Unambitious Dragons
Many people seem to be under the impression that most people are idiots. They aren’t. This is getting to me lately, because I’m observing some people on the left throw the term “idiot” around like confetti, and others on the left are growing incredibly condescending about how the country is responding to health care reform.
Let’s start out with the reason that tons of people my age came of age feeling distrustful and wary of our fellow citizens: George W. Bush. How could we possibly elect this guy, much less re-elect him?
There was at least one perfectly valid reason to vote for Bush in 2000 – he appeared to be a very genuine guy, and I think history has borne out that he is (though I can’t say the same for nearly anyone he hired). Preferring politicians who seem to be themselves, and are not simply pandering, is a smart trait for a populace to have. The problem is when we place too-heavy reliance on it, above all other factors, and that’s a fair criticism; simply mass-labeling Americans as idiots is not.
And re-electing him in 2004? Americans were scared of being attacked by terrorists again. This is not a stupid fear. We had been attacked only 3 years prior, and lots of people died. I recently had a nightmare that I was at Ground Zero during the attack. It was terrifying. If John Kerry failed to convince America that he would be strong on terrorism, and that he was being himself and not “flip flopping”, that’s Kerry’s fault. The “Republican attack machine” is good (as was Obama’s attack machine at equating McCain with Bush), but like any political messaging, it’s only good at exploiting concerns people already have.
To vote for Kerry, you had to realize that the one huge comforting thing about Bush’s platform was outweighed by all the less comforting good things about Kerry’s, no matter how good they all are for America when added together. The fact that some slim, slim majority of our population didn’t put aside their fears and do that calculation is not enough to convince me that we live in a country of mouth-breathing sloths. It means we have some work to do on balancing our hearts and minds – and I don’t know about you, but I have a lot of work to do on that front myself.
So it seems more than a little dishonest to me that the left is perfectly fine calling out these disruptive town halls for what they are (orchestrated political assaults, organized by extremists and special interests), and insisting that it is not representative of the American people in general, while somehow getting more pissed off at the American people in general!
Conservatives and health industry forces are exploiting a latent concern that American citizens have about heavy government interference in their lives. This is a smart concern for a population to have, and it’s why Total Information Awareness got unpopular and was canned even when Bush had an 80–90% approval rate, in early 2002. We’re only going to get health care reform through that is both liberal and popular if we can address that concern in an emotionally compelling way, instead of getting angry at people who respond to other emotionally compelling words like “socialism”, “fascism”, and “death panel”.
This is our responsibility. The more of us who write off our population, the more we abrogate this responsibility, and the more likely we are to stay the same.
Hi Eric.
First, as usual, I admire and approve of your indefatigable faith in humanity. But, that said, I have a couple of technical objections to what you seem to be claiming here.
1) It seems to me to be a double standard to “call out” liberals for engaging in this sort of low-brow polemic discourse. When liberals call hyper-conservatives “ignorant” or “idiotic” for making the kind of claims that Palin made about the health care bill, how is this any different than when conservatives take the very same, arguably cheap shots at liberals (see my blog for reference to the sad state of political discourse at these town halls)? No one is making a theoretical argument that name calling is the way to go, but your devil’s advocate role here seems to function as a back-handed diss of conservatives anyway, since to anyone with a basic knowledge of American political discourse and a liberal bent will read this as ‘liberals are an enlightened folk who have a “responsibility” to our poor deluded, child-like conservative countrymen. Their hysterical, unfounded, shrill attacks on moderate policy initiatives which are almost unambiguously in their own interest are just a result of their primitive socialization and lack of understanding understanding of basic historico-political reality. Like children, they should be coddled and convinced to see the light.’
2) In this vein, when is the time for outright denouncement nigh? Sorry to to get all Godwin’s Law on you, but when Nazis are marching are you still going to be singing this lullaby of the “natural” source of their concerns? They were responding to ‘real’ fears about unemployment and dissolution of the German state. It seems to me to be a touch (if not the height) of dishonesty to say that conservatives fear about 9/11 were “valid” because getting attacked is ‘truly’ scary. The liberal discourse around 9/11 has always acknowledged the danger and injustice of terrorism, but has simply pointed out that maybe war and torture are not the greatest remedies. It is as response this moderate position that we have witnessed the brunt of right-wing absurdity.
In closing, I sympathize with your concerns about political discourse in this country. But holding liberals to this lofty moral standard will neither convince (me) nor (I think) succeed. Why not simply make the strong argument implied in your post that we all just need to be Straussians?
floyd
Aug 12, 1:53am
poss.ibili.st
Word up Floyd, I appreciate you pointing out a couple places where I could be better communicating my points.
