Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discoursepar Mary Ann Glendon
Aucun Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre. aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Political speech in the United States is undergoing a crisis. Glendon's acclaimed book traces the evolution of the strident language of rights in America and shows how it has captured the nation's devotion to individualism and liberty, but omitted the American traditions of hospitality and care for the community. Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucunCouvertures populaires
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)342.73085Social sciences Law Constitutional and administrative law North America Constitutional law--United States Jurisdiction over persons Rights and activities of individualsClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
The core claim of this book is that Americans are obsessed with notions of absolute rights which lead to political dysfunction. "A tendency to frame nearly every social controversy in terms of a clash of rights ... impedes compromise, mutual understanding, and the discovery of common ground.” This is explored in relation to various issues (abortion, family law, duties to aid) and comparison is made with how those same issues have been handled in Western European nations.
One of the things I find most frustrating about American politics is the way in which abortion can be exploited as a wedge issue; I know many people I have come into contact with could never be persuaded to vote against the GOP due solely to this. As the author notes, “[p]rolife and prochoice advocates alike have overwhelmingly opted for rights talk, a choice that has forced the debate into a seemingly nonnegotiable deadlock between the fetus’s 'right to life' and the pregnant woman’s 'right to choose.’” I don’t know whether or not a change in discourse would be fruitful (or desirable) towards resolving the impasse, but I found the discussion interesting.
Another idea I found especially interesting was that a tendency to have courts decide controversial issues by deducing the answer from constitutional rights leads to a reduced public involvement in the political process. Have liberals jeopardized parts of our agenda by relying too heavily on the courts to protect it? It’s concerning that victories such as the legalization of gay marriage rest only on judicial pronouncement, given that the party opposed to them now controls the presidency, Congress, and most state governments. ( )