Do you ever get the sense that the costs of political devotion are often impractical? Political community tends to operate in a tunnel of constant crisis. There is a perpetual demand for sacrificial devotion. Oftentimes this runs far past the moral ability of any of the participants; which usually translates to a base intensity around other people’s $$$funds$$$.
The casualty risk in these priority shifts, cupid in nature, are political friendships and relationships cultivated around civic affinity. At some point, everyone either feels betrayed or “dies by the sword” of punishing moral transience. When I say moral transience I do mean the most ‘moral’ cause of crisis-for-now, or fire fight translates to how much capital or manpower an organizer or nonprofit base can wring out of their network for the least amount of pivotal financial expense. Moral transience is dispatch of inconvenient morally kept obligations to suit a certain temporary objective.
Everyone hears the ultimatum at some point, “Either your with me or against me.”
Not everyone can go to battle when their friends do. Temporary political allegiances alienate or swap bedfellows. This makes for a lot of dreary, unfulfilled lives brimming with the drama of high conflict. When you start making positive changes to your personal or spiritual life, improving your financial status, not everyone understands. This is not necessarily the same as moral relativism; which is included with evaluating risks, demands and rewards of political engagement. In any relationship, you will need to see things from the other person’s point of view to gain practical, as well as strategic insights.
Some of the demands sound like wedge spin. Contemporary abuse of this sounds like: “Silence is violence.” “If you’re not against the war, you’re for the war,” or vice versa. They also sound exactly like the manipulative wails of addicts in the throes of desperation. Can you think of some other highly alienating or manipulative examples to probe a false sense of obligation to manipulate a singular outcome at your personal and unintended expense? What is your strategy to preserve your boundaries?
What’s important in friendship? How much moral advance can you give your friends before you or they start hitting the curb over the moral transience? Does their obligation have no essence? Is it a shallow puddle that evaporates in the sunlight?
How do you feel about engaging in any high-demand, high-intensity relationship where your entire worth is able to be dispatched instantly with or without your financial investment or even legally binding contractual obligations?
Share this post
The Problem of Moral Transience In Political Community
Share this post
Do you ever get the sense that the costs of political devotion are often impractical? Political community tends to operate in a tunnel of constant crisis. There is a perpetual demand for sacrificial devotion. Oftentimes this runs far past the moral ability of any of the participants; which usually translates to a base intensity around other people’s $$$funds$$$.
The casualty risk in these priority shifts, cupid in nature, are political friendships and relationships cultivated around civic affinity. At some point, everyone either feels betrayed or “dies by the sword” of punishing moral transience. When I say moral transience I do mean the most ‘moral’ cause of crisis-for-now, or fire fight translates to how much capital or manpower an organizer or nonprofit base can wring out of their network for the least amount of pivotal financial expense. Moral transience is dispatch of inconvenient morally kept obligations to suit a certain temporary objective.
Everyone hears the ultimatum at some point, “Either your with me or against me.”
Not everyone can go to battle when their friends do. Temporary political allegiances alienate or swap bedfellows. This makes for a lot of dreary, unfulfilled lives brimming with the drama of high conflict. When you start making positive changes to your personal or spiritual life, improving your financial status, not everyone understands. This is not necessarily the same as moral relativism; which is included with evaluating risks, demands and rewards of political engagement. In any relationship, you will need to see things from the other person’s point of view to gain practical, as well as strategic insights.
Some of the demands sound like wedge spin. Contemporary abuse of this sounds like: “Silence is violence.” “If you’re not against the war, you’re for the war,” or vice versa. They also sound exactly like the manipulative wails of addicts in the throes of desperation. Can you think of some other highly alienating or manipulative examples to probe a false sense of obligation to manipulate a singular outcome at your personal and unintended expense? What is your strategy to preserve your boundaries?
What’s important in friendship? How much moral advance can you give your friends before you or they start hitting the curb over the moral transience? Does their obligation have no essence? Is it a shallow puddle that evaporates in the sunlight?
How do you feel about engaging in any high-demand, high-intensity relationship where your entire worth is able to be dispatched instantly with or without your financial investment or even legally binding contractual obligations?
Please tell us.
Leave a comment
Share
Liberty in Many Directions is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.