I'm not sure what the map is supposed to tell us - it doesn't measure the depth or nature of religious sentiment - or even what people self-identify as. It reports how many people churches say are in their congregations.

Posted at April 13, 2006 10:49 AM in response to Party of God

It would not be in accord with American values as I understand them...

Doesn't that assume the problem away? I could say X is not in accord with American values because I think American values are in fact cosmopolitan values. There's never a conflict between patriotism and world-citizenship models, then, because they're one and the same!

As far as the liberal-left hyphenation, it does make sense to me. There's a strong progressive streak that on the face value is liberal - it values electoral politics over revolutionary movement, it's policy aims aren't that much outside of a New Deal liberalism - yet which shares with leftism is a systemizing impulse, a vision of power in which money instrumentally and secretly controls vast social and political levers of the media, world finance, the government bureacracy, the legislative process. I'm probably not summarizing it well, but suffice it to say that many progressives sound old school Marxist in their understanding of power, but liberal-humanist in what they want to see effected.

Posted at March 31, 2006 1:47 PM in response to A Few More Thoughts

First time as tragedy, second time farce?

Posted at March 20, 2006 1:55 PM in response to Al Gore

But all the more reason to make sure the Democrats don't suffer from a stylistic populism gap.

But that's what I don't get about the Fancy Ford site. I'd buy "stylistic gap" if Ford were eating at the latest Vongerichten restaurant. But Capital Grille? Doesn't, like, every GOP legislator dine there twice a week? At least that's my image of the place. I'm from TN originally, and while populism works just dandy, I'm finding it hard to believe the most down-home of voters are going to punish a candidate going to steak houses. 

Posted at March 10, 2006 11:40 AM in response to Populism Run Amok

I'm totally behind licensing of movie projectionists. I feel that 1 time out of 10, movie projection is painfully unwatchable, 1 time of 10 it's good, and the rest of the time, it's in a hazy state on not-quite-in-not-quite-out-of-focus.

Posted at March 2, 2006 11:16 AM in response to Licensed to Overcharge

Will We Be the Party of the Moustache of Understanding, or of the People?

Not that we want to impose any false choices on our political discourse, mind you.

Posted at November 11, 2005 11:25 AM in response to Will We Be the Party of the Moustache of Understanding, or of the People?

Prof. Blinder, I agree with your sentiments and overall argument, only I think you ignore that there is a philosophical difference between liberalism and progressivism. It's not just a naming difference: the "progressivism" of today is a cryptosocialism that borrows certain world-system economics and vulgar materialist sociology from Marxism (minus, you know, large scale government redistribution and control of the means of production) and marries it to humanist values politics. "Progressives" want to hold back the forces of history because for them it's the next best thing to actually having the power to overturn relations of production. Naomi Klein and David Sirota disagree with your diagnosis - and are inclined to read it as ideology - as much as an old school Marxist. Not that I do, I'm just saying.

Posted at November 9, 2005 8:12 AM in response to Progressives should be for progress

Talk about specific, concrete meaning of "unsafe." Then take a larger, metaphorical meaning of "unsafe." Since both use word "unsafe," pretend the two issues are equivalent. Then call people who don't participate in such willful confusion shallow souls. Why do people, including the supposedly careful thinkers at TNR, give this fool a soapbox?

Posted at November 1, 2005 9:10 AM in response to Danger Is Good!

I'm just glad you wade through Santorum speeches so I don't have to.

Posted at October 26, 2005 10:19 AM in response to Santorum Speaks

I would second cloudy's point, but let me step back and add that even if both sides in the conference you attended were completely sincere in agreeing to certain chruch-state principles, it's still the case that how they define adherance involves a major perceptual gap. We might agree in principle that an open essay assignment can include religious topics, but in practice the religious right takes umbrage when student can't write on the Bible no matter what the assignment.

By the way, public schools in my hometown of Cleveland, TN had teacher-led prayer (for everyone). As a student I saw this. Don't tell me that no one wants this.

Posted at October 12, 2005 1:07 PM in response to Treading Softly on Common Ground