Tag Archives: mccain

Small Town Values

Posted by on October 4, 2008 10 comments

McCain, Palin and the Republicans have been pushing the theme of small town values. Since McCain and Palin are politicians and not philosophers, they have been rather vague about these small town values. Being from a very small town (Old Town, Maine) and also being a professional philosopher, I thought I’d step in and help them out. After all, that is what we small town folks do.

The view that small towns are havens of moral goodness and cities are cesspools of moral decay has along tradition behind it. When America was a rural nations, people praised the virtues of the rural folks. Philosophers even got in on the game, perhaps the best known being Rousseau. On his view, the youth should be raised in the country and kept from the corrupting influence of the cities. Of course, the belief in small town virtue seems to be mainly the result of a romantic view rather than the result of a proper investigation. In this regard, it is similar in other ways to the wonderful myth of the noble savage.

As noted above, I grew up in a very small town. I also did my undergraduate degree in a small town (Marietta, Ohio). I’ve visited many small town in America and know people from them. I’ve also visited big cities ( such as New York, Boston and Pittsburgh). I did my graduate work in a big city (Columbus, Ohio) and have met many big city folk over the years. While this does not count as a thorough empirical investigation, it does give me a basis from which to assess small town and big town values.

Based on my experience, a person’s place of residence is not a good indicator of their ethical values. I know of plenty of small town folks who are not good folks and I know plenty of big city folks who are morally upright. Naturally, I know plenty of good small town folks and bad city folks. Of course, my experience could be biased in some way and my sample is fairly small: just the thousands of people I have interacted with over the years. As such, it would be wise to not just rely on my experience and judgment.

Of course, there are some reasons to suspect that small town people might be better behaved that city folks.

One factor to consider is that people in small towns have additional incentives over city folk to behave better. As a small town person, I can attest to the fact that what a small town person does in his small town (or beyond) becomes generally known fairly quickly. The anonymity of the big city is absent. Further, a small town person has to interact with the same people regularly in his small town. Big city folk can find other people to interact with if their reputation goes bad with one group. While it might be believed that these factors merely make small town folk better at concealing their misdeeds, it is also reasonable to think that these factors help habituate small town folks to behave better. It is not that small town people are better-they are just better observed and have a harder time avoiding the consequences of bad behavior.

Another factor to consider is that the small populations of small towns means that they have a smaller number of corrupting people and influences. Hence, there is less chance that a small town person will end up under a corrupting influence. Also, bigger cities have more money and the sort of things that tend to attract those with lower moral standards. Hence, it is not that small town folks are morally better. It is just that small towns provide fewer opportunities for the corrupters and the potentially corrupted.

The above is, of course, speculative. Considering the two factors does not tell us whether small town folk consistently behave better than big city folk. To determine this, some empirical investigation would be in order.

One empirical way to examine the question of whether small towns have better values (and follow them) is to look at the crime rates. While this is not a perfect measurement, it does serve to provide a reasonable indicator of the moral conditions in an area. This is especially true in regards to crimes that are not economically based. After all, the frequency of rape in an area says more about the moral values of the inhabitants than does the frequency of speeding tickets.

Interestingly, Palin’s state Alaska does dismally here. Alaska leads the United States in incidents of forcible rape, is 5th in aggravated assault, and is 17th in murder. In contrast, my own home state of Maine has an extremely low crime rate. As with towns in Alaska, Maine towns tend to be small and even our biggest city, Portland, is a rather small city. As such, I certainly hope that Palin is talking about the small town values of my home state and not the state she governs. Of course, perhaps the conditions in Alaska are such that it is harder for those small town values to influence behavior. After all, everything is supposed to be tougher in Alaska. Presumably this applies to not engaging in criminal activity, too.

Based on my own experience and arguments, there does not seem to be a special set of small town values that make small town folks better. As such, the appeal to small town values is what sensible people know: just an empty piece of political rhetoric.

Who to Vote For

Posted by on September 27, 2008 78 comments

With the election coming up soon, Americans are trying to decide which Presidential ticket to vote for. While many people vote based on how they feel about the candidates, a few people do at least attempt to provide a rational assessment before they cast their ballot. This leads to the question of who to vote for.

One way to answer that question is to take the approach espoused by a conservative friend of mine. When asked about voting, he typically says something like “why should I vote for someone who isn’t going to do what is in my best interest?” While we disagree on many things, we do agree on this point. It would, from a rational standpoint, seem to make little sense to vote against your own self interest. No one, as Socrates argued, wants to be harmed and voting this way could lead to harm. So, the rational thing to do would seem to vote for the candidate you believe will act in accord with your self-interest.

While this seems simple enough, there is the obvious problem of determining what is, in fact, in your self-interest.

The most obvious answer is that it is what you think you want and need. Of course, what a person wants and thinks he needs could actually be contrary to his self-interest. After all, self-interest is intuitive supposed to be what is good for the person. For example, many people though they wanted George Bush to be President. Over the last eight years, he has shown most of them that this was probably not in their self-interest.