1) It certainly is a back-handed diss to conservatives; I’ve got plenty of elitism myself (which is a big reason why I’m so sensitive to it), and it’s targeted at religious dogma and anti-intellectualism, something which seems far more prevalent amongst hardcore conservatives, especially social conservatives. However, this post isn’t discussing those people, or those viewpoints. At best, people with dominant views like that, where no level of argument will ever change their minds, comprise like 30% of our country. At best. And hardcore liberals like you and I can’t number more than about 30% either. When I talk about “the American people”, or “middle America” or whatever, I mean the middle 30 or 40% of our country, the group of people who actually decides our political direction.
I’m making those numbers up, but observing George W Bush’s approval ratings fluctuate from 90% to 28%, and the difference in the electoral map between 1964 and 1968, I feel pretty confident in saying that we are a malleable nation, thanks to a large center. It’s them I’m discussing here, and it’s to them that I am saying we on the left need to change how we communicate, as a group.
2) It seems like you’ve taken my problem with labeling Americans as idiots to mean I’m saying our populace is above any criticism at all, and, for example, deserves no denouncement for re-electing George W. Bush. Not at all: “The problem is when we place too-heavy reliance on [genuine-ness], above all other factors, and that’s a fair criticism; simply mass-labeling Americans as idiots is not.”
My point here is that we should criticize based on differences of values, not on perceived differences of intelligence. Not only is that a far more substantive discussion, the level of discourse remains far higher. As we can see right now in town halls across America, a civil level of discourse may be the most important thing we need to make strong change popular and possible.
If you want to get into Godwin’s Law territory at all, that’s fine; are you asking me to say that the German populace is comprised mainly of idiots, or at least it was in the 30’s? I don’t think that’s true, nor do I think that it was run by idiots. Exactly as you say, they had real and natural concerns about unemployment and the stability of their state, and latent fears of “the other” that could be exploited as a result. How are you going to combat those forces? Do you belittle the people experiencing them for responding basely, and alienate them further, or do you put your disgust aside and present much more positive emotional reasons for them to act differently?
If you tell someone they’re stupid for over-reacting to fear, what they hear is that you’re telling them they’re stupid for feeling the fear at all, and so they stop listening to you. That is what I see happening here now, and I fear it will alienate the center from its new tentative relationship with the left.
Eric
Aug 12, 11:40am
mill-industries.com
Eric this is a great point:
“My point here is that we should criticize based on differences of values, not on perceived differences of intelligence.”
This is very easy to do and something that I am surely guilty of. Disgust is a natural reaction, but it is hypocritical to hold on to this emotion while condemning others for holding on to their fears. Effective communication is the only way to initiate change. Very well said.
Dave
Aug 12, 12:06pm
Thanks for the response, Eric. It clears a lot of things up. Although I still think the problem goes beyond shallow criticism of people instead of their values.
To return to Nazi germany, long before What the matter with Kansas? intellectuals in the Frankfurt school (founders of the so-called critical theory) were studying the rise of fascist sympathies in in the 20s and 30s and found that people, far from being ignorant about the implications and repercussions of totalitarianism, were simply more amenable to it than their self-proclaimed values could rationally explain. It’s too complicated of a story to go into right now, but to give you an idea where I’m coming from, there is a line of cultural/political analysis extending from Nietzsche to Foucault, and continuing in some contemporary French philosophy, which is quite bleak about the changes in cultural values in the west since the Chrisitianization of the Roman Empire which implicates material conditions (read, rise of capitalism) in our seeming current inability to extrapolate ourselves from a state of near constant self-inflicted violence, from the Iraq War to this: http://is.gd/2dTPf
Despite your distaste for some of the banalities of DailyKos style liberal discourse, you share in common with it the, in my view, overly optimistic faith in the eventual triumph of “the american way.” The people I work with have basically theorized that possibility into the ground, such that they no longer can even bring themselves to vote. Now, I don’t condone this by a long shot, but these people are trying to think about how to responsibly make revolution against the institutionalized forms of violence, that is, militancy. In philosophical circles right now, the argument is basically between that and some really fluffy “hope” stuff that as far as I can tell involves sitting around in reading circles crying at the sad parts (obviously a caricature). In some areas of pol sci there is still a faith in “procedural” solutions, and in fact these are the academics which are getting sent to Iraq to write constitutions, and who all levels of government employs by the boatload to draft better legislation, but if that’s working, it seems a tad slow for the very real threat that unrestrained neo-liberal capitalism and statist realpolitik will kill us all.
I apologize for all the substitution of a bunch of name-dropping and allusion for coherent argumentation, but I’d be happy to give you a list of 500 books I still have to read myself if you’re interested.
floyd
Aug 12, 3:10pm
I don’t know, Eric, you could look at this chart:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
which says that only 40% of Americans responded to the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” as true.
This is the country we live in. Well, you live in, I just hold the passport.
