That is, this is evidence that such classes no longer consider themselves part of the same political corpus as their fellow citizens but view both the starving African and the flood-swept Louisianan as “other.”

Well then I guess that makes me part of that class, since I kinda see things that way. I’ve never been to either place, and the people there are roughly on the same moral footing for me. And why *shouldn’t* I feel this way? I think this is the missing nationalist argument that Will is looking for like some Rawlsian frickin’ Diogenes.

That is, this is evidence that such classes no longer consider themselves part of the same political corpus as their fellow citizens but view both the starving African and the flood-swept Louisianan as “other.”

Well then I guess that makes me part of that class, since I kinda see things that way. I’ve never been to either place, and the people there are roughly on the same moral footing for me. And why *shouldn’t* I feel this way? I think this is the missing nationalist argument that Will is looking for like some Rawlsian frickin’ Diogenes.

I don’t think you are being fair to Kaplan here. If the political and opinion-making classes care just as much for famine victims in Africa as fellow citizens struck by tragedy nearby, it is almost certainly because they care for their fellow citizens less than they should. That is, this is evidence that such classes no longer consider themselves part of the same political corpus as their fellow citizens but view both the starving African and the flood-swept Louisianan as “other.”

With respect to the Kaplan quote, you should have highlighted the *entire* sentence because the ending fundamentally alters that which you find objectionable. It ends with “when accompanied by a loss of faith in one’s own political values and projects.” Taken with what is found above, it is clear that Kaplan is not arguing against universal values; he is arguing against a ‘morality’ that finds nothing really worth defending. Universalist ethics is decried only to the extent that it is used as the crutch the lets such moral cowardice walk.

Are you seriously arguing that you are *disgusted* by the idea that caring for one’s fellow citizens requires action and even personal sacrifice?? Are you really going to argue that it is quite enough to lay claim to universalist moral sentiments while doing nothing to inconvenience yourself…that being a poseur with a big heart is morally superior to getting down in the dirt to help a specific individual in need because that individual is a fellow American (or New Yorker, Brit, German or Iraqi)?

While you may offer false dichotomies like caring for “poor people in other countries more than restoring ROTC” but you know that that isn’t Kaplan’s point. The point is that a vibrant political culture at home – one with shared ideals and a strong sense that all citizens are part of “our” people despite differences in ethnicity, creed or color – makes us stronger and better able to deal with the needs and challenges of the outside world. Building such a shared culture, however, takes work and commitment and it may even require a sacrifice.

I feel sorry for you in a way: it is just sad that you feel ‘disgusted’ by the ‘inconveniences’ placed on you by your fellow citizens and that you are so quick to pass them off as “mad emotive commitments” to “truculent fanatic nationalism” when they are nothing of the sort.

I don’t think you are being fair to Kaplan here. If the political and opinion-making classes care just as much for famine victims in Africa as fellow citizens struck by tragedy nearby, it is almost certainly because they care for their fellow citizens less than they should. That is, this is evidence that such classes no longer consider themselves part of the same political corpus as their fellow citizens but view both the starving African and the flood-swept Louisianan as “other.”

With respect to the Kaplan quote, you should have highlighted the *entire* sentence because the ending fundamentally alters that which you find objectionable. It ends with “when accompanied by a loss of faith in one’s own political values and projects.” Taken with what is found above, it is clear that Kaplan is not arguing against universal values; he is arguing against a ‘morality’ that finds nothing really worth defending. Universalist ethics is decried only to the extent that it is used as the crutch the lets such moral cowardice walk.

Are you seriously arguing that you are *disgusted* by the idea that caring for one’s fellow citizens requires action and even personal sacrifice?? Are you really going to argue that it is quite enough to lay claim to universalist moral sentiments while doing nothing to inconvenience yourself…that being a poseur with a big heart is morally superior to getting down in the dirt to help a specific individual in need because that individual is a fellow American (or New Yorker, Brit, German or Iraqi)?

While you may offer false dichotomies like caring for “poor people in other countries more than restoring ROTC” but you know that that isn’t Kaplan’s point. The point is that a vibrant political culture at home – one with shared ideals and a strong sense that all citizens are part of “our” people despite differences in ethnicity, creed or color – makes us stronger and better able to deal with the needs and challenges of the outside world. Building such a shared culture, however, takes work and commitment and it may even require a sacrifice.

I feel sorry for you in a way: it is just sad that you feel ‘disgusted’ by the ‘inconveniences’ placed on you by your fellow citizens and that you are so quick to pass them off as “mad emotive commitments” to “truculent fanatic nationalism” when they are nothing of the sort.