(1)  I have been assuming that Islamist government come into power and survive in the Middle East because the greater mass of citizens is non-secular and anti-western.  After the Arab spring, it doesn’t seem possible that there could be a successful  secular liberal democratic opposition.  Turkey and Iran are potentially different because they had, at one time, embraced what we would call Enlightenment modernity, but everyone has been telling us that there still are not enough secularists to mount a meaningful resistance to Islamic authoritarians.  I have believed them. 

(2)  As a free market conservative, I would have thought that Turkey, with its booming economy, would be inoculated against this sort of civil unrest.  People who are thriving economically will put up with a great deal politically to continue the good times.  Egypt and Iran might be somewhat vulnerable.  On this theory Turkey could not be.  And yet….

So do we modify or abandon our theories because the facts seem to falsify them, or do we sit back and wait . . .

I don't think this is a state by state problem.  It is more an urban/non urban issue.  In my state, Oregon, the division between Portland and rural areas is so much of a chasm that communication is impossible.  As some of the comments point out, this is not a new division although the leftward movement of the suburbs is new.  When the Constitution was ratified, the conflict between the cities and the "west" in each state was sharper than the conflict between the north and the south.  The west was largely anti-federalist.  In fighting they demanded and got the Bill of Rights.  The irony is that the more rural parts of the country (who fought the Constitution because they saw that it would lead to massive federal government etc.) are now the defenders of the Constitution because it is the only defense against far more tyrannical government. 

Mikesixes:

I live near Scappoose.  The only people with jobs here drive into Portland.  They also oppose anything that looks like it might produce jobs in Columbia County because it would adversely affect their own "quality of life."  And so it goes.  Too many people in Oregon just don't get it. 

Mikesixes,

Spot on.   Speaking of spots, the Oregon Fish and Game is now shooting striped owl because they are out competing spotted owls.  This is considered an environmentally thing to do, but then letting those forests rot and burn is also considered environmentally friendly.  Anything which stops human development, except for the "occasional bistro or coffee shop"  is considered ruinous to NATURE. 

Do you live in rural Oregon?

Update on Josephine County.

Thanks to the a new state government initiative they are now emptying the county jails.  They will soon be emptying the state penitentiaries despite the fact that over 70% of the inmates in Oregon state penitentiaries are there for violent crime and the rest for long records (at least 5 or so) convictions of major property crimes.   To save money they are not contemplating cutting very much higher than average costs per prisoner, but simply closing prisons and putting thee "low risk" groups of people back on the streets.  These low risk crimes include second degree burglary (that's theft with a weapon against a person) and second degree assault, and yes even violent rape. 

The citizens of Josephine County have now organized armed regular patrols.  They have the guns. 

We Oregonians are dumb, but not quite that dumb. 

http://cascadepolicy.org/insider/2013/05/22/citizens-against-crime-makes-burglars-pause-in-josephine-county/?utm_source=Courier&utm_campaign=05de3ab64c-Courier_5_10_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a55906a46d-05de3ab64c-291205181

I don't have first hand knowledge about this research but I would be very interested in hearing from those of you who might know about it. 

In the 1960s (or shortly thereafter) freshman college students were first asked to fill out surveys.  One of the questions was "what do you want to do with your life?  Or what will make you happy."  The purpose of the surveyors seems to have been to ascertain how the new post 60s college experience would improve the lives of individuals.  It was a very large study conducted over decades tracking the same kids.  

The control group were kids enrolled in Christian Colleges.  

The liberal arts students listed their goals in terms of experiences, contributing to the good of humanity (certainly an action), individual freedom etc.  The Christian college kids listed their goals in terms of graduating, getting a job, getting married, having kids.  One of my colleagues examining the data saw that after a couple of decades, by any measure, the kids in the control group were happier and more fulfilled, less suicidal etc.  My colleague published some of that research.

He was denied tenure. 

Mama Toad,

Ivan's argument was fatally flawed.  He (the Grand Inquisitor) argues that the people will only have bread if they give all their bread to the Inquisitor for distribution.  Otherwise they will be in a state of war.

