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.
Roco,
What’s wrong with writing about dead white guys? and BTW….if I am correct…mespo will on numerous occasions quote dead Greeks, Romans, African’s…what is the problem with that…would quoting Shakespeare be over your head? And I am not sure who even authored Shakespeare…. Since you know so much…was there really a man named Shakespeare? Just asking…..I wanna know….
I think in this case it just means that the multiple poster wants to make sure they dont overload you with more than you can process in a single viewing.
Still not able to come up with your own material I see. Now instead of quoting old dead white guys you are quoting a guy who makes white bread.
Dont you have an original thought at all?
@Roco, we haven’t even gotten into the merits of the study. GeneH is still stuck on a moe basic level.
@passive-aggressive Mespo, the Occam’s Razor explanation is that I changed my mind after I posted as to whther to address GeneH’s second “argument.” Since you don’t ever address any substantive points, it’s understandable that such finer points as forming proper argument are lost on you. All you try to do is to wear people down with insults. Does that ever work in your real life practice? Or does this derangement syndrome of yours merely manifest itself in political arguments?
mespo,
That is a good saying….I was reading Charles Kuralts’ Book…one thing I recall at this moment is…an eternal optimist is one that skips stones on water….You know its going to sink…its just a matter of time….but they are continually looking for that perfect stone to make it to the other side of the lake…
I am always intrigued by the poster who feels the need to make multiple successive posts. Oh, not the ones to correct an error or explain an omission, but to serially raise totally separate issues in some forlorn attempt to vanquish his “foe.” Reminds me of a client who ran a commercial bakery. His line of choice to his bakers was that “a half baked loaf has to be baked twice.” I suppose it referenced wasting time and effort in a pointless endeavor. Seems to me that this is good advice for loaves and half-baked ideas.
kderosa:
Interesting subject, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with politics or intelligence.
He studied younger people for one thing and we know the brain structures of young people are not fully formed.
But on a lighter note, wikipedia says the ACC is linked to emotions and reward based decision making. Which in a way make sense, liberals love to feel sorry for people while being singularly opposed to giving to charity.
It must be some finely tuned mechanism which gives them the reward of doing a good deed without actually having to do the good deed.
@GeneH
No one is lying about the correlations presented in the study.They seem to exist to the extent two small scale studies can show them to exist.
You must not have been reading my previous posts.
@GeneH
These aren’t my hoops.They are the standard hoops anyone uses to evaluate whether a study has any scientific merit and what conclusions one should draw from the study.You should know this.
kderosa,
I don’t have an obligation to jump through any hoops for you. My statements about correlation and causation stands. The logic is sound. If you don’t like it that I’m not going to go running off on errands for you or do whatever you want instead of what I want to do? I am unconcerned. I’m even less concerned that someone with your record of postings would intimate that I’m a liar, especially since there is an option you didn’t list. Maybe I don’t answer your questions because I can’t, but I don’t answer them because I’m perfectly comfortable with my statements as they stand. If you think that someone is lying about there being a correlation between brain structure and political ideology, why not take your accusations of lying to the source of that information, Dr. Kanai.
It should be quite evident that since I don’t take you seriously that I concurrently don’t care what you think much less what you take lightly.
Good post Mr. Spindell.
I think “party” is a misnomer that probably needs to be changed to “mob”, so that we have the republican mob and the democratic mob.
Evolution is going backwards it seems.
Wonder if that happened in other places around the cosmos?
@GeneH
I see you are back to spouting cant. We both know that that signifies. It is how you end all your debates you are not confident you are winning.
This thread is like all the others you’ve participated in.The only difference is that unlike the threads with political issues, this one has a scientific issue. There is a right answer here, not just a difference of opinion.
You claim you are neutral and consider all the evidence before making up your mind. You said you did that on the fascism thread. I can’t disprove that because it was opinion.
This issue is entirely different. You could not have formed an informed opinion on this matter unless you first answered the three questions I listed. If you did, then it would take you about 30 seconds to explain your answers. That you cannot or are unwilling to do that tells me, and anyone else who knows anything about science, that you’ve been lying all along. And, unlike you, I don’t throw that word around lightly.
