Conservatism Is Politics For Kindergartners
Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to worry our little heads over politics? Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could just turn over control of all those vexing issues, including our health, welfare and very survival, to some nice men in Washington who would take care of all it for us, occasionally interrupting our somnambulance with this week’s latest thing - Communists! Terrorists! Lindsay Lohan! - to distract our attention?
Unfortunately, for far too many of us, this is actually precisely what is desired. And don’t think Karl Rove doesn’t know it.
Politically speaking, we are a radically lazy society. Thinking, let’s admit it, is hard work. Many people don’t realize that, but then, many people haven’t really had the experience. For some folks it’s the cognitive equivalent of traveling abroad to a foreign land - done occasionally for a change of pace, if at all. Rigorously exploring and thoughtfully understanding our world is not easy. “Politics ain’t beanbag”, as the man once said, though he meant it rather differently. Far less demanding to defer to simple stereotypes, canned passion plays and quasi-religious political morality tales than to actually do our homework, apply the logic, and generate original thinking. And hey, if you do take the easy way out, you’ll still have plenty of time to catch the game on TV!
Moreover, there are lots of friendly people in Washington who would very much appreciate the opportunity to do your thinking for you. They are called conservatives - though I think regressive is a far more accurate term - and they have been getting lots of practice in recent years. They’ll be glad to make your political decisions for you, and even provide you a fully developed, off-the-shelf, ready-to-use reality, any time you like. All you have to do is not think, and not learn. Or, if you really must have the sensory input, simply confine yourself to the infotainment of Fox News or Star magazine. (Though that whole reading thing is to be especially discouraged. Posh Spice is the operative model here. Lots of glamour, lots of money, lots of celebrity, lots of bling. Little substance. She apparently once told an interviewer that she had never read a book - any book - in her entire life. Now that’s something, isn’t it? You gotta love that. You go, Girl! There may be a Presidential Medal of Freedom waiting for you if you keep on pioneering the way toward Karl Rove’s dream citizenry. And why not? Paul Bremer got one, and all he did was destroy a historic civilization of 25 million people.)
We in the progressive community know that not everybody in America thinks the way we do. But we would probably be well served also by a recognition that some people in this country don’t want to think at all. It is possible that some of these Borg could be knee-jerk progressives instead of knee-jerk regressives were they somehow to be re-assimilated into the reality-based community, but the odds are not high. So much of progressive thinking requires careful reflection, extended analytical probing, and a collection of just plain data - factual information - about what is going on in the world. So much of regressive ‘thinking’ fits nicely, and completely, on a bumper sticker.
“Support our troops!”, to wit, and quite literally a bumper sticker seen all over the place (though noticeably less ubiquitous than it was in 2003). Literally a bumper sticker, that is, but not so literal in its meaning, especially since the most obvious way to support our troops - right here, right now - would be to pull them out of harm’s way, where they sit today for no conscionable purpose whatsoever. Otherwise, short of that, really supporting our troops today would mean screaming and hollering at the top of our lungs to make sure that they get adequate training, armor, and rest before being deployed. While we’re at it, we might even ask that they be paid at the same rate as the nearly equivalent numbers of mercenaries fighting alongside them, to the tune of three or four times the soldiers’ salary. And if we really, really wanted to support the troops, we’d call for a draft, so that we’d have a massively enlarged military, and each soldier would have far less of a share of the burden to carry. Hmmm - that may be a bit more than our friends with the bumper stickers had in mind. Perhaps that’s why they’ve been seen lately ducking out to the garage in the wee hours of the night to scrape the things off their Hummers.
The fact that the regressive mantra “support the troops” in reality means none of these things is a perfect example of the difference between bumper sticker politics and something much more nuanced and analytical. And real. At the end of the day, the truth is that what this little slogan really means has little to do with the troops at all. What it really means for regressives who employ it is: “I let the president do my thinking for me, and I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable about how utterly lame that is if you would too, so I wouldn’t have to be reminded by your nonconformity of how I’m embarrassing myself by abdicating my role in this democracy thing we’re always huffing and puffing about, especially the particularly imbecilic creature now occupying the Oval Office to whom I’ve turned over my brain”. That’s what “support the troops” really means.
But then it gets worse from there, because it isn’t really “the president” to whom our friendly regressive is entrusting his brain, but actually certain kinds of presidents only. Don’t think for a minute that Bill Clinton would have gotten this kind of carte blanche from this same crowd. Indeed, we know that he wouldn’t have. Because he didn’t. His interventions in the Balkans, infinitely more justifiable than the invasion of Iraq, produced only scorn and hostility from many of the same folk who now question the patriotism of anyone who finds the judgement of the current president even remotely dubious. So much for the idea that politics stops at the water’s edge, eh? How very mid-twentieth century that notion was. Sorta like the war on poverty, the progressive income tax, the Geneva Protocols, or other equally quaint historical artifacts.
Truly, the entirety of the Iraq debacle - not just the more recent quagmire - can be understood in terms of this kindergarten politics motif. You need a boatload of operative assumptions banging away on all eight cylinders at once to buy, wholesale, into this line of garbage. You need to believe that the story of 9/11 as it’s been presented to us is real. You need to believe that America has never acted in the Middle East for purposes of profiting its overclass and at the expense of the welfare and the very lives of the people there who are inconveniently living on top of “our” oil and “our” strategic perches. You need to understand that “they” - Arabs, Muslims, brown people, ragheads, whatever - are all the same, and that the US attacking secular, Shiite-majority, Iraq in response to a crime supposedly perpetrated by rabid, Sunni, Islamofascists who happened to hate the Iraqi regime about as much as they hate us makes perfect sense.
You must forget that an urgent invasion to make us safe from weapons of mass destruction made no sense given the Cold War experience of forty years of deterrence, let alone the near-completion of the weapons inspections that were demonstrating that no such weapons even existed. You must not laugh out loud at the prospect of bringing democracy to the Middle East as a motivation for the war, given the very same administration’s complete inaction in the face of genocide in Darfur. You must never question why Iraq should be attacked in response to a terrorist episode perpetrated (even according to the official story) almost entirely by Saudis, and no Iraqis. You have to believe that there are people sitting in bunkers somewhere right this moment, trying to determine where best to hit America in order to inflict maximum damage, and deciding that it’s a lot easier to deploy suicide missions in a locked down, massively fortified war zone than, or in addition to, on the streets of Burbank or Baltimore, and therefore that it is a good thing we are fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.
Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
In kindergarten, the world is a lot easier to understand if you keep two important ideas in mind. The first is that there are only two kinds of people - good ones and evil ones - you know, just like they teach you in Sunday school, or Lord of the Rings. And, second, your side is always the good people side. Likewise, Mr. Bush and his war are a lot easier to understand if you’ve never quite graduated from kindergarten, emotionally or analytically. Saddam, you see, was an evil, evil man, and we are the good people who had to heroically vanquish him in order to save his innocent would-be victims. Given this construction, it was obviously crucial in the run-up to the war not to dwell too much on the past history of American relations with Saddam, back when he was, er, a good, evil man.
And, four-and-a-half years down the merry pike, it is equally important to avoid the inconvenient fact that a million Iraqi civilians are now dead, and four million more have become refugees. Especially since that totals out to one-fifth of the country’s population, or the equivalent of 60 million Americans. That’s equal to the entire populations of Minnesota, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Connecticut, Mississippi, Kansas, Arkansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. Personally, I wouldn’t entirely miss a few of those states (you know who you are, Mississippi, Utah, ‘Bama…), but I don’t wish any ill on the folks living there. I only wish that they wished the same for the nice people of the Anbar, Najaf, Baghdad, Diyala, Karbala and the other Iraqi provinces.
These inconvenient facts, of course, represent massive cognitive overload for those Americans enrolled in Political Science .001, Civics For Kindergartners. Fortunately, the walking misnomer that goes by the name of the American news media was gracious enough to interject neither complexity nor reality into the comic strip morality play fabricated for our benefit by the good, good men in Washington (Thanks, Dick! Thanks, Karl!). None of us, therefore, had to think too hard if we didn’t want to, about the difficult questions lurking only just barely below the war’s mythological epic tale, a patina now rapidly melting away like a working girl’s eye make-up in a downpour. Many of us continue to this day to resist such painful exercising of the synapses. And one heckuva lot more of us would still be in that latter category now, had the administration’s Romper Room expectations for the war’s prosecution not gone so badly awry.
In kindergarten teacher knows best, and questioning - even of things you see right before your very eyes - will only earn you a timeout for insolence. If teacher says that massive tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the rest of us, and will even do so without busting the budget, then it must be so. If teacher says turning over Social Security to Wall Street will make us all better off, then your job is to agree. If teacher says we need not worry about our planet burning up despite the gargantuan pile of accumulated evidence to the contrary, she must be right. If teacher promises to fix that entire city in Louisiana that drowned, then of course she will. And if none of these things appear to your eyes to be true, two, three and four years later, then surely what’s needed is for you to visit the nice eye doctor with the funny dials and charts on the wall. For teacher is never wrong. But it is certainly always wrong to even wonder if that might be the case.
