My housemate and I made pancakes to watch the inauguration. My housemate is a libertarian too cynical to vote; I supported Obama with misgivings even as I did so, and no expectation that he would change the world.
Watching Yo Yo Ma and Yitzhak Perelman play Aaron Copeland's quintessentially American pice, both of us are borne up by the beauty of it. I admit to feeling a few moist drops tugging at the corner of my eye. I am rooting for Obama to succeed, and if he does, I will look back happily on this moment as a promise of better things to come. And if he doesn't, I will look back wistfully on that one moment when everything seemed all right.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's not Copland; it's an old shaker hymn that Copland used in Applachian Spring.
CNN said they were doing the Copland arrangement.
A shaker hymn - whatever happened to separation of Church and State?
I'm pretty sure that we've been through this a dozen times before--what right do libertarians (or anyone else, for that matter) have in complaining about the government when they don't vote? This whole, "I'm too pure and cynical and the government too corrupt and dirty" is getting a bit tedious.
I'm pretty this arrangement was by John Williams.
If CNN said that, CNN was wrong. There's no Copland in there, though there's a huge number of people who know that tune only through Copland's use of it in Appalachian Spring.
It's "Itzhak Perlman," of course.
What I want to know is what happened to the Luis & Clark carbon fiber cello that Ma was supposed to be playing here, per the NYT feature article a couple days ago.
I thought Megan didn't vote either this year, she "forgot"
Ack! That's how I spelled, then I saw a twitter with Yitzhak. And I went to school with his kid . . .
CNN needs people who pay attention or at least do the minimum of research into these things. While Copland did do a very famous setting of the Shaker tune, the quartet that was played today was a new arrangement of the tune by John Williams. Don't forget the clarinetist (Anthony McGill who is awesome incarnate) and the pianist (Gabriela Montero) who are both just as impressive musicians as the two "names" who were up on stage with them. It's a shame that neither of them were given better material. The composition was completely lackluster and the whole concept very, very safe.
Hayek,
Megan said she "supported" Obama, not that she voted for him.
MM, are you hoping BO succeeds at what he promised in his campaign, which he's now dismissing as som much campaign rhetoric, or at what he actually does as President, which may very well leave much of W's "failed policies" in place......because many of them have worked.....and worked very well.
If McArdle didn't vote for Obama she can have a clear conscience. For all of you who did vote for the new Emperor, I hope you enjoy this new cult of Mao.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
I find your pancake obsession disturbing.
Brown Ram - Re: "what right do libertarians (or anyone else, for that matter) have in complaining about the government when they don't vote?"
The same business that they have complaining if they did vote. Government stupidity or injustice is a reasonable subject for anyone to complain about.
If your argument is "well they didn't do anything about it, so they shouldn't complain".
1 - Does "you shouldn't complain" automatically follow from "you didn't do anything about it"? I'm not so sure I agree
2 - The odds of any particular vote being decisive in a presidential election is extremely small (and effectively zero in many states). Your argument is similar to dismissing complaints of people suffering from poverty, not because they didn't work hard to escape poverty, but because they didn't buy a lottery ticket. After all they could have hit the power ball jackpot.
3 - What do you think about people complaining who voted for the candidate they are complaining about? I'm just fine with that, but a better case could be made against them, because they did after all help put the politician in power.
I assume too much. I am assuming that Megan's roommate is a fellow who doesn't vote and belly-aches about how awful the government is and how lame and stupid politicians are. That is what my Rand-loving libertarian friends do. In other words, rather than engage in the world, they withdraw from it. It seems awfully one-sided, unfair and demoralizing to complain of a system if you're not doing anything about it.
As a general principle, I note that democracy (or republicanism) requires work. It requires the active participation of its citizens. How do citizens participate? By voting, by making calls to their elected representatives (yes, I'm one of those cranks who call and complain to the congressman's and senator's assistant), and by taking an interest in politics and engaging in a discussion with others (regardless of wehther they share the same philosophy). It seems like voting is minimum one can do. By refusing to vote, one basically acts as a free-rider in our democracy.
With respect to your specific questions, I note as follows:
1. As noted above, given that we live in a republic, one of our obligations as citizens is to engage in debate and to make choices.
2. There are a lot of problems and systems in the world where one person's actions will make little or no difference. (For example, why should I pay taxes--my taxes are nothing compared to the gross receipts of the government. Or, why should I get my kids vaccinated--the odds of my kids getting sick are slim.) If the thinking is no one person's vote can make a difference in many states, why does anyone vote? The reason why we must act in these collective situations is because we collectively can make a difference.
Your example about poor people doesn't seem to be the same. I'm not saying that you have to do everything possible, but that you haven't done everything reasonably possible. I don't think that most people would consider buying lottery tickets everyday to be a reasonable way of pulling yourself out of poverty. (In fact, given the odds, it's probably a way of ensuring that you stay in poverty). What would be more similar would be if I stated that people suffering from poverty deserve it because they don't go to the unemployment office for job training.
3. I don't mind people complaining about the politician they put in office or the other politician who beat the person they voted for. My point is that at least these people did something basic and fundamental to our government.
RE: "In other words, rather than engage in the world, they withdraw from it."
Not voting, doesn't equal withdrawing from the world. Even "belly-aching about how awful the government is and how lame and stupid politicians are" doesn't.
It seems awfully one-sided, unfair and demoralizing to complain of a system if you're not doing anything about it.
I'd say the typical American libertarian does as much about it as the typical American. As for engaging in debate, I would say they probably do this more than the typical American.
Your example about poor people doesn't seem to be the same. I'm not saying that you have to do everything possible, but that you haven't done everything reasonably possible. I don't think that most people would consider buying lottery tickets everyday to be a reasonable way of pulling yourself out of poverty.
Its very much the same. The odds of your vote determining the election are probably lower than your odds of winning the lottery. As for using up all your money playing it, I never said "spend all your money on the lottery", I said "buy a lottery ticket". That costs a dollar. The opportunity costs, and sometimes the dollar cost of voting can easily be larger.
Voting may be "work", but its very unlikely to be effective work. Despite its meaningless I almost always vote, but strictly speaking not voting is more rational.
I don't mind people complaining about the politician they put in office or the other politician who beat the person they voted for. My point is that at least these people did something basic and fundamental to our government.
And if the person they helped elect is a bad leader then they actually contributed to the problem.
As for - "Did something basic and fundamental to our government" sounds like your saying "did something good". - The question is to a large extent the importance of an individual person voting. Your assuming it and using that assumption as part of your argument for it.