Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Feuding Political Couples

helen.jpg
This gets a little complicated — and let me preface it by saying that as far as I know no one is steamed — but as it happens, without coordinated effort by the four people involved, I find myself one half of a couple fighting a bit online with another couple, Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley (with special guest star Julian Sanchez). But I should start by establishing the other half of the Todd couple (apologies to Neil Simon there), and I’ll keep the sentimental bits brief, at least today.

•My new girlfriend is Helen Rittelmeyer (see Figure 1: Hot Librarian Type, above), an obscenely young, wise-beyond-her-years, conservative, blogging, Catholic, New Wave-loving, monster-movie-viewing, Southern-extracted, Yale-educated, technically-libertarian person — who nonetheless hates the term “libertarian” because it gets used by so many culturally-left people nowadays who threaten to undermine the traditionalism Helen values.

To my delight (given the slogan of my site and my book proposal in the works), Helen wrote a blog entry about similarities between conservatism and punk even before meeting me (back on her old blog — and back when she was a smoker, I should add). She also, as alluded to in my two prior entries, once had a science museum job doing taxidermy and letting the (cute but vicious) flying squirrel out of his cage at night to glide a bit. (They need exercise, I guess, to prevent their skin folds from getting even flappier.)

Anyway, Helen, unlike me, rejects utilitarianism and basically thinks suffering builds character (she’s been Randian and Nietzschean, at least at some points, though when I told one friend that Helen thinks suffering is a good thing, he simply said, “Well, of course — she’s Catholic”).

•So naturally, when, around Halloween, Will Wilkinson announced (on the site where Helen now regularly blogs, Culture11) that he thinks we should not only attempt to quantify happiness but even quantify ostensibly more abstract qualities of life such as “meaningfulness,” Helen made a counterargument. Will was appalled by it — and got in some good jokes about not wanting to make Helen suffer, since she likes suffering.

Will also rightly asked whether a pro-suffering Helen objects to transhumanism — the philosophy of using technology to alleviate all human suffering and even achieve earthly (and thus not exactly Catholic) immortality. And transhumanists (and their Extropian kin), of whom I am in some sense one (at least in spirit, despite not owning a cell phone or having cable TV), should rejoice because this season sees the launch of the first-ever swanky transhumanist magazine, H Plus

•…as noted by Will’s girlfriend Kerry Howley, who, as it happens, I’d been criticizing on this blog for completely unrelated reasons — namely for not seeing why feminism (in most forms) is fundamentally at odds with the diverse and inevitably inegalitarian (though not necessarily predictable) outcomes tolerated by libertarianism, which normally describes people as free so long as their property rights and bodily integrity are not violated. Kerry objected. I responded. Kerry objected again.

•Then, Will objected to my anti-feminist/anti-Kerry arguments (which is very chivalrous of him!), and, since he is undeniably clear-thinking, he at least had the decency to acknowledge that by insisting that freedom requires more than property rights-adherence, he may not technically be a libertarian. By contrast, I think Kerry is under the impression that we old-school libertarians — who insist on what Isaiah Berlin called the negative liberty/positive liberty distinction (and associated state action/private action distinction) — just made the whole thing up as a trivial, narrow-minded footnote to the movement’s history. In fact, though, none of us knew we would one day be contending with people who claimed to be libertarians but denied that such distinctions are pivotal. The Kerry view is news to me, and I’ve been a libertarian for about twenty years now.

(Hey, disagree with me philosophically if you must, but don’t waltz into this Randian-Rothbardian-Friedmanite philosophical movement I’ve known and loved for twenty years and tell me you know how it really works — not that such tribal concerns are more important than getting ethics and policy right.)

•While all this was going on, of course, I’d also written (without rendering judgment, I think it’s fair to say) about Will’s participation in a Princeton panel about liberal-libertarian collaboration (about which PajamasMedia will interview me tomorrow if all goes as planned). Will may not even realize that I’m dating Helen, by the way, so there’s no underlying soap opera or, uh, tit for tat here, I swear, just a tiny movement prone to certain recurring arguments.

(Actually, Kerry helped me get the gig covering the Princeton panel, and you see the thanks she gets for it.)

