posted
I am very new here and i dont know if this was every discussed but I believe OSC is a republican. I am not here to flame just to maybe understand. The ender serious change the way i looked at alot of things in life, and well its disappionting.
As i dont really put myself on the political spectrum, I usually find my self lividly disagreeing with the right half. (usually the left half also) To be republican in very basic and simple terms, and without putting much depth behind it, usually means the person in question believes in Group Decisions and beliefs over letting individuals think for themsevles, Always puts a religious overtone into their ideas(usually christian), and believes in very strong traditions even if those traditions are wrong or no longer valid.
So i ask how can OSC write great books that usually stay moderate in political philosophy? How can he understand some of what he writes yet not believe in some of what he writes.
I think this will seriously affect my outlook when i read a OSC book now. I am seriously at a loss as to how it never bled through into his writing.
P.S. I also read his thoughts on Country Music. What is up with that? Nashiville is a played out machine with lil or no creativity. I could understand if he was speaking of Jonny Cash, Hank Williams SR., Flatts and Scrugs or something semi-original, but no he was speaking of this horrid "radio, i hope i sell a million copies by over advertising and playing to teenager" music.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To be republican in very basic and simple terms, and without putting much depth behind it, usually means the person in question believes in Group Decisions and beliefs over letting individuals think for themsevles, Always puts a religious overtone into their ideas(usually christian), and believes in very strong traditions even if those traditions are wrong or no longer valid."
To put this bluntly -- in basic and simple terms -- you need to put more depth behind your analysis. Your definitions need work, and this simple lack might help explain to you why you're having such difficulty understanding why the world works the way it does. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
j0ntar, Orson Scott Card is registered as a Democrat, though he has very little respect for either party's hardcore true-believers. He tends to be an economic liberal and a social conservative, but his opinions are uniquely his own, and have nothing to do with the platform of any particular party.
You've managed to pick up on the fact that his books seem to be written by a well-spoken, thoughtful moderate with an excellent perspective on history and sociology. Perhaps if you could see past your own prejudice against people who espouse certain opinions, you could recognize that these books DO reflect EXACTLY what Card is and believes.
So, now I'm curious. What opinion(s) of Card's led you to label him as a mindless Republican?
posted
You know, I've never understood why someone would give up a good author just becuase they didn't agree with thier political beliefs. I mean, do you ignore everyone who you don't perfectly agree with in the rest of your life?
I don't agree with a lot of Uncle Orson's politics, but that doesn't mean i'm going to stop reading his books. Yes, I've stopped reading the Ender/Shadow series, but that's because the story's gone stale for me, and not because of the politics. I indend to read everything else he writes.
posted
I find the notion that Republicans believe in group think to be interesting. I spent several years active within Republican groups, and have never found a Republican group that wasn't beset with internal struggles. It was well enough known that we called it "Republicans eat their young." Anybody who had spent significant time involved in the movement had been stabbed in the back by somebody they thought was a friend. Including me.
Republicans, in my experience, are very much into being individuals and making up their minds for themselves -- they are particularly bad at being told what to do (at least, if you expect them to do it).
Your other descriptors have some small basis in reality, but your description is a caricature. Rather like describing Democrats as long-haired, dope-smoking, free-loading, free-loving, socialist, tax-raising (but not tax-paying) bleeding hearts who want to try everything new and different they can, no matter how stupid.
Scott's not a Republican. His political views will tend to strike everybody as amazingly insightful sometimes and inflammatory and irresponsible at other times. He doesn't categorize well, and, I think, his self-descriptions sometimes add more confusion to the issue than clarity. He sees things differently than most folks do. He's very (very) smart. So the labels he apply to himself mean slightly different things to him than they do to other folks. He's a Democrat who has a hard time finding another Democrat leader he can align himself with.
This means that you can't just say "I like him because he's a Democrat and so am I," or "I don't like him because he's a Democrat and I'm not." You'll need to do a bit more listening and thinking than that.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never even considered that Mr. Card even belonged to a political party. I'm from Vermont where you don't have to declare party status, so I guess it never crossed my mind. I am of the firm belief that one votes for candidates and not parties*.
I've read a lot of what Mr. Card has had to say about all kinds of different things, and I've come to the conclusion that he spends copious amounts of time thinking about things, and thinking into things. You may not always agree with him on every issue, but maybe that means that you havn't followed the same steps to a conclusion that he has. I think Garrison Keillor said, "Being intelligent is a bit like having four wheel drive, it just gets you stuck in more obscure places." You just happen to be stuck in a different obscure place than Mr. Card.
*Political parties. I vote for regular parties all the time. Mmm... free Mountain Dew. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoffrey Card wrote "So, now I'm curious. What opinion(s) of Card's led you to label him as a mindless Republican?"
Under his "Card reviews everything" section he spoke about Conservative Books, in which he ranted on this and that. If you just read through that section you will see the Republican ideas seep through.
