Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Last night Ann Coulter, a person I loathe, appeared on the Bill Maher Show. She was pushing her new book “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America.” Cringing as I watched her the thought nevertheless occurred to me that “She really believes this crap she sells.” This minor epiphany led me on to other thoughts. The battle in American politics has essentially devolved into a two sided affair between opponents convinced of the “demonic,” to use Ann’s term, nature of their ideological opposites. In this ongoing struggle one can’t merely disagree with us on a given political/societal issue, without our believing them to be hateful and worthy of being despised. Their motivation must undoubtedly be sociopathy and/or undemocratic. I must admit that I myself often feel that way about those who disagree with me and I say this with the rueful knowledge that when I do I am allowing myself to engage in stereotypical behavior.
This has been the American condition almost since its inception and was implicit in Ben Franklin’s question about our ability to maintain our Constitution and the freedoms it provides. In order to begin to find solutions for bridging the gaps between us all in the attempt to govern the body politic, we must first understand the fact that much of this division is the result of conflicting mythologies of what we are as a society. If we can identify the underlying mythologies that guide us, perhaps we can see beyond the constraints that limit our ability to see beyond them and discover basis for true negotiation between apparently irreconcilable differences.
In 1988, I watched a many part conversation Bill Moyers had with a Columbia Professor Joseph Campbell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell and_the_Power_of_Myth I was fascinated by the man and by the concepts he was teaching. I found it so compelling that I ran out, purchased, and read most of his books. The books that were the most informative to me were “The Masks of God” series and “The Hero With a Thousand Faces”. What Campbell showed was human history was influenced greatly by the mythologies of various political states and ethnicities. These myths indeed reflected not only religious belief but also social and political philosophies. I don’t pretend great expertise in this area to explain it to you cohesively and the topic is one that has produced untold volumes of throughout thousands of years. Suffice it to say that the mythology of a people is a strong influence of not only its behavior, but of its interactions with other believing different myths. I’m sure as a general concept this idea is not a new one to readers here, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.
Stemming from Campbell reading I embarked on rediscovering the books on mythology I had previous read, but with the new perspective of Campbell’s insights. I later discovered: “TheGunfighter Nation: Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America” by Richard Slotkin. Using literature, history and even the movies, Slotkin persuasively posited that much of America’s domestic and foreign policy was dictated by the false mythology created of our frontier expansion, “Wild West” and rugged individualism. This myth was portrayed in the newspapers, literature, “Dime Westerns”, Wild West Shows and later on in the Movies.
The nature of myth is such that it’s ingested not only intellectually, but also viscerally. Seeing Gary Cooper in “High Noon” when I was seven in 1951 influenced my own life greatly and actually dictated some actions years later. John Wayne, a college football star spent WWII making innumerable, heroic war movies, while others such as James Stewart actually fought in action. Yet Wayne remains an iconic American Hero and that is pure, though deeply believed mythology. I would be safe to say that many who consider themselves conservative’s today look up to John Wayne as a role model and a hero. That myth becomes meme and that meme becomes point of view.
We of the left are no different in our choice of heroic figures to follow, mythologizing their activities and persona’s into something heroic. JFK, a man I admire on many levels and who I idolized in his time, was a serial philanderer of such epic proportions as to be pathological. Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Seale, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman were people who my generation followed with veneration and yet in retrospect, given their future lives, were hardly heroic.
We absorb both past and current myths and allow them to cloud our judgment, limiting our ability to make informed political choices, by shutting down our options of reacting to our environment based on the facts at hand and not the reality we perceive colored by the blanket of our mythology. We see people applying “What Would Jesus Do?” to a broad spectrum of possible decisions and yet isn’t even the concept of WWJD, different based upon ones particular Christian denomination. This is true conceptually for most other religions, all of which have subsets of varying belief.
We need to individually work to understand just what myths guide our own actions in order to be able to react appropriately to the to the decisions we need to make in reacting to the environment of life around us. If we can do that honestly perhaps, we can then comprehend what motivates those with which we disagree. Maybe then, in understanding the other’s mythological viewpoints we can find ways to bridge our differences. This is most probably an over optimistic view from the perspective of possibility.
