The new puritans

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1136 ... -puritans#

Most telling lines are about two-thirds of the way down.

These folk are so bloody concerned for the health and welfare of others that they suck all of the fun out of even the most joyous of occassions. Or, as goes the old joke:

H. L. Menken once said: A puritan is a person who lives in absolute fear that someone somewhere is enjoying himself.

I'm happy the author says that we liberals need to look at ourselves in the mirror from time to time. Liberalism is, after all, the philosophy of being free from worry, as the author says, not about fretting about soft drink cup size. Our concern should be with the poor and the working people, not with trying to regulate the personal lives of the rest of humanity. Otherwise, we'd be turning into the uptight conservatives we constantly dismiss.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I thought the article was obnoxious. It was purely about shaming people who are trying to safeguard the health of their community, as though doing so was a fussy, Puritanical, liberal thing to do. And shame, shame, shame on anybody who is fussy, Puritanical or liberal.

The pros and cons of water fluoridation is a discussion worth having. But that article isn't it. The writer just takes it as axiomatic that all water should be fluoridated and anybody who is against that has something wrong with them. He then adds on a bunch of other things that he thinks parents are wrong to want for their children, such as limiting sugar and washing your hands before eating. Those didn't used to be Puritanical actions. They used to just be things parents routinely insisted on.

I thought the liberals were against the Big Corporations? That the Big Corporations were simply pushing agendas for profits, in direct opposition to the public welfare, and that was what their fight was supposed to be about, maybe I'm wrong. My understanding this is where much of the distrust comes from, not from freedoms themselves. But yes, there are definitely hypocrisies in both parties. Wherever there are people, there will be problems. I once got lambasted by an extreme paranoid liberal in such a way (the "us vs. them" mentality), simply because I wouldn't 100% agree with him, that I got scared and saw that guy was really just the flip side of the extreme paranoid conservative. Politics are as interesting as train wrecks.

Here's one definition: A "Fiscal Liberal" is a person who believes that economics should focus on and originate from individuals, rather than corporations.

Another: A "Fiscal Puritan" is a person who believes that economics should focus solely on and originate solely from concern for the health, security, and safety of individuals, rather than corporate profit.

Are these two definitions at odds, or is the "Puritan" ideal more like the liberal flip side of extreme conservative paranoia?

Fnord, I'm not really sure which of the two is the "more" flip side of the paranoid conservative. I think there are varying shades of conservatives as well, and not all conservatives should be painted with the same broad brush any more than all liberals should be. There are many reasons why people align themselves with one side or another, and I tend to piss off both sides because I will take neither side, because collectively both of them scare me. These days they both just look like backyard bullies fighting each other with their big, fat, moral sticks.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

These days, the "Neo-Puritan" label could also apply along to extremists from both the conservative and liberal camps, and in full light of H. L. Menken's definition "... a person who lives in absolute fear that someone, somewhere is enjoying himself".

An extremist Liberal might live in fear that someone is enjoying his Corporate profits, while an extremist Conservative might live in fear that someone is enjoying his Government handouts.