Whoops. And here I thought we lib’rul types were always bothering people about “obligations” they did not choose: to humanity, to ideals, to groups that have gotten the short end of the stick for our benefit.

What’s So Scary About Liberalism?

Liberals tend to view themselves as live-and-let-live people. It’s the other side, we believe, that wants to start wars, keep the poor in their place, and make second-class citizens out of gays, non-Christians, non-English-speakers, and anyone else who didn’t come out of their cookie-cutter. We’re the nice guys. We believe in tolerance, diversity, and letting people be what they have to be. It’s hard for us to credit the idea that someone could be afraid of us.

Someone is. And for good reasons. Understanding that uncomfortable fact is the first step towards grasping what has been going on in this country’s politics for the last quarter century.

Our belief in negotiated commitment - that people are not obligated to relationships they did not choose - is like one of those devastating European germs that white settlers spread throughout the world three centuries ago. We are immune; our families are based on negotiated commitments and (though they are far from perfect) work quite well in that environment - as long as we can maintain the social safety net.

But Inherited Obligation families are not doing nearly so well.

Anthony, as you know, self-reflection goes very much against my nature…

What if you get a young woman, who for whatever reason takes your class, and resists it? She doesn’t fight you, argue with you, disrupt your class - she answers the fact based portion of it accurately enough, but is unpersuaded when all is said and done. More sonfirmed in her traditional white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant values>

Are you a failure, then? Is she?

I came across unduly harsh; I intended to point out the possibility that there is some selfish benefit for you in what you do, more so than accuse you of actually taking that benefit. But the prospect is really there, and your self-analysis (in the previous post) implicitly rejects the possibility without a good explanation.

OKOP is not solely about a particular socio-economic class and ethnicity, but about shared values as well. By inviting your students to share your values instead of those they grew up with, you’re asking them to become OKOP. If you succeed, they are becoming OKOP (and I say “our”, because other than politically, I’m very much like you in that respect), even if they don’t become Episcopalian, either in faith or in behavior.

That’s actually a positive thing, as the values you impart, by and large, are better than the values they were brought up with, and you don’t (as far as I can see) try to convince people to drop those more traditional values which will serve them well in their life. Many immigrant parents want their children to adopt *some* American middle-class values, because those are what lead to prosperity. But those parents miss the rest of the message, and without someone to explain the rest of it, children of immigrants may end up believing their choices are their parents values, or the values of the ghetto.

However, your defensiveness indicates you’re not entirely comfortable with examining the question of power and of your interests. What you say outright wouldn’t give me pause - what you’re doing is an exercise of power, but generally a legitimate one (especially since they have to take up your invitation to give you any real power), but there’s something about your tone in both the previous post and this one which says that you’re not comfortable with it. I’ll leave the soul-searching to you; I’m just telling you what I see on the surface.