•Meanwhile, Helen adds interesting curves to some of these arguments by noting that she — despite being more traditionalist than me, Will, and Kerry put together — thinks queer theory would benefit from cross-pollination with social conservatism, since she likes her traditional female role — and wants her man to be a “lover and a leader” (so I’ll do what I can) — but has enough postmodern awareness of the performative aspect of womanhood to feel more “femme” than “feminine.” She’s also fond of drag queens, essentially making her one more in a series of “fag hags” to find me attractive, but I’m OK with that and have never, never claimed to be macho.

•And then, as it happens, Julian Sanchez (also of Reason), weighs in to call people with my anti-feminism position “by and large, really fucking dumb” (I think that phrase is from Kant). As Glen Whitman notes in Julian’s comments thread — otherwise I wouldn’t even mention it — Julian is also Kerry’s ex-boyfriend, so we take the incest thing up a notch.

But all the infighting’s futile, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose. We are all Obama’s bitches now.

EPILOGUE: And lest you think people associated with Reason spend more time fighting each other than fighting the government, check out Reason’s very sane and civil Katherine Mangu-Ward’s interview with my pal Dan Greenberg, about his opposition, as an Arkansas state rep, to government registration of interior designers.

And now that we’ve established all our characters, in the next few days, I’ll go into why I think the seemingly simple embrace of a feminist notion of freedom in fact unravels the whole libertarian ball of twine — but I will do so without making the political the personal to the degree I have here, I promise.

(And if Perry, who commented on yesterday’s entry, will try to remain calm, perhaps a truce is possible even there — and he can then trust me to sketch broad tactical objections to the left that explain my reluctance to dwell overmuch on some of his favorite issues.)

23 comments:

Perry said...

I’m calm, Todd. I’m just disappointed in you. Anyway, I should have left a few days ago, and I’ll do so now. Good luck with the new relationship.

jenny said...

she — despite being more traditionalist than me, Will, and Kerry put together — thinks queer theory would benefit from cross-pollination with social conservatism, since she likes her traditional female role —

can you or helen expand upon this further? i can barely see how social conservatism would benefit from cross-pollination with queer theory, but vice-versa, not at all. aren’t queer theory and social conservatism, well, diametrically opposed? or am i just suffering from a brown-induced foucault hangover?

Sean Dougherty said...

Well, the next Manhattan project meeting should be a lively one…

Todd Seavey said...

As with any right-left hybridization, it depends on what you take from each side.

One might, for instance — and I merely offer this as an example, not a recommendation — be of the belief that the queer theory is largely descriptively accurate while thinking that the social conservatives’ normative recommendations lead to the happiest outcomes for most people. Again, just an example — but not my area, really.

But in the days ahead, in other entries, I’ll explain why we shouldn’t blur the line between social analysis and political recommendations too much, especially not libertarians…

Ken Silber said...

Reading this post, one has the feeling of standing on the precipice of a vast, dark chasm of swirling madness.

Todd Seavey said...

Then keep taking your meds, obviously.

Xine said...

>Will also rightly asked whether a pro-suffering Helen >objects to transhumanism — the philosophy of using >technology to alleviate all human suffering and even >achieve earthly (and thus not exactly Catholic) immortality. >And transhumanists (and their Extropian kin), of whom I am >in some sense one (at least in spirit, despite not owning a >cell phone or having cable TV), should rejoice because this >season sees the launch of the first-ever swanky >transhumanist magazine, H Plus.

This is just like all of those arguments I used to overhear the summers I worked in a paper mill in Maine! I once saw four beefy guys nearly come to blows over “what Isaiah Berlin called the negative liberty/positive liberty distinction (and associated state action/private action distinction).”

Todd Seavey said...

Were you, like, studying the workers?

Will Wilkinson said...

I did did not realize you an Helen were dating! Congrats to both of you. And please let me know when you convince her to sign up with Alcor.

Xine said...

Tee hee hee! Good one, TJS.

Todd Seavey said...

And you know, my dad helped get me a summer gig, too, once, in a sewage treatment plant (for which I’m genuinely grateful), so I’m in no position to call the nepotistic paper mill job unglamorous.

Sewage is in my blood, you might say. (Hail science!) Of course, some would say I am simply full of shit.