Blain, it is based on Community/Group dynamics over individual. I would give you an article but then you wouldnt read it because it would be liberal b.s. (even though it was written by a moderate)
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Like any musical genre, you really have to search for the diamonds among the dirt, and you must get out of Nashville to do it.
Lucinda Williams is still brilliant.
Gary Allen is still good, although he is in danger of turning to the dark side.
Dwight is still making excellent music.
In spite of all Natalie's naivete, the Dixie Chicks' latest album is the best country album I have heard in awhile. Any album with a song by Radney Foster can't be all bad.
Roseanne Cash's latest album is gorgeous, although I don't know if she is still in the country realm.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under his "Card reviews everything" section he spoke about Conservative Books, in which he ranted on this and that. If you just read through that section you will see the Republican ideas seep through.
So the fact that Card agrees with certain conservative ideas makes him a simpleminded groupthinking Republican in your mind?
quote:Blain, it is based on Community/Group dynamics over individual. I would give you an article but then you wouldnt read it because it would be liberal b.s. (even though it was written by a moderate)
You know, telling people what they will or will not do isn't the best way to earn their respect So, do you believe that liberals are free from groupthink and simplemindedness?
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Before you make any other comments to Geoff Card, please look at his last name and then look in the aknowlegments of most of OSC books. You will see his name in there with the rest of the family members. No one at this site knows more about OSC political views than Geoff unless it is OSC himself or his wife(who also is the moderator here).
posted
Jon -- It might surprise you the things I'll read, actually. I might consider an exchange of articles sometime.
What I'm telling you is that your article is going to need to say something that's going to address my first-hand experience in the Republican Party organization if it's going to begin to think about changing my mind about what I've said. If you think it can do that, then fire away.
What I have found is that political parties are never monolithic. Never single minded. Because a party requires there to be two people, and two people can't be single minded or monolithic -- they just can't think that much the same. Any two people can come to at least three positions on any subject you might wish, and will inevitably find points of disagreement (and agreement) eventually, no matter how totally they might think the agree (or disagree) initially.
Republican Party principles tend to focus more on individual responsibility and individual freedom from intrusion by government and others in your life. Democratic Party principles tend to focus more on social responsibility and social solutions to individual problems. Each would restrict freedoms the other would defend. Each would tend to turn a blind eye to the sins of themselves and their friends, while focussing attention on the sins of the other party and its friends.
I don't believe that someone is more moral or more intelligent just because they agree with me, nor do I believe that someone is less moral or less intelligent just because they disagree with me. I have run into people I agree with but don't respect, and people I respect but don't agree with. I will vote for the former over the latter, but I will enjoy my dealing with the latter more than the former.
Scott's a democrat I respect and enjoy listening to and talking with (although I think you'll understand I haven't had many opportunities to talk with him much). I know many republicans I respect less and enjoy listening and talking with less (and, of course, I can do a lot more talking with them than I can with him). I agree with him sometimes, and sometimes I don't, but I respect his opinions that I don't agree with, and consider them.
Perhaps I am as an anomolous in the Republican Party as he is in the Democrat Party. I tend to make folks nervous in my party (not as much since I cut my hair and shaved my goatee). I tend to find spending time in meetings annoying and pointless more often than not, and I have better things to do more often than not.
posted
Sweet William-- I agree with you on Lucinda.
Geoffrey-
It isnt about being a simple minded group thinking republican. The question at heart was "how can he write such moderate works yet remain truly bound to one political idea/ideas" You have to understand that even though Enders Game(lets include the quartet here also) isnt renown for greatness in the scope of things, BUT it is a piece of work that can change your view on alot of present issues. What 1984 did for my political views, Enders Game has done for certain values and my over all outlook in life. I literally say the words "What would Ender do" all the time, it started out as a joke (a private one) though it worked so i kept doing it. ..... ( i deviated from my original path here) So anyways What i am saying is that i put alot of faith into this man's work because the ideas within are strong and ring true, but here on his website he is proclaiming this and that contrary to his work with in Enders Game(the enders quartet).
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like it if you'd outline exactly which of Card's opinions, in your estimation, go against the worldview apparent in Ender's Game ..?
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah, just caught on that the more recent jontar might very well be a different person ... of course, he's toeing the same line, so I suppose it's not that big a deal for the moment Unless j0ntar comes in and says he's being impersonated.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
is there another j0ntar? i have the registered names j0ntar, jontar2 on these forums. I might also jontar but i doubt it. I dont really remeber posting on these forums much before. i could have, i just dont know.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i guess i am the same jontar since i evidently posted under that name in the GOD? post but i just registered as jontar yesterday because i forgot that i had j0ntar registered. , but guys i really dont remeber posting much here in 2000. Not that i couldnt have but i just dont think it was me.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, why would you register the name jontar so many times? It's not really all that great.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The question at heart was "how can he write such moderate works yet remain truly bound to one political idea/ideas"
Havn't you ever thought to look at something from another angle? I've gotten great pleasure playing devil's advocate in an argument, simply because the exercise of decentering myself is so enjoyable. I don't know if this is true, I suppose Geoffrey could confirm or deny this, but I imagine that Mr. Card gets much the same pleasure.