This is precisely the sort of mentality about politics that has gotten us into the trouble we’re in today. And this kindergarten approach to public affairs is precisely what the American Founders sought to supplant with their blueprint for Enlightenment-style rational, mature, self-determining administration of government. Their dream was that we could graduate from kindergarten to first grade, or maybe even tenth grade, and employ the wisdom that is inherent in most of us and is necessary to sustain self-governance, rather than continuing to rely upon the daddy figures of various kings and sundry deities.
The hopes and aspirations of the Founders, and the risk inherent to their experiment in governance, have been largely vindicated over the centuries since. But sometimes, especially when we’re particularly frightened of the loud noises and the bright flashes that go bump in the middle of the night, too many of us still revert back to kindergartner mode.
It must be relaxing not to have to think very hard about difficult and complex issues, but to rely upon bumper sticker politics instead.
It must be comforting to know that the world can be reliably divided into good and evil, and that your side is always good.
It must be reassuring to uncritically delegate decision-making and even value-setting to somebody who talks tough and strides through the world with an impermeable air of confidence.
Yes, relaxation, comfort, and reassurance are all wonderful things, but then so is naptime.
Unless Americans want to (continue to) live in a country ruled by a government of, for and by kindergartners, some of us need to reconsider how we practice our politics.
Giving up graham crackers and milk won’t be easy, of course. But then neither is endless war, devastated cities, a destroyed environment or fiscal hemorrhaging.
And, anyway, it’s the price we all have to pay for graduating to first grade.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers’ reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
Excellent ideas Mr. Green and I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps you could have conflated the concept of “the teacher” with “Big Brother”. The message would still be valid. I suppose it is the pernicious influence of money in politics, where getting the message out to the people means employing ridiculous 30-second commercials (advertisements really) leaving little time for reflection and/or thought. This anti-intellectualism or anything remotely resembling ideas beyond a fifth grade level must be the current administration’s wet dream. It’s not for nothing that they have a TV show called “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?”.
It would be wrong to blame the ill-informed masses. A huge percentage of them are (from an evolutionary perspective) just beginning to think (a little bit). The fault lies with the old outdated system and the establishment leadership that mercilessly exploits them. It also lies with those of us who know better but fail to outsmart the bastards who are grinding humanity down. Too many of US fail to pour into the fight all the energy that we’re capable of pouring into it.
Believe it or not - Another HUGE contributing factor is that we’re right between two radically difference ages (2,150 or so year periods - A.K.A. cosmic cycles) - wherein the energies that stream to the planet (and greatly influence humanity) differ greatly. As a civilization we’re moving OUT of the separatist illusions of Pisces and into the unifying light of Aquarius - for sure. We’re fast approaching the end of the world - but only as we’ve come to know it.
It’s time to say goodbye to war, poverty, unbridled greed, political corruption, merciless exploitation of human beings (and animals), and all the other ills that so characterize the empire. It’s time for the human family to blossom for the first time in it’s relatively short history.
===============================
Jet: Climb on up and we’ll go for a ride in the sky…
From Pisces to Aquarius:
The precession of the equinoxes
by Rick Roark
http://snipurl.com/1p4nw
————————-
May all beings be happy and well!
This essay is the one I have been waiting to see published, I hope it becomes as ubiquitous as Bush and Rove’s lies. The four people I have been closest to in the last ten years all told me that they never cared about politics when I met them are now all registered to vote, and have become thirsty news hounds.
And I have been told by all of them that their lives were easier when they didn’t care, and easier still when they didn’t know.
It was only the realization that what they did not at first know about and then did not care about but now do has made them uncomfortable because it had been affecting their life all along, but they never knew it did. Now, the knowing prevents them from disengaging and believing it does not matter.
The problem with conservatism is that Karl Rove comes up with the dastardly plans, and that’s twisted enough; but Frank Lutz is the guy we should all fear more than anything for he can take the most abhorrent concept and make it sound like happiness for all.
The only way to defeat guys like Lutz (and by extension those who give him whatever message he has been paid to peddle) is to understand how they play us and stop being played. And in this country, our pride is so embarassingly large that those who have voted for Bush and swallowed his lies for this long are now to proud to admit that those lies are indeed making their lives worse and more dangerous because they just cant face the shame and humilation that they got sold a rotten bill of goods and backed the wrong party/candidate.
Captain Ahab may be leading the Republican party, but it takes a nation of Pollyannas to let him get away with it, and this country has just got too many people who like their bliss with their ignorance.
In your school teacher analogy, the teacher is there to tell them naptime is over. Right now that is this country desperately needs and doesn’t have.
OK DMG - but are we talking about Politics ™ or about politics? The vapid caricature-chasing shell game of the political parties or get out in the street, stop the machine politics? Going for the brand name will get us nowhere because it is the fully owned subsidiary of the “ownership society.” The political class and government will only do the bidding of the status quo. Profit maximization and market domination.
The only way to affect change is to take money from the pockets of the wealthy; lots of money from all of the wealthy. The only real way to do that is to sever the bonds of servitude to mindless consumption. Like so many words in the anglo lexicon “consumption” has several meanings. Build on the idea that we are not “consumers” so much as “consumptives” suffering the debilitations and the ravages of a consuming disease. We do not “need” to be subservient to the questionable logic of “economies of scale.”
Indeed: much of biology and information science reveals the inherent robustness of systems that are distributive and redundant. A failure of a part of the system is less likely to result in a failure of the whole.
Not all is bad and we have not been here before. Two hundred years ago it took several weeks to get a message from one continent to another. Now, I can do that when I hit “enter.”
Wow. Is is just me, or has the quality of user-submitted comments very recently and quickly gone downhill? “Go DU your own children”? “The unifying light of Aquarius”? puh-leeze!
I have thought for many years that it is disgraceful that public secondary students are never required to learn that our reality is of unbounded complexity and that anyone’s model of it is flawed. And, on top of that, that many in a position of authority in every country and at every time have provided models that were intentionally flawed, for the presenter’s benefit and the audience’s detriment. So every human being should never stop evaluating models given them by others. I know the glib response is to just tell them to “Question Authority,” but I do not believe that goes nearly far enough.
I would also mention that I thought Professor Green could have touched on how Rove’s focus on bamboozling gullible religious voters dovetails with presenting a kindergarten-level model of reality with absolutes.
MetalDog: If you want to praise Mr Clinton, don’t expect me to suddenly be happy. Mr Bush is still catching up with Mr Clinton in the murder of civilians. Perhaps it is because I’m not from USA, but frankly, you are praising one gangster, serial killer, DU-user and monster over another. If you are willing to praise such a criminal, and lets not ignore his crimes elsewhere, e.g. disrupting the humanitarian aid work in Somalia for propaganda, killing 15000 people there etc, then I kindly ask that you at least let your government DU yourself and your children. If you don’t want that, don’t do it to us. This is called mutuality.
I have never understood the idea that the USA represents moral virtue. I have difficulty coming up with an original American virtue, let alone one that has been practiced. Concepts such as Equality and Freedom are rarely practiced. The people of Cuba have done a better job practicing Equality than Republican and Democrat Americans have. Freedom, a very ambiguous term, is of course on the brink of extinction in the USA. Americans wants to proclaim themselves as good people and that their Government wants to lay claim as experts on morality to the International community. Try real hard to convince the people of Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Grenada, Cuba, and Cambodia of your positive morality first and see if you will be successful. Maybe USA can destroy all of these nations, both directly and indirectly, AGAIN to convince these peoples of positive morality in Americans. Indeed, USA believes they are better than any culture on Earth. Americans even dare to claim they are superior to Iraqis, who were perhaps the inventors of agriculture and hence civilization. One creates while the other destroys - the latter of which is American morality in a nutshell.
Conservativism and regression is synonymous in American politics, generally speaking. They do more harm than good in the USA and throughout the world. Conservatism, especially the neo kind, generally is pro-Fascist, anti-Socialist, and believes that their particular views on Yahweh trumps Science. Indeed, they will falsify, or make a debate in which conservatives play idiot, on scientific inquiries (One of the most famous examples of argument is that human beings do not contribute to Global Warming in any way) while only using Science when convenient for their cause. It would not surprise me if some neo-conservatives are trying to prove that the world is flat. It was due to neo-conservatism that Fascism is just over the horizon in the USA. It is due to conservatism that euthanasia and stem-cell research is “bad” but genocide and capital punishment is “good.” Of course, many also frame Christians as “good” and Muslims as “bad” while doing a poor job explaining why. Their ability to spew propaganda to the “kindergartner” Americans is almost as good as the Nazis. I only hope that most Americans are not fooled by Conservatism and understand that again, these people do more harm than good in the USA and throughout the world.
Spot on. It’s amazing how ignorant people are of politics and the world in general. I’ve found it impossible to have political discussions anymore. A conversation about the newest model of BMW is the norm.
If you ask me, it’s a limitation of the human species…’Democracy,’ a great concept, too bad the public at large has no interest in participating. With so many chrome rims, iphones and downloadable ringtones, there’s other important things to worry about.
