Posted by Jay Livingston
George Packer in The New Yorker (here):
The sociologist Max Weber, in his 1919 essay “Politics as a Vocation,” drew a distinction between “the ethic of responsibility” and “the ethic of ultimate ends”—between those who act from a sense of practical consequence and those who act from higher conviction, regardless of consequences. . ..
.
Weber’s terms perfectly capture the toxic dynamic between the President, who takes responsibility as an end in itself, and the Republicans in Congress, who are destructively consumed with their own dogma. Neither side can be said to possess what Weber calls a “leader’s personality.” Responsibility without conviction is weak, but it is sane. Conviction without responsibility, in the current incarnation of the Republican Party, is raving mad
The image of Obama as weak, or at least too willing to give in to the Republicans, seems accurate to me. The Republicans appear not so much as “raving mad” but as intransigent and single-minded – less spending, no tax increases, no matter what.
I suspect that they are not as inflexible on this as they claim. They had no objection to very large spending increases when they were in the White House. Reagan, with the support of Republicans in Congress, increased Social Security taxes, and his closing of some tax loopholes and shelters was designed to raise the effective income tax on those who has used them. What the Republicans seem single-minded about is gaining power, as their Senate leader has said.
Read Packer’s article. It’s short, and its context for Weber is the story of a man trying to cope with problems of unemployment and health care.
For an earlier SocioBlog allusion to Weber's essay go here.
1 comment:
No need to read the Packer article. What a stilly, transparent polemic for Democrats. In a few hundred words the writer manages to refer to Republicans as nihilistic, juvenile, blithe, raving mad, destructively consumed, like “a cargo cult” (whatever that is), and believers in “magical thinking.” Not really a very sophisticated contribution to political debate!... but typical. He has no understanding of the conservative position -- just caricature. Fits well on this blog.
Post a Comment