On the Ayn Rand comment from a listener who suggested that E. Kant was the philosophical bases for liberals:

I can't imagine a generalization like this standing up regardless of how "accurate" the description of the philosopher might be. Kant was wedded to generalities -- his Categorical Imperative was based on a "no exceptions" approach. Your conservative caller did not present a particularly good explanation of Kant and (from his comments) it sounded as though he has had little substantive experience with actual liberals. I would characterize Kant as leaving little room for nuance in his approach to morality. His approach is an "either/or." If it's wrong...there are NO excepations. I am a liberal/progressive because I DO believe that the world is full of nuance and our ability to do good (find the moral path) is dependent on our ability to see beyond a simplistic black/white approach. This isn't what conservatives condemn as "situational ethics," but is is, in fact, contextual ethics. Without context, how can we possibly decide what is moral?

That is the essence of my problem with Ayn Rand's objectivism -- she eliminates the nuances of context. Her path is actually the "easy" one. You just need to decide on a rule -- do what is best for you -- and follow it in all instances. I would not damn all convervatives by suggesting that this is the basis for their political approach, but it is, unfortunately, the approach embraced by many. Some of my conservative friends -- while not Ayn Rand followers, per se -- are comfortable with Kant's approach because they don't like to "do nuance."

I would argue that the philosophers you mentioned are much better aligned with the liberal/progressive approach and I would add another: John Rawls. His argument that we should strive to be "fair" even when equality is unattainable seems closer to the progressive goal...and it draws a clean line between a progressive agenda and socialism/communism as MIS-understood by many conservatives. Rawls focused on emphathy. I find that an incredibly helpful concept when determining the moral approach to a complex issue like health care or tax policy.

Just a thought! Thanks for your daily efforts to bring a little civility without sacrificing your passion for "the good fight." You are always an enjoyable (and educational) listen!

Cathy

When we decide what bills to pay...we don't have to actually cut off the sates voting NO. Just enforce a rule saying all states are limited in how much they are allocated based on their previous years contribution to the federal treasury in taxes.

Thom, I know why you have these right wing blowhards on - but they're really hard to listen to. When they can't hold their own in the conversation with facts and intelligent dialogue, they resort to shouting, filibustering the conversation and talking really really FAST.

They're bullies - plain and simple.

Regarding Force

Objectivists and Libertarians live in the mythical world where taxes are force but the women at the Triangle shirt factory are volunteers. They are fine with the owner of the only water source in the desert charging $100 a glass. They think the Generals should get all of the credit for the victory and that the privates should praise their Dear Leader for allowing them to serve him.