Bingahaba: you sure put a lot of words into my mouth. Where did I say I was a Clinton supporter? Where did I praise anyone? I merely made a remark about the quality of your comment at the top, which is despicable and immature. You openly advocated the murder of children, which you also claim to be wrong. Or is it wrong when it’s non-Americans, but ok for American kids? This is called hypocrisy.
For the record, I’m a human first, and an American second, and I am as horrified as anyone by mass murder. And yet I must point out that this has little to do with the topic of this article. This is called relevance.
It’s not a limitation of the human species, it’s a limitation of the American McCulture. Looking good and right NOW are the only two values, and that doesn’t lend itself to participatory democracy.
Dear Professor Green:
Newsflash: We don’t even HAVE bumperstickers anymore! Look around. I don’t see any when I drive.
And people do not want to discuss politics. Nobody seems to trust anyone anymore. The one message I believe even the “American Idol/ESPN Sports Center” crowd have gotten loud and clear is this: “Watch what you do and watch what you say.” - Ari Fleisher. If you see or “hear” anything “suspicious” tell someone. They realize that they can be arrested without charges under the suspicion only that they “might” be an enemy compatant or a sympathizer to one. That they can lose their citizenship, be imprisoned indefinitely and tortured with no right to an attorney….forever.
Thus, no conversations. No bumperstickers. No meaningful demonstrations. People won’t put themselves in compromising situations where they know Blackwater goons, bought and paid for by “private” corporations, might fry their brains with their high tech equipment, or where they might get arrested for being “anti-war”.
Look what happened to Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago. She asked to see the Pentagon’s exit strategy from the war against Iraq and Bush signed another Executive Order basically stating that “anyone” who is against the war in Iraq and says so is interfering in what the military objective is and as a result they may have all their properties and possessions seized. Asset forfeiture for being an anti-war demonstrator! But do we see a gaggle of Congresspersons on the steps of the Capitol denouncing these things?! No! They’re “going along to get along.” Why????
Then there’s the little issue of the detention camps. I thank a Commondreams poster for bringing this to my attention. I sent the clip below to Frank Rich at The New York Times today and asked him to try to launch an in-depth investigation into these camps. These are crime scenes before the fact, and after being thoroughly investigated it is this writers opinion that they should all be immediately razed with museums built to show the barbed wire (so we can all touch it….then go home), to show the big incinerators and the crows nests for the lookout, and the military trains on the tracks leading in and out of town and into the camp. Just take a camp from Nazi Germany and plop it down here. This is what we have now in the United States.
Thanks to an article on Commondreams today we now realize there was a plot to overthrow FDR that “failed”. My position is that since FDR “forgave” the perps, they succeeded.
Now, here we are. What do you suggest Prof. Green? “Hijacking” the Democratic Party would be as simple as “hijacking” the Republican Party. It’s as if we’re a family and we have this son named “Chuckie” who is worse than a bad seed. He’s like the devil with overalls on with Republican/Democrat fascist/Nazi blood surging through his veins. He’s like Rosemary’s baby….only he’s OURS! Do we try to “change” little Chuckie, who every child psychiatrist has warned that he is likely to burn the house down or kill his siblings in their sleep, or us…his parents? Or do we perhaps put “Chuckie” where he can do no harm to himself or others and consider having a “new” baby? How does “The American Party” sound?
“What are you?”, a person asks, “A Democrat or Republican?”
“I belong to the American Party. I’m an American. Here’s a voter registration form. Just write “American” in under “Other”.
And we can NEVER trust the fraudulent electronic voting they’ve put into play here. Only vote ABSENTEE and Xerox your ballot. All ballots must be counted by the People in each precinct and the People must announce the winners. Not CNN. We must NEVER trust anyone to count the ballots in our elections again except the People. Ever. I would trust the people in Florida sitting around the tables to count my ballots way more than I’d trust the rotten Secretary of State in Ohio and his rotten Diebold machines. To think that our elected leaders have approved and financed this sham on Democracy is shocking. What fools we are and have been. Hey! I admit it!!!
Here’s the video of the Detention Camp in Beech Grove, Indiana that I sent to Frank Rich:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258&pr=goog-sl
Right on brother Green!
Most of this piece is pretty reasonable, though perhaps preaching to the choir. It’s quite true that when it comes to politics, Americans are raised to “think” at the level of bumper-stickers.
Glaring, though, as this thread’s 1st post has already noted, is the terrible mistake Prof Green makes about Clinton’s interventions in the Balkans (”infinitely more justifiable than the invasion of Iraq“).
What’s actually most striking about comparisons of the NATO Kosovo bombings and the Iraq atrocity is not their differences, but their essential similarity. The two acts of aggression were both entirely based on self-serving lies. In both cases, imperialist powers led by the US sought economic & military advantages in the target countries. In both cases, an absurdly dishonest propaganda campaign was launched to demonize the target leader (Milosevic/Saddam) as “the next Hitler.” In both cases, the US-led invaders pretended to be motivated solely by humanitarian concerns, then proceeded to commit war crimes by destroying civilian installations, en route to utterly shattering the target economies. In neither case was there the slightest prior threat to the imperialist powers.
The main difference between the 2 situations was 1) the economic prize in Iraq — the oil — was obviously much greater, & 2) that Clinton’s lies about Kosovo were far more smoothly executed from the PR standpoint. In Iraq, we all know about “WMD.” In Kosovo, outrageous claims were made about the number of ethnic Albanians supposedly murdered by the Serbs. Later investigation (a few months after the war) by the UN & MSM organizations showed that what the US had claimed were “hundreds of thousands” of deaths were actually only about 2000. (See this WSWS article, or Chomsky’s account, or Michael Parenti’s “To Kill a Nation.”)
I sometimes wonder if Progressives of the current stripe really are ready to assume some kind of political significance in today’s America. I really liked most of what this article had to say … the facts laid out in this succinct form were really compelling to read. But as I read on, I was overcome with despair at the stultifying tone of patronization towards the citizenry. I mean enough is enough! Especially when the author writes (like he knows better) something like:
“… especially when we’re particularly frightened of the loud noises and the bright flashes that go bump in the middle of the night, too many of us still revert back to kindergartner mode.”
Loud noises? Bright Flashes? Are you sh*tt*ng me? Look America isn’t a child so much as an experiment, which was so successful it grew very quickly to unprecedented power, influence and significance. It’s a tribute to what human beings can do when they set aside the old concepts of nationality and bloodline and unite around a liberating idea. But one of the downsides of all that (if you will) evolutionary success (not to mention fortunate geography) is that we have never been invaded or violated IN OUR ENTIRE (though admittedly short) HISTORY, like so many - no make that ALL - other countries have been. So the events of 9/11 really traumatized this country (not all of us but as a nation). And I believe this is what the author was bitchily referring to when he mentioned “loud noises and the bright flashes.”
GWB saw 9/11 as the opportunity he was waiting for to turn national anxiety to political advantage and install his hideous neo-con agenda. (Well not him, his handlers). Democrats did not know what to do next for fear of being effectively outmaneuvered by the neo-cons with accusations of unpatriotic behavior. They still are.
But was it Americans who failed at this moment? Or was it American leadership?
In the patronizing metaphor of Kindergarten the author even identifies a “teacher” who tells his or her students that down is up. Well sorry to be so obtuse but it wasn’t the students who were to blame in that story but that “teacher” who was a corrupt, immoral liar, just like Bush & Co.
Our side will never make any headway so along as we believe the American people are stupid (one of the comments even accused them of being evolutionarily retarded) Hey man, way to win their hearts and minds.
Why should we be concerned? Because what they have is mortgages, too little child care, vulnerability, too much debt, too little job security and maybe (but don’t blame them) just maybe too little education. (Oh the media and the system don’t reinforce that?).
But the other thing they have that progressives had best wake up to is the power of the vote!
What do we give them in exchange for it? Republicans who are convinced they are stupid and too preoccupied with their lives so they manipulate them with crooked media, cooked books, bumper sticker ideology and fear. The Democrats who give them pity and patronization. And “Progressives” who give them shit for not being smart enough or enlightened enough or sophisticated enough.
Maybe what they need aren’t progressives at all, but old-fashioned liberals who knew their value, respected them and won their support.
While I largely agree with the essay, I think the title is an insult to kindergarteners everywhere. And if the conservatives really want to do my thinking for me, they’re going to have to do a better job of it.
As old John Stewart Mill said, “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
“I let the president do my thinking for me, and I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable about how utterly lame that is if you would too, so I wouldn’t have to be reminded by your nonconformity of how I’m embarrassing myself by abdicating my role in this democracy thing we’re always huffing and puffing about, especially the particularly imbecilic creature now occupying the Oval Office to whom I’ve turned over my brain”.
Hillary Clinton?
I have a friend with a Ph.D. in math who has an absolutely brilliant mind. The so-called difficult concepts of politics are nothing compared to the difficult concepts of mathematics. And my friend, being much smarter than the average politician, has found a sure way to end terrorism! He says we need to bomb every elementary school in the Muslim world. That’s where the future terrorists are now and we’ve got to hit them hard. He got the idea from a Fox Noise broadcast showing elementary school kids in some Muslem country chanting “death to America.” But the liberals who hate America won’t let us do what needs to be done, he laments, and that’s why we are losing this war. I’m not making this up. There are lots of people like him.
