Micah Tillman

Two posts to consider from NRO’s The Corner:

Mark Krikorian:

The distinction between conservationists and environmentalists that Jonah mentions in his column — conservationists as stewards of the Earth, environmentalists as worshipers of the Earth — cuts through other areas as well. For instance, supporters of the humane treatment of animals often support the same goals as the animal “rights” crowd, but there’s a fundamental difference between them — the first acknowledge an obligation (which they may or may not see as deriving from religion) to treat the lesser animals with respect, while the latter believe animals to be morally equal to human beings. Likewise with those who seek to help the deaf lead more normal lives versus those who militate for “deaf culture” and “deaf rights” — a conflict that’s been apparent in the tumult at Gallaudet University over the past several years. Something similar has happened with civil rights vs. affirmative action. In all these cases, the Left didn’t just take a traditional, humane impulse and take it to an extreme — instead, the Left changed the goal altogether, creating something different in kind from what went before.

The distinction in the last sentence is particularly interesting: taking something to an extreme vs. “creating something different in kind.” Whether or not Krikorian is right on any one instance, I think the phenomenon he is attempting to describe can be expressed as follows:

(1) The original position is:

We as humans have a duty regarding X (e.g., the environment, animals, other humans) to Y (e.g., the Good, Reason, Justice, God).

(2) The pushed-to-the-extreme position is:

We as humans have a duty regarding X (e.g., the environment, animals, other humans) to Y (e.g., the Good, Reason, Justice, God) which requires more out of us than people from group Z recognize(d).

(3) The different-in -kind position is:

We as humans have a duty regarding X (e.g., the environment, animals, other humans) to X (e.g., the environment, animals, other humans).

Now take a look at another post:

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Where does Hillary get her VRWC card as Rush encourages her and Rich defends her?

Ms. Lopez is referring to this post by Rich Lowry (and she no doubt has Operation Chaos in mind when referring to Rush, and this in mind when referring to the “VRWC“).

___________________________

What strikes me as interesting is that both Lowry and Limbaugh are not displaying negative loyalty (i.e., opposing someone no matter what, simply because the person in question is the person in question).

They both see themselves as having a duty regarding Clinton, to something else. And that “something else” isn’t “Attacking Clinton.” Their principles or goals (”the protection of the human person through the triumph of conservatism through the defeat of liberalism” for Rush; “truth” for Lowry) are beyond Clinton.

Some of Rush’s callers, however, seem to suffer from negative loyalty to the Clintons. They can’t bring themselves to go along with Operation Chaos because (to this point) it would have required them to vote for Clinton.

___________________________

It seems to me, however, that this negative loyalty is as much a subordination of the self (i.e., the individual human person) as loyalty-proper is. To be loyal to someone means to act in her favor (as she sees it) no matter what. It is, in terms of my analysis of Krikorian’s post, to view yourself as having a duty not only regarding a person, but to that person as well.

One must be careful of to whom or what one subordinates oneself, and I think understanding the double-structure of duty (”regarding vs. to”) can be helpful.

Tags: duty, Hillary Clinton, Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Loyalty, Mark Krikorian, National Review Online, Persons, Rich Lowry, Rush Limbaugh