So let me end on a less positive, but perhaps more practical note. We ignore the influence of our surrounding mythologies at our own peril. The human organism has a need to interact with its environment in such a way that it draws the sustenance it needs from that environment. If our perception of that environment is skewed by preconceptions of reality, we are unable to benefit fully from the interactions, to our detriment.
The country today is engaged in a deadly battle with itself. The rage and hostility on each side seems to be growing. There is a conflict of fundamental mythologies, neither of which holds all the answers, yet blinded by its own preconceptions. These types of battles can end in a total victory and concomitant harsh defeat for the loser; a continuing stalemate and ongoing struggle; a total collapse of our society; and/or perhaps understanding and cooperation by the parties leading to a synergy of ideas. I’d much prefer the latter, but I am sanguine about it’s’ possibility.
Anonny Yours:
They contort an argument when it gets too much for them. I am not trained in the law but it only took me a few months to figure out that what they were doing was asking me “when was the last time you beat your wife?”
Simple lawyer tricks that work on those not trained in the law. They dont work so good anymore even if I am not trained in the law.
Gene H:
what is religion? What is philosophy?
Is not religion used to make sense of life? Is not philosophy used in the same way?
As far as the shoe goes, maybe you dont understand as much as you think you do.
Roco,
Just blow this joint. These people are contortionist, they are so good they can blow themselves.
Roco,
Your past posts, like kderosa’s, show a marked tendency to make up definitions. As to your current misapplication of “shredded”, I’ve not seen any evidence of kderosa winning a single argument in my time reading and posting here. That you may think he has is an opinion not supported by any historical evidence. A Google search of “Turley ‘Roco’ ‘making up defintions'” reveals threads containing examples of this, namely this comment (where you think “religion” and “philosophy” have the same meaning):
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/23/ayn-rand-and-christianity/#comment-230435
And this thread which contains multiple instances of you making up meanings for the term “fascism”:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/03/fascist-confusion-head-of-national-black-chamber-of-commerce-calls-obama-administration-a-bunch-of-brown-shirted-marxists/
I’m sure there are many more such examples as someone willing to make up terminology is likely prone to be a serial offender, but I’m not going to look for every example of you making up definitions. Two is adequate.
I may be a rascal, but it would appear that the big shoes are on the historically evidenced other foot regarding your making up terminology.
Gene H:
“Roco,
Congratulations! You can use a dictionary. Might I suggest keeping it close at hand next time you feel the urge to make up a definition instead of merely misapplying a word.”
I am waiting for you to show me how I misapplied the word. Just as I am waiting for you to show me where I have made up words.
You are a rascal.
Gene H,
Do you know how to use the internet? You can get all sorts of words there. So, how much did clown school cost? Is it true that you have to buy your own shoes?
You are all demonic. Your father, brother and master has a dance for you.
Roco,
Congratulations! You can use a dictionary. Might I suggest keeping it close at hand next time you feel the urge to make up a definition instead of merely misapplying a word.
Mespo727272:
I dont like bourbon, I am not a lawyer so I am not in a position to defend anyone. I do not eat cereal for breakfast.
I dont know kderosa, so I all I can like is the person’s ideas. Nothing wrong with that. I really, really really like Frederic Bastiat, Ernest Hemingway, Victor Hugo, and Thomas Jefferson as well.
Are you a slip and fall lawyer or one who actually does something more than take money out of the pockets of the wealthy because lil’ Abner got a boo boo on his finger when he cut it trying to steal a coke out of the machine? I guess you take that spread the wealth around seriously, how much do you pocket? 33%? Please spare me your concern for humanity.
Momma needs a new fur coat.
no by shredded I mean shredded.
Definition of SHRED
transitive verb
1archaic : to cut off
2: to cut or tear into shreds
3: demolish 2
Definition of DEMOLISH
transitive verb
1a : tear down, raze b : to break to pieces : smash
2a : to do away with : destroy b : to strip of any pretense of merit or credence
I like 2b myself.