MetalDog: I don’t advocate the killing of children. The fact of the matter is that you (plural - America is a democracy, and in a democracy, the population is responsible for the actions of its government, trivially) are killing our children, and I’m merely asking that if you must kill children, kill your own, and leave ours be. As for your comment re supporting Clinton, perhaps I should have used ‘one’ for ‘you’ - my point is general, and in regards to this article; you are wrong, as this is very much in regards to this article: the author praises Clinton’s crimes in the northern Balkans (former Yugoslavia).
bingahaba: the “Democracy” in the US is an illusion. the masses don’t really have any say in what our government does in our name–the rich control the government and it operates in their interests.
However, I agree that the author of the article is full of crap. Liberalism is as morally bankrupt as conservatism. There’s no such thing as a “humanitarian” war. Clinton murdered over 1 million Iraqis via sanctions and bombings. He destroyed welfare, increased military spending, slashed social services and used the US military to intervene more times than Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. combined.
Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could just turn over control of all those vexing issues, including our health, welfare and very survival, to some nice men in Washington who would take care of all it for us…
Isn’t that the very definition of socialism?
nickhart– that makes absolutely no sense! Liberalism is based on progress and on believing in the goodness of people. It is different for everyone and any one. How is that morally bankrupt? And if regressivism is morally bankrupt and progressivism is also morally bankrupt, what else is there? thewolfstar makes some of the same comments, please explain. As for the people saying that the author is applauding Clinton’s bombing- I’m not sure where you read that? More justifiable doesn’t mean it’s justified. I have not read any comments on this thread that support Clinton. And if that’s what you are using to bash liberalism- Bill Clinton, well then maybe, just maybe, you were not the intended subject of this article. Since if you think Bill Clinton represents liberalism, well, let’s just say Karl Rove has won.
Woodrow Wilsom was a liberal and his “war to end all wars” or “war to make the world safe for democracy” did neither. he persecuted people who spoke out against WWI and put them in jail. FDR, the great idol of Democrats everywhere, imprisoned 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, turned back boat loads of jewish refugees and formalized wage discrimination against blacks with his “National Recovery Act.” Truman *nuked* two cities full of innocent civilians. JFK invaded Cuba, nearly caused WWIII, paid billions of dollars to support the French occupation of Vietnam and sent 18,000 US military “advisers” there. When that wasn’t enough to prop up the corrupt South Vietnam puppet regime, LBJ used a fictitious attack to whip up support in Congress for an invasion of Vietnam which resulted in over 3 million deaths. Every “democratic” president has never had a problem calling in troops to break strikes.
Liberalism is just the other side of the same coin as conservatism. They both accept the same fundamental *regressive* idea that capital should reign supreme–that the US government can and should do whatever it must in order to extend the wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. Liberalism is better at dressing itself up in progressive clothing and duping people on the left into following it.
nickhart: That (comment before previous) is a cop-out: the ANC government in South Africa is no less tied to the rich, etc. That does not prevent people from fighting. See e.g. http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/default.asp?10,24,10,2250
Here is a suggestion (no, it is not problem free, you are supposed to think quick, act upon & repair emerging problems etc): Ask people to sign a petition: Stop killing other people’s children. Give a bit of history.
Next, run on a local election on the platform that you will act to end and/or subvert your country’s terrorism to the extent that it comes out of the office. You might also want to train others in this regard once you have gained some experience. Try being frank, with yourself and others. Be creative. Show the weaknesses of electoral strategies to the electorate as you use them.
Say that which you are not supposed to say. MLK only sounds reasonable today - in his day he was shockingly honest.
Like so many others, Mr Green beats around the bush. Let’s call it was it is: Science vs Religion, or rather the Scientific Mindset vs the Religious Mindset as it applies to living our lives. Slowly, over the course of 1000’s of years we as a civilization are moving from a primarily religious to a primarily scientific outlook. Of course that drives neocons (of all eras) crazy. But all in all they are powerless to stop it.
So as bad as things are currently, I’m actually hopeful because I see that children ARE being taught the value of the scientific mindset, even in religious institutions. They’re feeling, if not fully realizing, the benefits of technology, and slowly too getting a real bad taste in their mouth of anything religious (in the form of terrorism and fundamentalism).
Unfortunately it’s such a slow process.
We are also engaged in the politics of empire. The U.S. has the largest military on Earth and uses that to obtain resources and strategic dominance. Residents of the empire are told this is for “democracy” and “freedom”. Not likely.
Residents of the empire are heavily propagandized. While some are awake, others are not. Some do not want to know what is being done in their name. Cognitive dissonance flourishes.
Things are not going well for the empire. The military is overstretched in Iraq and the Mideast. The country is running huge budget and trade deficits. Michael Moore has shown that the U.S. ranks last among developed countries in health care. Adequate funds are not provided to maintain and renew the country’s infrastructure.
Maybe it would be useful to learn to think critically about politics and particularly the politics of empire.
thewolfstar: Thank you for you kind comments previously. I do take issue with your comment re voting machines. The reality is that the ‘Republicans’ only had to cheat ever so slightly - after all, we are at most talking about one or two percent of the total electorate. Electoral integrity is another grounds for battle, but with so much of the electorate voting in support of such monstrosities (R or D), it seems quite irrelevant. Basic morality seems to be the problem.
Rusty Shackelford (1:19 pm) thinks he’s being clever by writing,
Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could just turn over control of all those vexing issues, including our health, welfare and very survival, to some nice men in Washington who would take care of all it for us…
Isn’t that the very definition of socialism?
Actually, no, it’s not. That has no necessary connection whatsover with socialism. In fact, you’re thinking (to use Prof Green’s metaphor) at the level of a bumper-sticker. Socialism means public ownership of “the means of production” — ie, industrial production & essential services. It does NOT mean that bureaucrats in the national capital necessarily control everything. The different form of ownership could be implemented in a wide variety of ways — just as capitalism (private ownership of production) can be implemented in different ways, from highly regulated to totally unregulated; from somewhat democratic (Western Europe) to police-state (Chile under Allende).
Socialism could be implemented in a top-down form, as in the former USSR, with virtually no provision for local or democratic input. Or it could be implemented in a bottoms-up way that emphasizes local control & democratic input — citizens’ councils, workers’ councils, & so on.
The main problem for the development of socialist systems has been that the US always comes in to destroy the systems, murder the leaders, impose dictatorship on the population, & loot the resources.
RichM,
Good points. The propaganda machine does what it can to prevent the population from recognizing that there are theoretically an infinite number of possible implementations of socialism or capitalism. Using the Soviet Union as an example that socialism cannot work makes as much sense as using the 19th Century heavier-than-air aircraft designs to prove that no airplane could ever possibly fly. I would add that socialism was originally conceived as a post-capitalist economic system, and Marx and other theorists would not have been surprised by the failure of socialist systems in agrarian pre-capitalist societies.
I once read that Thomas Paine was the first, “citizen of the world.” Sorry, empire America will continue until the country comes to the same realization.
And also, please seperate conservatives from elites. It is the elites who make money in war and that is why War is celebrated in the Wall Street Journal every day, just about.
snafubar:
“…our pride is so embarrassingly large that those who have voted for Bush and swallowed his lies for this long are now to proud too admit that those lies are indeed making their lives worse and more dangerous because they just cant face the shame and humiliation that they got sold a rotten bill of goods and backed the wrong party/candidate.”
Ya got dat right!
I hope I’m never in that boat.
I would put the SELLING of that rotten bill of goods in the category of treason in a democracy. The military-industrial-media complex has their hands deep into that!
Ron,
I have had similar friends who were brilliant in mathematics or physics. They have to spend so much energy on their work, they do not have any left over to devote to other topics and so typically they have unsophisticated opinions with regard to those topics. However, they arrogantly assume that because they can scale such a large mountain when they do devote tremendous energy to it, that their opinions on any topic are automatically superior to those of others who have not scaled such a mountain, regardless of how much thought and research that others have devoted to the topic.
abbybwood August 3rd, 2007 12:43 pm
How does “The American Party” sound?
“What are you?”, a person asks, “A Democrat or Republican?”
“I belong to the American Party. I’m an American. Here’s a voter
registration form. Just write “American” in under “Other”.
———————–
I liked your suggestion so I checked online and there is an American Party. This appears to be their motto:
http://www.theamericanparty.org/
“The American Party now more than ever!
America needs the American Party!”
If you research their history, they’ve been around since 1969 and were supporters of George Wallace.
Just for curiosity’s sake, there’s also an American Fascist Party:
http://www.americanfascistparty.com/index2.html
Amazing, the people who made rude ridiculous comments obviously are the people Dr. Green is talking about. Clearly they couldn’t spend the extra 10-15 minutes reading and digesting his whole argument.
Agree or disagree, you have to read all the facts to have an intelligent argument. That generally doesn’t include any one newspaper article, TV show, or website. You have to selectively pick the truth from various sources and have an informed opinion based on reality.