We now know, as free market conservatives, that the only peoples in the world who do have enough bed for everyone are the politically and economically free people.  It is not a distribution problem.  It is a matter of increasing the size of the pie. 

Mama Toad,

People with Downs Syndrome do act.  They act with every smile and every action.  They act out love as an example to others.  

I agree with you that we are all equal as human beings in the eyes of God, but that is like equality before the law.  It does not preclude judgement. 

iWc,

According to Aristotle we are defined by our actions.  We do not define ourselves, we act.  Experience insofar as it is active does not define us.  Passive experiences are an option, but, for the most part they lack what Aristotle would call "seriousness."

In other words, we don't set out to define ourselves.  We do, however judge ourselves.  We should live our lives in daily expectation of the Day of Judgement, because every day is a day of Judgement.  We are responsible for our actions.

I noticed that in today's hearings the repeated theme of the witnesses was that yes, I was the person in authority at the IRS, but no I do not consider myself responsible.  One Congressman responded that even a 25 year old sergeant knows that you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. 

We don't measure our lives on a single scale.  There can be no single scale because the good is not one monolithic thing.  To believe there is a single scale is to commit what Isaiah Berlin calls the monistic fallacy.  How do you compare a good father to a good artist?  There are probably an infinite number of scales and measurements from different scales cannot be reduced to one scale.  The good is intrinsically multi-dimensional. 

Nevertheless each one of us judges our lives and our decisions all the time.  To judge may be to look out upon your work, your decisions, etc. and be able to say "I believe it is good."  God did that in the six days of the creation.   

Jeff,

I am always delighted to meet another admirer of I. Berlin -- that's Isaiah and not Irving. 

You are correct that we can avoid these issues if we are only considering negative rights.  One problem is that the body politic can not (or will not) distinguish between positive and negative rights.  Look at the Constitution of Japan which we helped write.  Look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  Look at the current debates on "rights" to abortion.  We are in fact being asked to fund positive rights and, beyond that, we are being asked to approve of the exercise of these rights with which we do not agree.  

How do we save this distinction in the public discourse?

As a person grounded in both religion and family, I want the state out of marriage and religion, because I believe (based on our history and the first amendment) that that is the only way to preserve both religion and traditional family in the 21st century.  The state's involvement has weakened both.  It has certainly weakened marriage as an institution.  

The person in the middle is the state.  The individual is strengthened and not threatened by religion and family.  The state is weakened by religion, family, civil society, and individualism. 

Dear Fake John Galt,

I know how they view it.  Even if the rich or capitalism do create some poor (which is another argument) the liberal policies also create many poor.  Look at my home town -- Detroit. 

In the Idaho wilderness (where we lived for eight years) a local family had to fight all the way to the supreme court in order to homeschool their children rather than fly them out to a public school for months on end.  That case was, I believed, resolved in the 1950s.  I imagine homeschooling was still technically illegal in some states. 

Herbert, 

If Muslims taught Shaaria at home, I think we would have to accept it provided that they continued to pass the reading, math, standardized tests.  In Oregon, homeschool kids are required to be tested every two years at least in reading and math.   And yes, the same goes for farm kids.  The mandated tests represent the sum total of what the state has a legitimate interest in making kids learn.  I would add a history component, but I shudder to think what the State of Oregon would put in. 

We claim this freedom to educate our kids.  

It would get rid of the problem which automatically penalize (financially or otherwise) people who are legally married.   It would also strengthen the institutions of civil society for which marriage, of one sort or another, is important. 

James of England,

One reason why City College and Cass Tech worked (look at the lists of their alumna) was that they were allowed to accept students purely on the basis of academic achievement. There were other factors but open enrollment (circa 1970)   coincided with the end of these schools. I believe City College in its prime graduated more distinguished alumna than any of the Ivy Leagues.  

Others: The data seems to show that pre-school is at best day care.  There is nothing wrong with day care but it would be much much less expensive if the government and the legal system hadn't started regulating it.  My college couldn't offer pre-school/day care because the insurance premium would have been far higher than all other costs combined.