly, I wouldn’t be a Democrat if I didn’t. The implication appears to be that Leiter shouldn’t have said it because the right might take it the wrong way. Which raises a question–when is it OK to say things I think are intrinsically worth saying, but might make some on the right think less of the Democrats or the left? Obviously, I should censor myself in some settings. But a quick perusal of Leiter’s blog should make it clear it’s hardly an outreach project to conservatives, which is fine. We need public space where we don’t have mind our p’s and q’s to avoid offending any sensitive conservative ears that might be listening in.
There are some other posts that are rather good, and some that are well covered and a bit pedestrian, if correct, in the blogosphere. Which that much firepower, I have high hopes it’ll turn out to be worth reading. However, I must say I’ve got mixed feelings about the whole project. How better to try to communicate with various constituencies on the right is a serious and important concern, as it’s clearly necessary to get at least some portion of them to knock it off.
Still, I wonder. I like political theorists as much as the next guy, but I don’t know if there is any particular reason to believe political theorists are going to crack that particular nut any better than the rest of us. Perhaps more to the point, I’d (selfishly) like to see these people blog about political theory, or whatever else they want to.
Nevertheless, I’ll be reading. But I don’t except anything as impressive as “What is the Point of Equality?” or “How to Deserve” to emerge anytime soon.