His argument makes perfect sense based on that not because he is a progressive. Progressivism may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of regressivism. Read a book. Here’s a good one to start:
http://tinyurl.com/29zkvm
Only 106 pages, maybe you can figure out why your education has failed you…
Maybe part of our problem as progressives is that we’ve achieved an attitude of moral superiority? People on the left or people who consider themselves progressive are just as capable of being venal, stupid and arrogant as any conservative/regressive. I’m not sure we should think our method is right or correct just because we espouse it. It is a matter of figuring out what the best course of action is, rather than what is right or left..or that’s my opinion anyhow. Of course an idiot like W. should be opposed but if that same idiot happens to be on the left, I don’t think we should pretend they aren’t an idiot. Of course, I may be totally talking out of my ass on this but I figure we should be a little careful about ascribing any kind of special characteristics to ourselves as progressives. Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.
The pile just gets bigger and bigger, deeper and deeper.
Ron and Kivals,
If those people are your friends I’d hate to see your enemies. But I get the point. There are indeed very smart people who have the most bass-ackward politics, not to mention their morals. And Kivals is right that they think their accomplishment in one arena gives them infallible entry into any other. It just don’t work that way.
I find the great majority of Professor Green’s thoughts in this column to be right on the money. Since he can’t cover “everything” in a given piece of writing, I can give him a “pass’ - for not looking more deeply into the roots of the immaturity and childish thinking rampant in our country.
“Authoritarianism” can be seen as a basic paradigm or “framework of assumptions” underlying our beliefs, thoughts, and actions >>> one that has been with us for some 5,000 years.
It can also be described as a “dominator model” of social relationships. From this point of view the whole universe of “power-over” modes of relationship reflects more childlike ways of thinking. And it arises out of a network of assumptions involving strict parental authority >>> (whether expressed as God the Father, or the King, or the patriarchal-type father, teacher, or boss).
Co-arising with these images, of course, are those beings from whom obedience, conformity, and good behavior is expected. So we have the “good” child, student, wife, or corporate employee >>>> Or the righteous, pious person, who “follows” the Ten Commandments or the “word” of God in the Bible.
It is Possible for our species to outgrow this paradigm. Authoritarianism is not the only metaphor that humans can utilize for setting up our society and social relationships. As Riane Eisler has pointed out – there is an alternative – one involving shared power – which she calls the “partnership model.”
If Eisler’s research is correct - a few of us are now considering alternatives to 5,000 years of authoritarianism.
I take comfort in the fact that I’m not alone in seeing this possibility or feeling hope.
Philip Slater, for example, in A Dream Deferred, agrees that we are living through a time of massive, worldwide change. He articulates this transition in political terms. What is coming to an end, he asserts, is not the world - but an era: the era of authoritarianism:
He writes:
“It is an era that has lasted for over 5,000 years - virtually all of recorded history - and still dominates our ideas and customs. This cultural system is so old and so familiar that we tend to mistake its customs and habits for human nature.
“I call such pervasive social systems megacultures. A megaculture is a core of attitudes, practices, and beliefs shared by a wide range of vastly differing cultures, and covering most of the globe.
“Many of the agonies and upheavals of our time result from our efforts to move into a new era while still toting a huge load of emotional and intellectual baggage from the old one; The emerging megaculture is democracy.”
The kindergarten analogy is a bit off, because, unlike 4 and 5 year olds, adults choose not to think. The kids, they still lack the capability.
It’s more like the theory of the God clause. Try explaining to a cult member that the President illegally invaded a sovereign nation and killed and maimed over a million innocents, and you get: “It’s God’s will.” End of conversation, they go home and sleep soundly. That is the Rove approach: it’s Bush’s will, and anyone who doesn’t agree is clearly a terrorist lover and America hater. So shut up and go buy something.
And it’s so much easier to believe the cult leader only and always tells the truth, because, you know, he talks to some God directly. And if he lies, it’s because God said to. And if he spies on us illegally - Godbush. Steal all of our money? Godbush. Break every law ever written? Godbush.
Jesus was a liberal, and if he were around today, Cheneybush would accuse him of being a terrorist lover, because he loves everyone. Next stop, Gitmo for a little torture and some force feeding. Go team!
Being a conservative means being a panglossist. People who just can’t handle the idea that there might be something wrong with how the world is, comvince theirselves that everything is just great. This is panglossianism. By convincing themselves that the status quo is just great, they can stand to go out into the big bad world each day.
So slavery was just great. Inequality for women is just great. Those third worlders are lucky to have their sweat ships. Capitalism is the best possible system in this best of all possible worlds.
Although I appreciate this article, Voltaire hit at the heart of this much closer a very long time ago.
Dvid Michael Green writes:
In kindergarten teacher knows best, and questioning - even of things you see right before your very eyes - will only earn you a timeout for insolence. If teacher says that massive tax cuts for the rich will trickle down to the rest of us, and will even do so without busting the budget, then it must be so. If teacher says turning over Social Security to Wall Street will make us all better off, then your job is to agree. If teacher says we need not worry about our planet burning up despite the gargantuan pile of accumulated evidence to the contrary, she must be right. If teacher promises to fix that entire city in Louisiana that drowned, then of course she will. And if none of these things appear to your eyes to be true, two, three and four years later, then surely what’s needed is for you to visit the nice eye doctor with the funny dials and charts on the wall. For teacher is never wrong. But it is certainly always wrong to even wonder if that might be the case.
***************
This is an excelent overview of what public education has done to all the students it teaches from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Critical thinking turns out to be something to be frowned upon instead of encouraged.
As to to MetalDog’s supercilious and dismissive response to Maxhemust’s comments………
MetalDog: “Wow. Is is just me, or has the quality of user-submitted comments very recently and quickly gone downhill? …“The unifying light of Aquarius”? puh-leeze!”
And KaneJeeves’s IMHO somewhat more thoughtful offering:
“Like so many others, Mr Green beats around the bush. Let’s call it was it is: Science vs Religion, or rather the Scientific Mindset vs the Religious Mindset…”
The best I can do right now is to import something I wrote in comments on DMG’s last offering, Forget Third Parties…”
It’s my rather wordy way of trying to articulate a few thoughts which I believe are worthwhile to reflect upon…in terms of progressive ideas’ potency in the world.
Anyway, the “Religion vs. Science” issue is so 20th century! I believe it really is passe` and a false dichotomy when it comes to a deeper and more current analysis of issues. While many Americans are still battling that one out, I want to advocate that progressives not get caught up with that cluster-fuck. It’s not where current science is at and not where the cutting edge of higher/deeper consciousness studies is, either.
—————————————–
We really need to move into Planetary view of our current predicaments, if we are to grasp the complexity of unfolding events. That is, a perspective which accounts for the radical interdependence of (especially, living) systems. It is no longer a luxury to peer through the lens of General Systems Theory - (such as the “Whole-Systems Theory” articulated by Ken Wilber, Jose Arguelles, Edgar Morin, Lynn Margulis, and Elisabet Sartouris.
Many domains within the scientific community are (in some cases slowly; in others, quickly) coming to the realization that the perspective offered by GST is a necessity if they are to answer today’s pressing questions. And, they see that this new dimension involves changes that are paradigmatic in nature. And, so it must be in political science as well. It will be profoundly necessary to attempt to understand the roots, causes, and consequences of the apparent chaos unique to our time in world history.
If we truly wish to have an impact, progressives need to be Ahead of the (Learning) Curve. Much of the U.S. population is already yearning for “something new that will actually work.” I believe that deep down, whether consciously or not, many, many people sense the precarious nature of today’s world……that uneasy, queasy feeling of looking over a precipice – and not being at all confident that the ground on which we are standing won’t give way.
On a political level, it certainly seems possible to successfully utilize these issues and thereby triangulate and put regressives into untenable positions – to the woe and chagrin of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives of the neo - ”con” variety.
But this would presuppose that progressives have a deeper, more encompassing vision of current events than they now do.
From a General Systems perspective it is not so difficult to come to tentative conclusions re- what the near future will hold. But like the many scientists who are clinging to the security of their old assumptions and views, the question for progressives is whether we are ready and willing to endure the discomfort of expanding our worldview, for example around the issue of “spirituality.” The whole subject begs for deeper inquiry and radical renovation!
But if you leave the subject of “God” – (remember it’s only the word “Dog” spelled backwards, so don’t get hung up on it!) to our brethren who show up as Revulsickens >>> progressive progress will (probably sooner rather than later) go down the tubes.
I believe that we, each of us, really need to play catch up - and fast. Old perspectives do die hard when it comes to the day to day life. But looking historically, it’s not THAT hard to do:….our ancestors have done it countless times. Didn’t they (most of them) eventually come to accept that the world is round, gradually giving up older notions, no matter how sacred and comforting?
Can’t we give a little? Move beyond and let go of, say, one “in the box,” unexamined, thought-habit each day. I’m guessing that there be alot of out-of-the- box happenings heading our way.
Politically speaking, it makes sense to be at least a little prepared for the unprecedented.
We Can teach an old dogs new tricks, right?
And, anyways, we’re not THAT old - (yet)!
While I would have used very different language than MaxheMust, I believe he is on target when speaking about large cycles of time.
In certain disciplines it is argued (and reasonably so, I would contend) that humanity is right now in the midst of completing 3 very large cycles of learning and experience, and (if we don’t blow it) heading toward establishing a whole new set of learning cycles. Admittedly, like death and birth, these are usually not particularly comfortable experiences.