Take a look at the books he's written. In the Ender Quartet, you're constantly seeing things from the eyes of Graff, Anderson, the buggers, or the Pequeninos. In the Homecoming Saga, every third chapter or so is devoted to the viewpoint of one of Nafai's adtagonist brothers. I find these viewpoints just as compelling as Nafai's.
quote: "What would Ender do"
I do much the same thing, but more to the effect of, "How can I do this better or faster?" Often it gets me in trouble, just as Ender's unconventional tactics got him in trouble. He manages to take it with grace, while I get grumpy and sulk. Oh well, I wasn't cut out for saving the world anyway.
But I also ask myself, "How would I do this like -insert antagonist of choice here-?" Often, antagonists in stories, while they use morally questionable or unfair tactics, they have the ability to get things done. If ruthlessness is the appropriate solution (as it did occasionally when I was councellor at a summer camp last summer when dealing with agressive and, frankly, dangerous children), then it's the solution I use.
I think i missed something that i realized when you posted Wheat. That even though Enders lives with religious indiffrence throughout all the books. OSC does not live his life that way. I felt that OSC wrote this with his own opinions in mind. -=[
To me a religious mind usually means distorted views and blind conviction. I could be wrong -=]. There are some people that prove me wrong weekly but then there are those that just........ are completely lost to any sense of humanism.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several things said previously have roused me out of the letahargy of reading all of your well-stated arguments.
Let me first qualify my political views as radical, I don't agree with most doctrines.
I have a friend who has always stated, when I speak of how much I enjoyed a particular OSC novel, that OSC was a (horrors) mormon. I really don't care what his religous beliefs are, and he has never shown a bias to any religeous opinion in anything that I have read. This also seems to carry through in his politics. The characters simply act on their own beliefs, not the author's.
I find this admirable.
Country Music, while not my cup of tea, still has a very long run to go, especially if it keeps from outside influences.
What would Ender do? Why the answer is simple: "...premptive use of overwhelming force." to quote the character Bean (or his thoughts anyway). If you haven't read it, I also reccommend "the Art of War" by SunTzu.
And thatnk you all for your early moring thughts.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me a religious mind usually means distorted views and blind conviction. I could be wrong -=]. There are some people that prove me wrong weekly but then there are those that just........ are completely lost to any sense of humanism.
I'm sorry, I am still waiting to meet one of these supposedly common-enough-to-stereotype-all-religious-people-as-deluded wackos that everyone always talks about when they say things like this. Even if these people exist, you think the lack-of-grip-on-reality market is cornered by the religious?
Plus, that comment at the end on humanism is too juicy to pass up. the structure of your sentence makes it sound as though your requisite for clear thinking is a belief in humanism. That's a little religiocentric , don't you think? (is that a word?)
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am personally while a Christian would much rather let people make their own decisions and leave government out of it. While I am on a personal level against abortion I am generally pro choice for political stance again keep the government out of my decisions. I am also a strong supporter of educational funding, scientific research, among other things. A moderate Republican to be sure but certainly a Republican.
Oh yeah I also grew up on welfare, struggle with paying my bills (at least for the time being) and work for a federal agency.
Hmm so where exactly do I fit in the Republican Sterotype?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even if these people exist, you think the lack-of-grip-on-reality market is cornered by the religious?
Yeah! Us pen-and-paper roleplaying game-types hold most of the marketshare in the lack-of-grip-on-reality market. But that doesn't mean it isn't a varied marketplace for those without reality sense. I mean, look at the U.S. government, they're a rapidly rising force in this robust marketplace. Outlook is high for the third quarter. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was growing up country music was mostly about glorifying adultery, which was the basis of my mocking it. But I read OSC's column about it, and the next time I found my radio picking up a country station I decided to give it a chance. One song, one chance. Well, whoever sings "...holding her, but loving you..." blew it for the whole genre again. Though I do have a Lucinda Williams albumn.
I think the whole nature of a party is to produce a group that thinks and acts as one. That group will tend toward acting out the strongest feelings of the majority of its members.
I think the whole nature of a religion is a group that acts as one, but it is acknowledged that they want to act as one better than they know themselves to be. So they are guaranteed to disappoint. But I don't think they should be blamed for trying.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Hardest Thing I'll Ever Have to Do, Earl Thomas Connely (it's really old).
If you want a contemporary non-adultery song, try "No Man In His Wrong Heart" from the album It Would Be You by Gary Allan.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
eslane, are you offering me a job at the White House? You know that the first thing I'd do is get the executive staff drawn into an epic game of Nobilis, Jovian Chronicles, Heavy Gear, or Dungeons and Dragons (all pnp RPGs, all good except the last).
The second thing I'd do is spend copious amounts of time spouting my unconventional political stances (like that of a constitutional monarchy) and running argumentitive circles around the state department. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