Another obvious answer is that what is in your self-interest is what benefits you. That seems reasonable enough but does have some problems.

One problem is that people can mistaken about what is beneficial to them. For example, a feminist might vote for Palin because she thinks that would be good for women. However, if Palin managed to get her conservative views made into law, then the feminist might learn that she was quite mistaken. To avoid this, a person needs to be careful in determining what would really be beneficial and which candidate is most likely to bring about such benefits.

On a more philosophical level, a person could be fundamentally mistaken about what is truly beneficial. Socrates discusses the matter at great length and it is a central focus of Plato’s ethical theory. People often regard their selfish wants as being what is truly beneficial and good for them. Hence, this would seem to indicate that people should vote in a selfish manner. For example, since the very rich would be financial better off under McCain, they should vote for him. However, acting in a selfish manner can be an error.

First, there is the moral worry that the selfish voting might lead to a morally wrong situation. For example, voting for a candidate who promises tax breaks for the rich would give the rich reason to vote for him. However, if this would do serious harm to everyone else, then it might be the wrong thing to do. If Socrates is right, acting in this selfish manner would not be in the person’s true self interest. That would be to do what is right.

Second, there is the practical worry that the selfish voting might turn out to be harmful to the person who thought she was voting in her own best interest. For example, many of the people who voted for Bush because they believed he would take a “hands off” approach to the American economy have probably come to realize that they have contributed to the dire financial disaster that plagues the United States and the world. As another example, someone might vote for Obama because of his promises about health care and the belief that they would be better off if he were elected. However, his plan might turn out to be a disaster that makes matters worse.

So, when voting it is wise to consider what is really in your best interest.

Going Negative

Posted by on September 13, 2008 14 comments

I generally find going negative in American politics to be fairly appalling. When the Bush machine ripped into McCain in 2000, I winced as a fine American was being coated in mud by his own party (thus violating Reagan’s 11th commandment). When John Kerry was swift-boated in 2004, I also winced. Once again, an American who had bravely served his country in a time of war was under attack by the Republican machine.

When the machinations for the 2008 American Presidential elections started gearing up, I worried that the candidates would go negative quickly and seek out new slimy depths. While there was some internal strive over race and gender among the Democrats and the Republicans sniped at each other a bit, the process was relatively civil. Mostly, anyway.

When the convention balloons had finally settled, it seemed that McCain and Obama would run relatively clean campaigns. In fact, McCain showed good character in congratulating Obama on his historic achievement of being the first black major party Presidential candidate in the United States . On September 11th, both candidates showed good character (or savvy political skill) by suspending their political battle and walking together.

Unfortunately, after those clean moments, the campaign has started getting a bit dirty. Ironically, McCain is the one who has started the descent towards the usual political filth of lies and viciousness. Recently, McCain drew fire for falsely accusing Obama of advocating sex education for Illinois kindergartners and call Sarah Palin a lipstick wearing pig (she herself claims to be, in effect, a lipstick wearing pit bull).The irony is that McCain himself was a victim of nasty politics in 2000 and he had a reputation for straight talk and good behavior.

The reason for the change seems to mark a fundamental moral shift for McCain. In the past, he was regarded as a man of principle who seemed most concerned with doing what was what right. For example, McCain took a strong stand against the use of torture. However, he seems to be moving away from his old principles and seems to have adopted a classic principle: doing whatever it takes to win.

Ironically, McCain’s people seem to have adopted the same strategies and tactics that were employed against him in 2000. Of course, this can be seen a prudent choice: they worked then and they are working now. While McCain was lagging behind Obama in the polls, he has recently tied and some polls show him as being ahead. While some pundits attribute some of this to his selection of Sarah Palin, it has been noted that his use of negative tactics has proved effective. Part of the effectiveness is that Democrats are not as good at being nasty as Republicans and part of it is that Obama does not seem very comfortable with that style of politics. But, McCain was also uncomfortable with it before, so perhaps Obama will learn to stomach the nastiness as well.

Naturally enough, this raises the old ethical questions about whether employing such means to win is justified. If one takes the view of the classic sophists, then McCain is acting in a prudent matter. After all, to the sophist, what matters is success and one should not be concerned about the means (except in terms of their effectiveness). Of course, to those of a more Socratic bent, that sort of approach is fundamentally flawed. What matters for such people is not success, but being good. As in the ring of Gyges section of the Republic, the candidates have a choice between justice and injustice. McCain seems to have made his.

I was hoping for a better sort of campaign between two decent men. However, I suspect that I will be disappointed once more. On the plus side, this situation has given me excellent examples to use in my critical thinking and ethics classes. Further, it also allowed me to show how the sophists of ancient Greece are still relevant today. They would be quite at home in American politics.