I believe, as I said, that progressives ignore these perspectives to their own detriment.
To NorthATheBorder’s kind reminder,
I say, Bless You, fellow-person, for saying so!
Testify!! Say it Agin!!!
NAB writes:
“Maybe part of our problem as progressives is that we’ve achieved an attitude of moral superiority? People on the left or people who consider themselves progressive are just as capable of being venal, stupid and arrogant as any conservative/regressive. I’m not sure we should think our method is right or correct just because we espouse it.”
Right as rain, ain’ it?!
“We in the progressive community know that not everybody in America thinks the way we do.” This sentence would work perfectly well if punctuated four words earlier.
And it is true that “life is easier” when you don’t know that you can’t trust politicians or corporations and you have to read the fine print. This is not a new discovery: “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.” –Ecclesiastes 1:18
Also, it is a little misleading to compare adults who are deliberately ignorant with kindergartners, who are trying to learn all they can and use every iota of their imaginations understanding their world.
Finally, wolfstar, although the case can certainly be made that such labels are anachronistic and the analogies don’t hold up well in any event, in at least one sense Jesus absolutely WAS a liberal, and a bleeding-heart one, at that. In Matthew 25, he tells his listeners that anybody who doesn’t feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, and visit those who are sick or in prison is NOT going to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Kind of makes you wonder about the so-called “Christian values” of a lot of mouthy rich white Republicans, doesn’t it???
Wow, as usual, most of the comments are better written than the article.
But it was good too.
A great many conservatives are under the mistaken belief that EVERYTHING that happens is God’s will! THAT is how they justify everything, because their god allows it! A great many are simpleminded, superstitious, fatalistic determinists. Comparing them to Kindergarteners is like one has already said, quite unfair to kindergarteners everywhere.
Speak to them about our beliefs, but frame it with their beliefs. Their beliefs are all theological, not political.
Learn to speak their language.
2Peter 3:9 God is NOT WILLING that any should perish!
Matthew 6:10 THY WILL be done on earth as it is in heaven.
(Jesus taught his disciples to pray for God’s will to be done here on Earth BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS BEEN DONE)
Shouldn’t these be ample evidence in their own scripture to prove that death is not God’s will?
Brilliant dissertation on the way things are distorted and the hypocrisy employed for financial gain and the gullibility of the American electorate who buy into the lies hook line and sinker.
Not a rosy picture for the future especially since Herr Rove will be starting the Lee Atwater Karl Rove School for Fair and Decent Politics.
I am however, hopeful that the future of our Republic will begin to correct and cleanse itself beginning in 2008 when we finally run these unethical charlatans out of town.
I think it all goes back to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When the nation is at peace, everybody has an absolute right to be as politically engaged, or as politically disengaged, as they wish. If bread & circuses, SportsCenter, singing in a gospel choir, American Idol, or sitting in solitude and contemplating your navel (even while smoking dope) is what gives you personal happiness, then in America you live in a country where you’re supposedly at liberty to do so, as a fundamental component of your citizenship.
You don’t have to register and you don’t have to vote if you don’t feel like it, or if you refuse to take part in empowering any of the candidate choices on the ballot. Just because you drop out and behave like a mugwump doesn’t necessarily mean you have the mind of a kindergartner.
When the nation is at peace.
But when the nation is at war, it’s a watershed moment because suddenly the government is collectively taking life - as brutally and efficiently as possible in high tech technicolor - sacrificing the lives of its own citizen soldiers, and exposing its innocent civilian noncombatants to the risk of retaliatory attack.
In my view, the whole equation abruptly changes in time of war. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness suddenly are subordinated - until the killing stops.
In times of war (particularly if there’s military conscription) opting out of the democratic political process is itself the making of an existential choice. We lose the liberty to just go pursue our own happiness if our government is killing people elsewhere in our name.
Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and now George the Lesser all thrived upon saber rattling rhetoric and waging periodic military campaigns abroad in anticipation of the domestic partisan dividends they would reap back in the homeland.
Red meat for the base. Divide the political opposition internally. Subordinate all federal spending to the paramount needs of the military-industrial-national security complex. Impugn the patriotism and integrity of all who dare question the glory of the cause for which so many will lay down their lives.
Now, after six years of Little George strutting as wartime President while Cheney and Rove orchestrate the background propaganda campaign, the American electorate has a hard core 20%-25% on the right who rabidly support the empire, and 20%-25% on the left who consider the Emperor and his minions as war criminals worthy of impeachment.
In between sits that terrifying, fluid, amorphous mass of so-called “independent persuadables”, the mushy center who shifted just enough in 2006 against the Iraq war to restore a legislative check back into the Constitutional checks & balances.
As I see it, in time of war, if you must use bumper sticker reasoning to move the apolitical center into action to stop the killing, then PR for kindergartners may be exactly what you got to do. Progressives should be careful to frame those messages in ways that are not condescending to those whose support we need.
But on the other hand when the war is over, then let ‘em fall back asleep on the sofa in front of game shows, if that’s what they really, really want to do.
Bill from Saginaw
this article is ridiculous….
lets all pat ourselves on the back about how smart we are!! this type of argument does nothing for the political discourse in this country…pointing out that our side is so great and their side is so dumb is assinine… people wonder why the left is considered elitist. hmmm.. cause idiots like this guy have been making this argument forever. yes bush and cheney dumb down the discourse, and yes lots of people don’t take the time to read about everything that goes on in the world politically but that in no way makes them stupid or uneducated. you are never going to appeal to people EVER by chastising them… every time i see an argument like this i just get so pissed.. i want to hurl myself off a bridge.. you do realize that people on the other side use this same argument? you do realize there ARE undeducated liberals that cant defend their positions to save their lives and PS… there are LOTS of them.. so get off your high horse and instead of complaining about how dumb you think people are go out and do something about it.. you can’t win people over like this.. do you know how you do it? you talk to people… in a calm and reasonable manner about what they believe and then about what you believe and what your party is doing to support the things you both believe in. not by yelling at them or telling them they dont know anything.. you need to find common ground.. you need to show people that you’re reasonable and able to see their side of the argument…there are two sides to every argument..nothing is black and white.. this administration has erased that mentality from this country and that is truly the most frightening legacy they will leave.
Without hammering the author for a few minor points I think this article speaks volumes about the state of human existence. All over the world, this innate ability or even intrinsic need to capture preconcieved notions as absolute truth are evident.
That human beings do this so as to minimize new or original thought is quite clear. That the complexity of the world prevents us from exploring and assessing everything is also clear. So what humans do is capsulize certain truths. We are no longer required to consider gravity, or the spherical shape of the planet. We know we aren’t going to fall off the edge if we sail beyond the horizon.
We do however, still have to consider our roles in the world and how they effect us and the broader world around us. This requires such an array of thought that getting around to all the issues is simply impossible.
What happens is we begin to think locally, or selfishly, about ourselves and immediate family. Some of us seek knowledge so that we can make better decisions for ourselves. Others seek answers so they too can make decisions that they are primarily responsible for.
Mr. Green is pointing out the phenomena that humans have in believing the predetermined facts. It’s a reasonable position to take in that many facts have been ascertained and require little or no follow up. However, mixed in with the truth are many many faulty assumptions that have been perpetuated for reasons unknown. The beginning of life, the existence of a supreme being, trust in a government, Father knows best, don’t swallow bubble gum cuz it never digests, etc. etc. have all been repeated so long that many people have chosen to accept these as fact. Is this intellectual laziness or just prioritizing what we choose to confirm for ourselves?
At the root of our indifference is the need to be correct or the need to have a full understanding of the world, when in fact some things are un-knowable. Religions are entirely faith based because of the unprovability of all forms. From this abandonment of thougth, fact, or concrete proof, comes the ablility to accept other things, as fact, without proper consideration.
To summarily think that most have the intellect of a kindergarten student is a little off the mark. However, that many people accept ridiculous claims as readily as a toddler might is far from mistaken.
To concern yourself with the broader implications of what our government is doing requires thought that exceeds that which is necessary to make decisions regarding one’s own life. Many people have CHOSEN not to take thought that far. Empathy and compassion do not exist in many people because it requires too much thought, most of which is unpleasant.
How to solve this problem escapes me, but, the bigger picture is really, how many of us actually think they are equal to the people being killed for their comfort, security, wealth, or well being. How many consider themselves superior to most if not all other peoples? It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that they don’t give a shit about other people, thousands of miles away who think diffferently than they do, about things they find unimportant…That allows political issues to be put out of the realm of consideration.
Boy, the over-thinking here sometimes goes overboard. Be simple, and recognize the conservatives have their religion so intertwined with conservative politics, the only way they will disassemble is for the country to break down into 50 little countries. (I can’t wait) I can’t remember the term, but christians are expecting armageddon to come around the bend. They can’t have peace, because peace works in direct opposition to their holy book’s prophecies. Their translational prophecies because not all christians believe the same thing. Check out LewRockwell.com. The articles are brighter and the readers are smarter.
