David Brooks challenges Rand. (I have a feeling that Randites or Randians or Objectivists or individualists would say Brooks' mixed commitment to the collective represents the main problem with modern American conservatism.) You can read Ryne Sandberg's comments and say "What a great and selfless man " or you can say "What a selfish, self-important, pious prick--NAZI soldiers did what they were "supposed to" too." Or you can feel and say something in-between.
No matter what, I still don't like the Cubs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think the article would have been more convincing if Brooks gave a rationale for why the rules passed down from preceding generations.
The part that bothered me greatly was this:
"The rules of a profession or an institution are not like traffic regulations. They are deeply woven into the identity of the people who practice them. A teacher’s relationship to the craft of teaching, an athlete’s relationship to her sport, a farmer’s relation to her land is not an individual choice that can be easily reversed when psychic losses exceed psychic profits. Her social function defines who she is. The connection is more like a covenant. There will be many long periods when you put more into your institutions than you get out."
I think the problem with politics is that it is more about identity than facts. People are unwilling, and rightly so, to compromise their identity. That people should so willingly inform their identity from their career or any institution is not a practice to be lauded.
Post a Comment