Where is AY, he spouts off shit he knows nothing about as well.
kderosa,
Your opinions of what constitutes science are as meaningless as your made up definitions. If you think what you did on that thread was “back up your assertions”? That just indicates to me that you don’t understand the concept of backing up your assertions. As to living with myself, I’m perfectly comfortable agreeing with the most accurate and persuasive argument. In that instance, it was Buddha’s. If you don’t think I came to that conclusion based upon his argument as evaluated in a dispassionate manner, I won’t lose a wink of sleep over it.
You’ve mistaken me for someone who takes you seriously.
@GeneH
You do realize that your entire first paragraph makes no sense from a scientific standpoint? if you answer my questions, pretty please, I’ll tell you why.
Re fascism, I didn’t attempt to define fascism I just hyperbolically asserted it was a lefty form of government and then backed-up my assertion. The whole socialism thing kinda gives it away. Also, he kind of spills the beans in Mien Kampf. You should read it sometime. And, of course I expect you to side with Buddha, bless his crazy heart, ignoring alll contrary evidence, and relying upon a series of fabricated ad hominems. You aren’t exactly a neutral party. You’re the one who has to live with yourself.
kderosa,
If you’re unable to grasp that there is a correlation between the size of the anterior cingulate cortex and liberal views and the size of amygdala and conservative views, that’s not my problem. Whether that difference is a sole causation or not is irrelevant to the correlation itself. The size difference met a significant sigma level of certainty to merit publishing and the results were independently verified through testing. There may be other causal links to the acceptance of the differing ideologies, but absent proof additional or supervening causations or there is a falsification of Kanai’s results, take a wild guess at what the leading causal contender will remain? Any answer other than the structural differences is wrong.
As far as fascism goes, you’ve demonstrated that you know nothing of fascism on a scholarly level and made up your own definition – by your own admission – to use as well.
“kderosa 1, July 6, 2011 at 9:17 pm
@Buddha,
Ok, then I’ll use my definition of facism. Facism is a lefty form of government and Von Mises propositions which are pro-capitalism, also according to my definition, don’t lead to a lefty forms of government which are anti-capitalist, Gin by definition. So premise one is false, so we don’t need to reach premise two since you used the AND boolean operator. That was easy.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/29/democrats-raise-constitutional-argument-in-favor-of-raising-debt-limit/#comment-245561
It was also wrong as Buddha went on to point out quite well. That little exchange of yours with Buddha was one of the first indicators to me that you are not to be taken seriously. Which is why I don’t take anything you say seriously.
At this rate, I probably never will take anything you say seriously.
@GeneH
Not a problem, GeneH. I just wanted to check what you knew before I wasted any more time on this issue with you. This would be a good time for you to declare victory and to call me a liar.
@GeneH, anyone who knows anything about fascism at a scholarly level, knows that even scholars admit there is no agreed upon definition of fascism. How is it that you are so sure you know the one true definition?
kderosa,
I’ll be the one dictating how and when I respond to you. Save giving orders to someone who takes you seriously.
@GeneH
I didn’t say you had a reading comprehension problem. What I said was that you should go back and re-read what I wrote since you clearly missed something.That point is driven home by your next paragraph.One of us is seriously confused and I don’t think it is me. But why don’t we find out just in case.
1. What is the coefficient of the correlation between the volume of the grey matter of the anterior cingulate cortex and the thickness predicted by the regression as a function of political orientation?
2. What is the percentage of the variability in the predicted volume of the cingulate cortex explained by the variability in the actual data? In other words, how well does the actual data fit the predicted score?
3. Are these results statistically significant? At what level?
4. Based on your answers re 1, 2, and 3, what would you conclude about the correlation?
Roco,
I understand the difference between religion and philosophy. Philosophy uses reason to discuss man’s place in the universe. As it relies upon reason, it can be falsified. Religion requires belief in often contradictory stories that are open to different interpretations based in the readers own biases. As it relies upon belief, not reasoned understanding, it is not falsifiable. The difference between philosophy and religion is analogous to the difference between astronomy and astrology.
As far as the clown shoes go, if you’re upset that Buddha had the better grasp on what fascism is as a matter of both economics and political ideology and was more persuasive than you, I suggest you take it up with him when he returns. Your argument is with him. I merely look at it as a dispassionate party reading an exchange. As a “juror” seeing the case, I will say he was clearly the victor. If you want to think you were right, go right on thinking you were. I don’t think you were right and judging by the responses on that thread, others don’t think you were right either. If that troubles you? I am unconcerned. However, none of that changes that you were indeed using an incorrect definition of fascism. You have no one to blame for that but yourself.