And to Ken, let me add: when you stare into the sewage tank, _the sewage tank stares back into you_.

P.S. There were sometimes large, strange insects near that sewage plant that to this day I have seen in no other location.

Ken Silber said...

Nope. Still the same.

Julian Sanchez said...

D’oh. I hadn’t meant that as a jab at you; I was thinking of a certain breed of actually-dumb libertarian who thinks it’s necessary to pooh-pooh all concerns about the constraining effects of gender norms, whether or not these have political or legislative implications.

Zeke said...

Yes, I see intelligence beyond compare, but inside you are stirring, and something strange is occurring. It’s probably best to stick to the stuff you know and better by far to keep things as they are. Don’t mess with the flow. Stick to the status quo.

Christopher said...

The previous comment reads uncannily like a horoscope, or a series of fortune cookies suggestions strung together.

Todd Seavey said...

And even more like — song lyrics from the Japanese cartoon _Naruto_! “Zeke” is mocking us in song! Anime song! But he does not have the fox spirit sealed inside him! My fighting will be the best, you’ll see! We’ll beat him with tricks and fire!

Sharpay said...

You’re no Einsteinette, Todd!

Todd Seavey said...

Now Sharpay sounds like a bully out of…wait a second…_High School Musical_? Google reveals that that is the source of the “Stick with the Status Quo” lyrics above.

Haven’t seen those movies — but Helen and I watched both the mid-60s “wacky, Austin Powers-like” and 2006 “reboot” version of _Casino Royale_, so I’m prepared to do the theme song to _that_ in karaoke if it comes up.

I’d forgotten that the 60s version _does_ actually find time to hit some of the same plot points, briefly, and depict Vesper (Ursula Andress) and Le Chiffre (Orson Welles), in between the more insane and memorable bits with Mata Hari, machine-gun bagpipes, bomb-filled milk trucks, Woody Allen, and go-go-boot-wearing hench-babes that so plainly inspired Austin Powers.

Dr. Phil Donahue said...

Now that we’ve settled our pop culture references, it’s time for more drama. Does your new girlfriend have any interest in becoming a mother someday?

Todd Seavey said...

Oh, there’s plenty to discuss on that front, obviously…but…not in this comment thread. (And indeed, for more from me on any topic today, you’ll have to check out http://PJTV.com during the 7pm Eastern hour. Until then, adieu.)

Ladyblog » Blog Archive » The Libertarian Feminist Debate said...

[...] Anyway, for the past week or so, Howley and self-proclaimed punk-conservative Todd Seavey have been engaged in a back-and-forth on the issue of feminism and libertarianism, which Seavey would like to assure us young whippersnappers is an oxymoronal concept: The Kerry view is news to me, and I’ve been a libertarian for about twenty years now. [...]

Feuding libertarians « Muse Free said...

[...] November 17, 2008 by Abhishek I would not be doing my job as a libertarian blogger if I did not link to the blog war between Todd Seavey on the one hand and Kerry Howley/Will Wilkinson on the other. The best link (in the sense that it points to almost all the other relevant links) is the post by Todd above; navigate from there! Keep in mind that all the characters in the fight are multiply related — not only are they all writers for Reason magazine but there is a complex boyfriend/girlfriend/ex-boyfriend web that connects them — as Todd triumphantly describes. Enjoy! [...]

Ladyblog » Blog Archive » I am Sometimes a Libertarian and Sometimes a Feminist, but Never Both at the Same Time said...

[...] The blog war between Kerry Howley and Will Wilkinson on one side and Todd Seavey on the other has attracted the attention of other bloggers, including our own Elizabeth Nolan Brown, and it’s such an interesting controversy that I can’t help weighing in (thereby perfecting the symmetry described here). The basic dilemma is easy to explain: Everybody agrees that women are treated differently than men in ways that sometimes make their lives difficult and constrain their choices; everybody also agrees that most of this discrimination stops short of a gun to the head; Kerry thinks that social pressure is a kind of coercion that libertarians should care about; Todd thinks social pressure is, at most, coercion-lite, and therefore not necessarily something that libertarians oppose. (Some might, but, Hell, some libertarians hate asparagus and we don’t make a plank out of that, even if the asparagus-haters are objectively correct.) [...]