Oh, I’m sorry, this just came to me. The over-thinking occurs here because the readers here come just to the point of revolution, but they have too much to lose. Or they believe they do. True reationaries recognize we have nothing to lose. Janis was so right.
Based on comments by Ron in response to nickhart above. I wonder if we interchange the terms liberal and progressive. I think of the two as being distinctly different.
Anyone want to try defining some of the differences?
adamhewitt,
I believe the author’s point is valid. Simply because of the fact we are trying to get through to specific segment of society.
We are trying to communicate with them.
We are trying to reason with them.
But how do you reason with an unreasonable person?
How do you communicate with someone who LITERALLY sticks their fingers in their ears and humms LA LA LA…?
There is a segment of society that, regardless of what we call them, and regardless of who is to blame, DOES NOT have the cognative ability to give any rational input regarding war and peace.
Some of them are progressive.
Reactionary - Extreme opposition to social or political change.
Conservative
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low
3. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
Liberal
1. - Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
4. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
5. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts
Progressive
- 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
Radical
1. thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms:
2. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 03, 2007, from Dictionary.com
Ok, I haven’t read the entire article — but I’ve come to dislike comparing Bush & Co. to children or apes, since it’s too demeaning on our youth and lower primates.
They say that racists aren’t born, and the same probably applies to theocrats and autocrats. They’re groomed into position — it takes a couple decades of a playboy lifestyle, silver spoon, all doors opening for you, etc. to arrive at middle-age believe that the world revolves around you, and you’ve got a moral right to take wealth from anyone else.
As for primate comparisons, while apes have been known to be brutal to one another, they do not commit genocide or wage large-scale wars. No, conservatism is politics for twisted grownups alone…
I was recommending the films Babel and Children of Men to someone in my family, with the preface that these are not necessarily “fun” movies to watch, but that they push Americans out of their comfort zone and into the reality of another world view. And she responded, “Oh, I just won’t see movies like that anymore. I just want to enjoy my life and I don’t want to have to think about any of the problems out there.” This is someone who is college educated and a professional. I was so stunned by her defense and even advocacy of ignorance. I am getting the feeling that a lot of people WANT to be lied to.
In defense of kindergarteners (I have one at home) - I have taken my daughter to peace rallies and marches, where she has heard the chant “No More War”. But when she says it, she says “No More Warriors”. I think she gets it…
Or, we could learn to be translucents– and let go of our definitions of progressives, liberals, -cans, -crats, or -ists.
How about -ings?
This is such an interesting and thoughtful discussion– and respectful and broadly diverse. I am heartened to see a blend in these discussions of the political and cosmic elements at play in this time. This IS the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Birth is hard work. Pain is part of it. Suffering is optional. Science is showing us how we are co-creators of our world. Living in a more heart-centered paradigm, (a higher vibration) will help to acomplish the shift from consumerism and separatness to partnership and co-operation– and the concept of “enough.” We have to remember that our fear and judgement keep us mired in the densities of lower vibratory patterns, prisons of victimhood, blame, shame, guilt, and powerlessness and despair. It’s hard not to go there, hard to bring our despair back up to that internal (powerful)place where we can BE peace. But we must.
Even through grief and sorrow, confusion and frustration– such feelings cannot be avoided it we are going to learn to live heart-centred. Which is where healing takes place.
I appreciate all of you for taking the time to share your hearts and minds here.
When we,the whole world, can really feel that we are a beloved community — what a wonderful world it will be.
The human experince in time is quite a lab for learning. I wonder when will we get over the fascination with blood sacrifice?
______
“Democracy is coming, to the U.S.A. … it’s coming through a hole in the air….it’s coming from the feel that it ain’t exactly real, or it’s real, but it ain’t exactly there…it’s comin’ from the sorrows in the street, the holy places where the races meet; … from the wells of disappointment where the women kneel to pray for the grace of god in the desert here and the desert far away…It’s coming to America first– the cradle of the best and the worst; it’s here they got the range and the machinery for change, and it’s here they got the spiritual thirst…
sail on, sail on,O mighty ship of State:
to the shores of need, past the reefs of greed, through the squalls of hate…sail on, sail on, sail on
sail on.” (L. Cohen)
_____
namaste
I don’t know, maybe I’m just stupid, but I really don’t see how “complex” progressive ideas really are.
Take care of people. Give them a job, a home, enough food to eat, an education, a safety net, and healthcare.
Treat others as you would want to be treated. Put yourself in the other guy’s shoes.
Stop throwing yur collective, national weight around. Don’t stick it to other nations and/or peoples, and they most likely won’t want to harm you and your nation. Don’t bother your neighbors and they won’t bother you.
I believe in Good and Evil also.
Peace is good.
Sharing is good.
Acceptance is good.
War is evil.
Greed is evil.
Intolerance is evil.
Is it all that hard to understand? Are progressives really smarter and more mentally mature than everyone else, or are they just more ethical?
Professor Green has used the metaphor of “childishness.” What a number of commenters have seem to missed is that most of the stances, thought-patterns etc. of today’s professed conservatives - (everyday folks, but especially “neeeoh con-artists” especially) - actually DO reflect immaturity. That’s right,
“It’s the lack of Emotional Maturity, Stupid”. (”That’s a joke, son.”).
I’ll try to flesh out how I see this issue:
Adorno’s two volume work, entitled The Authoritarian Personality, was published in 1950. More recently Dyer has contributed to this knowledge-area by summarizing more than 1000 pages of in-depth research on authoritarian personalities, including Adorno’s.
Dyer begins by raising this issue: “Anyone who is an alert observer of society can plainly see how few people think for themselves, but some social scientists have estimated that as many as 77% of the people in our culture (Western civilization) manifest more authoritarian qualities than nonauthoritarian on a daily basis.”
Dyer’s synopsis depicts - in simple and direct language - the characteristics that one can expect to find in a person whose basic orientation can be characterized as “authoritarian.” Such people can be predicted to display a number of attributes which include, but are not limited to: intolerance of ambiguity, dichotomous thinking, rigidity of thought, punitiveness, anti-intellectualism, militaristic patriotism, conformity, and ethnocentrism.
A brief overview of some key characteristics:
1) INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY: The typical authoritarian experiences a strong need to have things spelled out specifically. Unless there is a yes or no answer to every question, no matter how complex, they show signs of anxiety. As a result the authoritarian has little tolerance for people who are working in intrinsically ambiguous areas - philosophers, artists, social or political leaders. It might be said that authoritarians feel compelled to insist that every piece of language they hear or read “mean just one thing”…which is clear and readily identifiable.
2) DICHOTOMOUS THINKING: Authoritarians exhibit a compulsion to divide everything and everyone into mutually exclusive groups - good/bad, right/wrong, friend/enemy - without taking into account the subtleties, qualifications or even downright mistakes that may be involved. “Dichotomous thinking” can be considered an outgrowth of intolerance of ambiguity; it is a sort of “rush to judgment” which serves to provide an immediate (but illusory, and generally false) sense of certainty.
3) RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT: The rigidity in the way an authoritarian perceives the world and himself is often exhibited as a generalized unwillingness to consider perspectives that conflict with his (or her) own preconceived ideas. Dyer notes, that faced with such a situation, “the last thing [such a person] will do…is to listen, evaluate, and be prepared to change his position if it seems warranted. It is virtually impossible for him ever to [sincerely] admit having been wrong or having learned anything from anyone [with views different from himself]…You will never hear [him or her] say [and mean]: ‘Well, you have a point there.’” Dyer goes on to say that - with true, “dyed-in the wool” authoritarians - rational discussion [regarding emotionally laden issues]…“is never a cooperative effort to reach agreement, beginning with mutual respect on each side…
…The most frustrating thing about authoritarians is their inaccessibility: most of the time, there is literally no way to reach them.”
4) ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM: Dyer states that authoritarians often display a mistrust of “intellectuals,” particularly people who make their living as thinkers, but he adds this caveat: “Today of course, there is no lack of authoritarians in academic fields; however…these people tend to be devoted followers of some ‘school of thought,’ and more often than not…are notable only for blindly following what some ‘great man’ has taught.”
5) ANTI-INTROSPECTION Authoritarians tend to resist looking into their own motivations. Dyer observes that one of the things such a person seems most afraid of - is admitting (to others or to themselves) that they have not always been “right.” Dyer speculates that authoritarians reject looking inward because they have come to rely so strongly on external support systems to convince themselves of their own value.
6) PARANOIA Dyer believes that authoritarians’ basic distrust of themselves tends to make them suspicious about every human encounter. Because they find it so difficult to admit that they, themselves, are responsible (at least in part) for creating many of the problems they complain about, they feel compelled to blame someone else. As Dyer notes - “even to [be able to] support the relatively mild paranoia of the majority of authoritarians…it is necessary for them to imagine a multitude of enemies out there. (Yet these same individuals seldom allow themselves to be moved to greater sympathy or support for others who really are being persecuted). Their paranoid picture of the world [usually] simply leads such people to withdraw into ever-tightening spirals of paranoia.”
7) ANTI-WEAKNESS Authoritarians tend not to support help for the weak because they equate weakness with evil; so, the outcasts of society are responsible for their own situations. It is their own fault if they did not “make it to the center of the herd.” Another implication of this view is that “winning” is all that really matters: if you are weak, or part of a “weak team” you should be feel ashamed.
