Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

That’s a lot of reaction over a loose interpretation. Confucius believed that individuals ought to devote their energies towards the perfection of their own character, a goal which he realized could never be completed because the “perfect character” wasn’t a state. Instead, it was a process of walking a certain path (the Tao) of becoming more and more virtuous.

Somehow I doubt that Obama thinks that at some point, given the right amount of energy and effort, that we can arrive at the time when human institutions are perfect. Instead, it seems a _wee_ bit more charitable to think that he’s talking about the job of trying to make them _more_ perfect, or virtuous, or whatever.

Now, you might disagree with that too (which you go on to suggest), and that’s fine (although he might agree that govts should be constructed to restrain the “baser parts” of human nature), but to disagree with his desire to see “perfected” institutions established is a straw man at best.

If he is only striving for perfect he falls behind our founding fathers. They were striving for a more perfect union.

Steve

Obama has a vast resume of pefecting a lot of stuff!  Right?

I believe that the Founding Fathers spoke of “to form a more perfect Union”. They were speaking of something that they were going towards.

Obama on the other hand says he “believes in our ability to perfect this union”. 

There’s nothing wrong with striving for a more perfect Union, but one is deluded when he “believes if our ability to perfect this union”.

The tragic view of human nature says that is not possible--and about the time you reach a mental age of oh say 25 or so, you realize that perfection is not within reach.  Obama is not there yet.

Gee, has anything like what Obama suggests ever been tried in the way of live experiments?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/10/why-utopias-fail-oped-utopia08-cx_mh_0410hodak.html

The Framers and PJ and you and B16 all “get it,” the tragic view of human nature—vs. the Left’s utopian, blank-slate, noble-savage one that denies any such thing as human nature—that acknowledges the dark side in all of us and tries to design political institutions—the U.S. Constitution comes to mind—that channel our potentially destructive human nature into productive self-fulfillment (can you say invisible hand?) that redounds to the good of the larger community.

Professor, cher.
Other religions don’t believe in original sin.  What is wrong with their governments?
I think “God made man in his image” is code that translates to “We are perfectable”.
Government is just a process towards that end.

Griefer, did you even read the post?  What is wrong with other governments (or most in human history) is precisely that they don’t believe in original sin, or at least don’t consider it important to keep dynamic, even well-meaning leaders from becoming tyrants.  The USA, by happy accident, was founded by people who did, and considered it important enough to codify in law.

<quote>As a Christian, Obama should be aware of the full implications of The Fall.</quote>

Well, yes.

But his “Christian” church prefers to make all problems Whitey’s, by default.

Yours, Tom Perkins
molon labe, montani semper liberi, & para fides paternae patri

Obama has made a lot of great and soaring things he WILL do.  He just hasn’t said how, although he has discussed raising taxes.  I agree with T.Shaw, show me the resume.

Because human beings are imperfect and flawed, is the reason we need the Pax Corleone:  http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=17008

McCain and Obama should read this article.  I think Mac is far closer to the ideal than Obama.

You noticed that phrase, too!  It was like a splash of cold water: this is the essence of the American left--they love an America that exists only in their mind’s eye, and despise the actual America. He gave himself away on that one.

When left-leaning friends argue over all our imperfections and sins, I say, yes, but we are evil COMPARED TO WHAT? 

Obama is one of them.  He wants the bureaucracy to perfect our union.  Frightening.

The senator from Illinois delivered his campaign message to a multiracial evangelical congregation in traditionally conservative Greenville, South Carolina. “I think it’s important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party,” Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.

“I think that what you’re seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the ‘90s,” said Obama. “At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away.”

[snip]

He finished his brief remarks by saying, “We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

http://www.conservativeblogger.com/archives/2007/10/obamas_kingdom_on_earth.php

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300257,00.html

This quote certainly hammers the point.  My interpretation is that Obamma is not a christian believer, perhaps a black liberation theology believer.  For mainstream christians, the “kingdom” will be brought not by a politician, but a carpenter.

Other politicians have believed that they could bring the Kingdom, such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot.  How did that work out? 

We have a remarkable Constitution that reflects human nature (informed by christian theology).  Lets focus on how we can preserve it.  (Hint, not by electing a politician who is bringing us the Kingdom).

I think “God made man in his image” is code that translates to “We are perfectable”.

How New Agey!!!!! ---- How Fascist!!!!

Again, see A. Hitler
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

Nietzsche’s “complete man,” synonymous with Hitler’s “whole man,” represents a version of the “blond beast,” or “beast of prey,” who returned to the wilderness to free himself from the peace of society. Nietzsche associated the “magnificent blond brute” with the Roman, Arabic, Germanic, and Japanese nobility, who were all “rampant for spoil and victory.” Nietzsche’s blond beast, which becomes associated primarily with Germans when it resurfaces as the “blond Teuton beast,” is mankind’s hope to reach its full potential (Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, III 10).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think “God made man in his image” is code that translates to “We are perfectable”.

The vast majority of theologians believe that it translates to “Man has free will”.  Prominently enough this is translated in our own founding document in the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”—not the pursuit of perfection.

