Apples to Apples

[minoanmiss]

An ethics question.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/in-the-heart-of-appalachia-a-distant-cousin-of-jd-vance-leads-an-opposing-authentic-hillbilly-movement/ar-AA1rP3FL?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=861eaa6166134b69ab002ef3733130d1&ei=33

(I will try to find time to improve my links but right now I'm stealing every second)

I disapprove of Gov. Walz's distant relations coming out in support of Trump basically to claim their fifteen minutes of fame, and even more so of his brother, who just plain seems to be motivated by spite. So do I disapprove of JD Vance's distant cousin building an "authentic hillbilly movement" as an antidote to his widely-ballyhooed _Hillbilly Elegy_?

On the one hand I think she's actually doing something constructive and community-building (and I note she's been threatened with violence, something that has not happened to Walz's retrograde relatives). On the other I really find a big gap in logic in consulting a famous person's relatives about them in the first place, and doubly so on a subject with actual social importance such as who's going to lead this country. I don't think her distant relation to Vance actually is important to her pushback against his noxious ideas, except that it happens that their shared acculturation gives her the background of information to contradict him.

After all, how much does it matter if someone's relatives disagree with them, vs whether or not each of us individuals disagrees with them? How much do accidents of birth and proximity actually matter? People tend to assume "family knows you best" but in my experience that's reaally not true.

Anyway.

Comments

[bikergeek]

If you were to run for public office I don't think I'd look to your parents for their opinion on anything.

[minoanmiss]

What do you think would happen if I publicly credited my father with teaching me to be a feminist? It would be HILARIOUS, whatever befel.

[redbird]

In general, I don't think it should matter, unless the candidate has been trying to trade on his family name. That is to say, Walz' or Vance's relatives' opinions shouldn't matter any more than that of their neighbors who aren't related, but RFK Jr. has been taking advantage of his father's name all his life, so his siblings' opinion about him and how he's been using the name do matter.

[amaebi]

Agreed.

I think that the substance of objection project matters separately: beginning a movement and getting extra publicity because of one's name isn't the same as wearing a T-shirt you've been given for a photo.

[minoanmiss]

This is a really good point.

So far the liberals (Mary Trump, Ms. Vance here) seem to be interested in building things for reasons other than spite, as opposed to their conservative counterparts who seem more interested in spite than constructiveness. However I may be biassed and certainly need more data points.

[ethelmay]

I think the coincidence of relationship is a very minor part of the hook in this case. She was already an activist and naturally people ask her if she's related to him. I follow her on Facebook and JDV is very far from her main topic.

[minoanmiss]

If you ever comment to her please cheer her on for me (I do not like facebook).

[minoanmiss]

(work trauma)

[ethelmay]

Will do, and yeah, that would be a good reason (not that there aren't many reasons one might avoid the book of face even without that).

[kayre]

"I don't think her distant relation to Vance actually is important to her pushback against his noxious ideas, except that it happens that their shared acculturation gives her the background of information to contradict him."

I generally agree with you, but I'm inclined to give a fair bit of weight to listening to people who can talk about the person's story and background in context. (I say this as someone with a tangential connection to Vance, btw.) For example I very much admire what Mary Trump does with her knowledge of her uncle.

[amaebi]

Point.

[minoanmiss]

Thank you for pointing this out to me. modifies my conception

[flamingsword]

This, basically. There’s a certain kind of person (some of whom happen to be orange) that will do things to/in front of family that they would not do publicly, but that so reveal their flawed (for instance, eugenicist) character.

[brooksmoses]

An alternate perspective: There is an arguable sense in which the sins of my family become somewhat mine by association -- and so it is more my duty than it is the duty of a random person to strive against the damage caused by those sins.

I don't know how much I would agree with that claim, but I do think it's relevant when I've profited from those sins. And it's at least somewhat true in a practical sense in situations where people will make assumptions and judge me for the association.

It is also, I think, worth noting that this does not give the "striving against the damage" more authoritative weight than the striving of any random person; it simply gives the family member more imperative to do it. And, if one feels a moral imperative, is it wrong to use the association to give that striving a persuasive lever?

The more-relevant distinction I note in your description is the difference between using striving against the damage inflicted by a sin as a means to an end of personal aggrandizement, and treating the striving as its own end with any personal aggrandizement either an accident or something that serves that end.