9) ETHNOCENTRISM This trait has been considered both one of the most common and most dangerous of all the typical authoritarian qualities, because it is most capable of leading to violence. Ethnocentrism in general, and racism in particular are, in turn, connected with the phenomenon of anti-minority thinking and behavior. Dyer points out that such a set of attitudes promotes alienation between all kinds of “minorities” and “majorities.” He goes on to argue that, more recently, focus on being part of a “great majority” has replaced allegiance to a specific ethnic group; this trait, he notes, fits with the “authoritarian knack for covering up the fact that they are not flawless.”
10) CONFORMITY and SUBMISSIVENESS Authoritarian people tend to be governed by opinions and social forces outside of themselves; generally, they are quite weak when it comes to relying on their own judgments, instincts, independent sets of values, etc. They find it much easier and more comforting to adjust to imposed standards than to look inward for the keys to guiding their own lives. As Adorno has said, “Conformity is one of the major expressions of lack of an internal focus.” So, it seems natural for such people to be submissive to established authority and conventional modes of behavior. And we can see here, the way in which a person with a strong authoritarian inclination will inevitably be quite suggestible and gullible, particularly to propaganda and hype. This vulnerability can be contrasted with the relative resiliency of more autonomous individuals who are willing to challenge authority, and “who see no reason to accept things as they are - simply because an authority figure or institution decrees it should be so.”
The double standard which is implicit in the authoritarian stance is particularly evident in the way such people think of the parent /child relationship (which can be considered as a model for their approach to all relationships). The concept of the parent as absolute authority is sacrosanct. The authority of the parent is seen as a one-way street, in which the parent deserves respect, simply for being an authority figure. Embedded within this conceptualization is the idea that authority itself must be unchallengeable -because a challenge to any authority is seen as a threat to all order, and authority.
So, as might be expected, parents who act in an authoritarian fashion toward their children will feel strongly motivated to act in a submissive fashion toward their own parents. It would be fair to say, then, that for such people the “game” they are most comfortable playing in life is that of “follow the leader.”
As Milburn discusses in his 1996 “The Politics of Denial” - Adorno and his colleagues also offered a specific formulation regarding a likely origin point for “the authoritarian personality.”
Their theory suggests that rigid, punitive parents, by definition, cannot tolerate any expression of a child’s powerful, spontaneous, and natural sexual and aggressive impulses; in fact, parents responded to them with an exaggerated punitiveness; and this parental reaction leaves the child no alternative but to repress those impulses - that is, to ban them from consciousness.
However, our knowledge of the psyche tells us that emotions banished into the mind’s basement - remain disturbing and tumultuous, whether or not “the owner of the house” is aware of their existence. Repression alone, as a defense against feelings, is rarely completely successful.
To guard against the anxiety that these emotions might break through into conscious awareness - additional defenses must be erected - much as one might pile larger and heavier pieces of furniture against a door to keep out an insistent intruder.
It is understandable that a child will respond to his parents’ excessively punitive reactions with feelings of rage. But this very emotion is one the child dare not allow himself to acknowledge - or at least must not connect with his parents’ behavior. This is not unusual, for we can recall that a child, who is completely dependent on his parents, will, if forced to submit to abuse, deny parental abusiveness, and continue to idealize them.
Adorno (Milburn, 1996) also theorized that - in these humble and poignant origins - can be found the beginnings of the formation of the authoritarian character style. Since unresolved feelings do not simply “go away” with the passage of time and physical maturation, the original sexual and aggressive emotions (and especially those feelings that arose following parents’ suppression of those emotions) - far from becoming extinct, grow into a major determining force of adult outlooks and beliefs.
Aspects of themselves that the individual “disowned” so long ago are “transformed” into a more “acceptable” form: they are “projected onto” (unconsciously attributed to) others - commonly members of a despised outgroup.
As Milburn (1996) points out:
The beauty of projection lies in its psychic economy; once one has projected one’s own “bad” impulses onto women, Jews, or African Americans, it is only reasonable to take out one’s rage against them. After all, they are the ones who are oversexed, aggressive, sneaky, and so on. Individuals of this personality type, in addition to venting their anger on minority groups, find their own children perfect targets for displacement, and [often] treat their children the same way their parents treated them.”
*****
Does the “authoritarian personality” sound fully flourishing adult? Is this what a mature human looks like at some end point…or is it in reality the product of a seriously stunted emotional and cognitive development?
It is, in fact, terribly frustrating to feel like a relatively mature soul - (or at least trying to achieve such a developmental level, whether you call it that or not) - living amidst the “torch and pitchfork” folk, who seem to be driving this country (and the world) over a cliff — .
I believe the metaphor of “adult children” which Professor Green has used (hats off to Al Anon here) is - besides being a reflection of his anguish and frustration - valid in and of itself.
From the perspective of human development look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Do they behave like grown-up, generative males? Don’t they seem more like “monster boys?”
To me they seem to be grown boys whose character development went way screwy. Today, each could accurately be describe as a type of conscience-less sociopath. What would that make the people who admire and follow them unquestioningly?
“Baby-Souls?”
On the other hand, Ron Paul describes himself as a conservative, and he has vastly greater intellectual depth than any Democrat I have ever seen. Barry Goldwater and Russell Kirk were hardly what you’d call illiterates, either.
Of course, what the author actually describes above is not conservatism but neo-conservatism (fascism).
Many people just don’t want to know. They just don’t want to know the Truth. The truth can be very painful and once you know the truth, you never see things the same way again. Your innocence is gone and you can never get it back again. But people must know the truth in order to grow and learn.
PowerofLove:
Your last dissertation as well as two previous posts shed more light than the original essay that sparked such a lovely discussion. I venture to compare DMG’s text to particles of dust in the air that cause condensation of vapor into pouring rain.
Reading through 10 line items of authoritarian attributes I found that the top of the list - INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT - constitutes defining attributes of scientific method. You would not call scientist, accepting these qualities as prerequisites in his trade, as marching toward authoritarianism, would you? 50 years ago Charles Snow popularized the concept of two cultures, orthogonal to each other. I would be interested in your view on this matter.
“1) INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY”
It feels good to have all the answers, to live in a world where you already know everything you need to know (everything that matters anyway). A world of unknowns is potentially scary.
“2) DICHOTOMOUS THINKING”
This is the same as the first. They oversimplify, they reduce everything to black and white, because that is necessary quite often to actually have an answer.
“3) RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT”
This is because they’ve already panglossed the world, they’ve already developed the positions that make this the best of all possible worlds for them, thus they will do their best to hold on to these positions. They consider continuing to believe such positions of utmost importance to their happiness, to their being able to stay adapted to the realities of this world. Any conversation about politics, etc is not to learn anything, it is only to “win” the conversation. As a huge part of their panglossianism is believing that endless competition is the best of all possible worlds as they are indeed stuck in a world where losing certain competitions means homeless and starving to death.
“4) ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM”
Anti-intellectualism is the product of republican propaganda which played into the feelings of inferiority of the weak, fearful people who adopt panglossianism. Being able to call intelligence just arrogance, elitism, etc helps them feel more likes winners instead of feeling inferior.
“5) ANTI-INTROSPECTION”
Of course, again they’ve already adapted a viewpoint which makes this the best of all possible worlds. Introspection might mess that up.
“6) PARANOIA”
I don’t know about this one other than adapting the best of all possible worlds mindset in a capitalist world means adapting a dog eat dog mindset where everyone is against everyone else.
“7) ANTI-WEAKNESS”
Again this is these panglossists simply adopting ubercapitalism as some great religion.
“POWER WORSHIP”
They worship power because, generally, in the best of all possible worlds, those who’ve obtained power are the perfect men. Of course it gets more complicated. If they’ve already adopted unregulated capitalism as The Way, then a person in power seemingly preaching the opposite (relatively speaking) may not be worshipped. OTOH, there were plenty of panglossists worshipping Stalin also I’m sure. Provided they were born after 1910 or so.
“9) ETHNOCENTRISM”
The panglossist is already living in the best of all possible worlds, so their way over there, their culture, etc, is of course inferior.
“10) CONFORMITY and SUBMISSIVENESS”
Of course, panglossian, etc. No need for me to add anymore.
If a person can convince themselves that the world we currently live in is just about perfect, then they really are going to be happier. Furthermore, they can adapt better to such a world. So if one convinces one’s self that the world is cruel and mean and that’s how it ought to be, then they will go around acting like an ass to others.
It all comes back to looking at the world, and trying to figure out how they can get ahead in life, and how they can be happy. The panglossist/authoritarian or whatever else, sees a world of people simply crushing one another and convinces himself that it is for the best and he/she better jump right in and do the same. While the liberal believes that the key to being happy is knowledge. And then there are degrees of each.
“INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY, DICHOTOMOUS THINKING, and RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT - constitutes defining attributes of scientific method.”
Which is interesting considering that conservatives, especially those on the Christian Right are very much anti-science.
“From the perspective of human development look at Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Do they behave like grown-up, generative males?