If BO were getting any traction, which he isn’t thank God, his supporters would be pointing to drivel like this as proof of his JFK bona fides.

The Framers and PJ and you and B16 all “get it,” the tragic view of human nature—vs. the Left’s utopian, blank-slate, noble-savage one that denies any such thing as human nature.

Yikes, what a horrid alternative.  Good thing it’s a false one, eh?

The third alternative is the one that the Enlightenment was reaching for, but did not quite make it before Immanuel Kant interrupted the process: the view of human nature as, well, natural.

In this view, human nature simply is, like all the rest of nature.  Human nature per se can no more be “flawed” than the nature of rocks or clouds.

Howeve, there is one aspect of human nature, which is what makes it unique versus the rst of nature—that is the attribute of free will.  A reasoning and morally sovereign mind is what makes human beings unique.

It is therefore *here*, within the character of each individual, where good and evil are to be found—because it is the individual who authors his own character, and who is therefore responsible for it. 

It is not human nature which is the blank slate; it is a man’s character which is so. 

Human nature is the physical slate itself, which sets limits on how much may be written and what instruments may be used to do so—but it does not and cannot dictate or influence *what* is written there by the writer, which is each one of us.  It is in this sense that the slate is blank—there are no innate ideas.

Thusly are the contradictions—and commonalities—of the Leftist and conservative/religious views revealed.  The Left despises man as he is, and seeks to make him into something he is not.  The religious conservatives also despise man as he is, but resign themselves to this lot, “tragic” as it is.

It is this view towards which the Enlightenment idea of “human perfectibility” was striving.  It was the perfectibility of human character that they sought to realize, not the perfection of “human nature”; for that simply is what it is. There is no innate character, no unchosen ideas—and therefore no unchosen moral <i>responsibilities<i> or “moral flaws”. 

On the contrary: this notion of “inherited guilt”, whether the Left’s version as seen in environmentalism or “race guilt”, or conservatism’s “tragic” view, both stand revealed for what they are:  an attempt to escape the awesome moral responsibility for one’s own character and choices… and successes and failures.

That fear is what motivates this kind of “imperfectability of human institutions” claptrap; it is a global excuse for permanent failure ahead of the fact, identical to the notion common amongst Leftist academics that “empires always fall” (packaged with the unstated assertion that America is just another empire).

That is why this eagerness to despise all mankind exists; it provides an escape route for those seeking to evade the awesome moral responsibility for the content of one’s own character.

To each of you who subscribe to evasions, seking to blame the “moral flaws” of human nature rather than face the responsibility for the failures of your own chosen ideas, I offer the only proper response you deserve:

“Speak for yourself, buster.”

Seerak,

Viewed in isolation, it’s true enough that human nature isn’t flawed, any more than a rock or a cloud is.  The problem (so to speak) arises when one *compares* human beings, rocks, or clouds to a standard.  Just a a rock can be judged as flawed, compared to a standard, so too with human beings.  And the standards for human beings are almost always derived (for good or ill) from religion.

I think even an atheist will admit that the Bible is incisive commentary on the human condition, and that much of it is a useful guide to upright conduct.

I think a proper understanding of the Bible and many other religious texts leads one to believe that human beings are not perfectible.  That imperfectiblility does *not*, however, relieve us of the duty of trying to adhere to the standards of upright conduct laid out for us in those texts. 

The “tragic view” of life isn’t an excuse, Seerak.  It’s a challenge laid before us by God to live up to His standards as best we can.  And politics is a damned poor road by which to achieve improvements in our Fallen state.

Uh, seriously, people.  Reference to the preamble to the Constitution?  Come on.

Paul,

The Preamble makes reference to a “more perfect Union”, which the Framers thought a desirable thing, as the Union under the Articles of Confederation wasn’t working very well.  Fortunately, the Union under our present Constitution *did* very much improve, becoming “more perfect”.  (Some Southerners in the early 1860s disagreed, but that’s another can of worms.)

What Obama and other advocates of “big government” (whether they’re Republicans or Democrats) seek is the use of the power of government to iron out the imperfections in society, which in turn means ironing out imperfections in people-- you can’t have a perfect society without perfect people.  The problem is that any government that *has* tried to perfect its people has found that it has to employ a *lot* of iron, in the form of clubs, knives, pistols, fences, and prison bars.

How is that inevitable *abuse* of people consistent with the rest of the Preamble:  “....[to] establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”?  Not consistent at all-- look at the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, or any other tyranny, past or present, which traces its roots back to the French Revolution of 1789.

Our own Revolution in 1776 succeeded because it was conservative-- it took human beings as it found them, and sought only to erect a government consistent with human nature.  The French, in their Revolution of 1789, embarked on a radical program to change humanity to conform to its radical ideals.  That revolution ultimately failed, but it didn’t stop monstrous dreamers like Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and their followers from attempting the same thing, at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives.

I think I’ll take our very much imperfect Union as it is, thank you very much, Senators Obama, Hillary!(tm), and McCain.