21:00 is a really important moment in this conversation. Stephanie attempts to articulate what I believe is THE fundamental difference in the philosophy of the large political groups that can't seem to agree on much of anything in modern America. The question is, do the ends justify the means? One side seems to believe that yes, and i…
21:00 is a really important moment in this conversation. Stephanie attempts to articulate what I believe is THE fundamental difference in the philosophy of the large political groups that can't seem to agree on much of anything in modern America. The question is, do the ends justify the means? One side seems to believe that yes, and if we can just get to that end (e.g. racial equity across society) we will all be better off for it. The other side (Glenn's "side") believes that no, the means are far too important to do away with for "ends" that are often seen as arbitrary or utopian in nature. I see this dichotomy constantly in online discussions.
Maybe I'm old and cynical, but I've grown convinced there isn't a political end. Won't ambitious power-seekers always call the status quo oppressive? Life isn't a bowl of cherries, so it's effective to tell voters, "Vote for Pedro and all your wildest dreams will come true." It's the rare voter who smiles upon hearing, "Work your hardest, obey the rules, and hope for the best."
As for Stephanie's ends-justifies-the-means mindset, I'm reminded of an Asian speaking after the recent murder of a young Asian woman in NYC, stabbed to death by a stranger in her own apartment. "We don't care about your social experiment. We want our safety back."
21:00 is a really important moment in this conversation. Stephanie attempts to articulate what I believe is THE fundamental difference in the philosophy of the large political groups that can't seem to agree on much of anything in modern America. The question is, do the ends justify the means? One side seems to believe that yes, and if we can just get to that end (e.g. racial equity across society) we will all be better off for it. The other side (Glenn's "side") believes that no, the means are far too important to do away with for "ends" that are often seen as arbitrary or utopian in nature. I see this dichotomy constantly in online discussions.
Maybe I'm old and cynical, but I've grown convinced there isn't a political end. Won't ambitious power-seekers always call the status quo oppressive? Life isn't a bowl of cherries, so it's effective to tell voters, "Vote for Pedro and all your wildest dreams will come true." It's the rare voter who smiles upon hearing, "Work your hardest, obey the rules, and hope for the best."
As for Stephanie's ends-justifies-the-means mindset, I'm reminded of an Asian speaking after the recent murder of a young Asian woman in NYC, stabbed to death by a stranger in her own apartment. "We don't care about your social experiment. We want our safety back."