Roco:
“Given a choice between freedom and despotism, you have chosen despotims every time and believed it to be freedom.
Why do you hate people so much?”
*************************
While you’re sitting around with your reactionary friends lamenting the good old days as you sip your bourbon, I’m on the front lines of the struggle between the individual and the state or his fellow citizen. I haven’t seen you there, nor am I likely to unless we start giving out bar cards in Fruit Loop boxes. So far you’ve proven only: that we disagree; you can’t come up with an original thought not already prepared for you on flash cards; and you really, really, really like caderosa. That, my invertebrate friend doesn’t prove your assertion, it just tells us all we need to know about you.
If by “shredded”, you mean “failed to prove wrong”, then you might be on to something, Roco. Otherwise, you are just proving that you don’t know what the word “shredded” means in the context in which you used the word. Apparently the lengths you two are willing to go to make up the meanings of words in boundless.
Mespo727272:
I dont subscribe to National Review, do not read Bill O’Rielly’s books or listen to his show.
I know where your ideas come from though and where they are leading.
Good on you, you’ve read a few thousand years of human thought and you still cannot get it right.
Given a choice between freedom and despotism, you have chosen despotims every time and believed it to be freedom.
Why do you hate people so much?
Considering that is not mespo’s ideas that have been implemented since the Reagan years, what mespo is finding out is not where his ideas lead, but rather where not taking his ideas leads to over the last 30 years. Supply-side economics is not a liberal idea. It’s an idea from conservative, promulgated by conservatives. Unless you want to try to sell the idea that St. Ronnie the Gipper and his team of thieves were liberals. It didn’t work in the 1890’s when conservative tried to sell the idea as horse and sparrow theory. John Kenneth Galbraith has pointed to horse and sparrow theory as a primary cause of the Panic of 1896. It didn’t work in the 50’s when conservatives tried to sell it as trickle down economics. Trickle down economics that resulted in the economic malaise of the late 60’s and early 70’s. It didn’t work in 80’s and into the present when conservatives tried to sell it as supply-side economics. Supply-side economics that have led to the very situation we are in today. That it is a liberal idea is only a slightly less ridiculous assertion than the assertion that supply-side economics works or has worked no matter how packaged to anything other than the greater economic detriment of the country every time it has been tried.
You have shredded these people intellectually. To what “dojo” do you belong?
********************
Braying Ass Dojo, I’m quite sure.
kderosa:
“Speaking of myths, this one appears to be particularly toxic since it, by it’s very nature, disarms the believer’s ability to question his irrational belief that he is engaging with reason.”
who the hell are you? You aren’t some white cracker named Buddha, Mespo, Mike or GeneH.
You have shredded these people intellectually. To what “dojo” do you belong?
With words to flourish, than ingage in war….
(…)
Forc’d to the field he came, but in the reer;
And feign’d distraction to conceal his fear:
‘Till one more cunning caught him in the snare
(Ill for himself); and dragg’d him into war.
Now let a hero’s arms a coward vest, …
~Ovid (Metamorphoses, Book XIII)
Good choice Roco. I think this passage sums up your cowardly breed pretty well. At least I’m improving your reading list from the National Review and Bill O’Reilly books that you dish up daily as original thought.
Mespo727272:
“Or possibly, you’re just a mean (in both senses of that word) mind full of trite cliché’s, trading on talking points, and have no idea of the history of “your” ideas nor the ramifications of your musings.”
I understand the ramifications of my musings quite well, that is why I muse. However I dont think you understand where your ideas lead, but I think you are finding out these last few years.
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
Pat Conroy
Forest Gump
Mespo727272:
This one is for you:
“Eager to speak, unable to contain
His boiling rage, he rowl’d his eyes around”
kderosa,
Unlike you, my reading comprehension is quite high. I’m sorry that your attempts to negate a correlation simply because you disagree with the implications of that correlation have failed and that your understanding of causation and correlation let alone multiple causations and multiple correlations is so poor.