I think how you respond to that statistic determines how you’re going to fall on the issue you’re describing. One could look at it and say that Americans have a difference in values. Another could look at it and say that the majority of Americans lack the ability to think critically. Or maybe you could say that both are true, but maybe this is the question -
Does the lack of the ability to think critically imply a lack of intelligence?
I think not. My girlfriend teaches English in Laos and her students are very bright people that have not yet learned to think critically. There’s a one-party political system, one does not criticize the government in public, and there seems to be a growing trend of consumerism. Which makes it even funnier when they ask me, “Is it true that everyone owns a gun in America? Would I be shot if I went there?”
I’ve always believed that the key is education. Improve the state of education in America. Americans aren’t stupid, the odds are just stacked against them.
I was reading an article in the NYTimes about the state of the music industry and this statistic stuck out at me:
A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.
This scares the shit out of me. It’s the kind of thing that confirms your worst fears, that when people call up radio stations and request the same songs that they always play – it’s not just that the radio stations are hand picking the requests, it’s that people can’t think of anything else they want to hear.
bertrand
Aug 13, 2:42am
Sigh. Depressing statistics all around, but ones I’m familiar with. And I actually was going to include a paragraph in my original post separating intelligence from education and criticizing our education system, like you did, but I cut it for length. But education isn’t the whole story anyway.
When I was 14, I started getting politically and ethically conscious, and recoiled at everything to do with organized religion. One of my classmates was a committed Baptist. I decided to spend that school year waging war against his belief structure. I instigated a debate at every opportunity – I remember pushing him on the afterlife destiny of aboriginal peoples who had never seen a missionary, and hearing the explanation that God’s presence can be felt in nature, and that to not listen to it was worthy of damnation.
I tried to get him to read anti-religious books – I even did a big book report and oral presentation on one of them that, without mentioning his name, was targeted at him in a way that I knew he would understand. That was also the year I wrestled, and we were both on the team. He was post-puberty, and I was just shy of it, so he frequently punished me severely during practice. By the end of the school year, the tension between us had grown to the point where we got into a physical fight, and came a hairsbreadth away from blows to the face.
He graduated valedictorian of our class. Sure, he might grow up and realize he’s under a spell, but from my experience with him, I doubt it. The guy’s got unshakeable faith, and it’s not for the lack of intelligence or education to see around it. I have a similar kind of faith in free will. Of course, in most liberal circles, “faith” has the connotation of “mindless”, so maybe I should call it a “conviction”.
On your basic point, I totally agree—America is in no position to elect an atheist president. So how do we get there? I don’t think it’s by finally browbeating 50% of America into becoming atheists; it’s about convincing the Christians in America that non-religious people can hold good values too. And the more condescending we are to them about it, the less convincing that case is.
Eric
Aug 13, 4:27pm
mill-industries.com
Government has become way too complicated for everyday Americans.
I mean, how can anyone be expected to keep track of every resolution congress goes through when you’ve got to worry about school, work, and personal relationships. You just want to feel like the government will keep things going smoothly without encroaching too much on your life.
But that’s where fear grows. Suddenly you’re hearing that the government plans to make big changes and you start to worry and feel like your way of life might be threatened. The uninformed are the easiest to misinform. I’ll admit I probably saw George W. Bush as someone different than who he actually was because of angry friends and family who didn’t agree with the policies of his administration.
It’s hard to say where it can end though. Once you convinced someone enough that the other side isn’t worth listening to, it’s hard to suggest something like compromise.
Adam
Aug 15, 6:43pm
Government is mega-complicated, and health care is one of the most complicated issues; I don’t have any comprehension of why tying public option rates to Medicare rates is a good or bad idea.
But I think people could do more than they are to keep on top of what’s going on and what’s false info as far as what our government is doing – at least on the few premiere issues of the day, of which health care is #1 right now. It’s something that will impact everybody, almost immediately, and everybody has an interest in understanding what is happening and why.
I read 4 political news sources – Politico, CNN‘s Politics section, AP’s Politics section, and FiveThirtyEight. Even if you someone only reads 2 of those 4, you’d have at least a basic line to what’s happening, and what lines are being fed to you by crazies.
Eric Mill
Aug 15, 11:31pm
mill-industries.com
Hey, I forgot that Christians are a monolithic group. Thanks for reminding me. Sigh.
Robert Holbert
Aug 19, 10:16pm
Just read this Bill Maher piece that ties is perfectly with this discussion:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html
bertrand
Sep 7, 9:05am
Pretty awesome piece, actually. I thought he did a great job of presenting tragic, depressing statistics in a smooth, funny way. Most of his numbers point to devastating failures in our education system – and the rest from another awful feature of our population, our incredible apathy towards current events.
The reason I continue to insist on distinguishing ignorance from intelligence, when in practice it all adds up to our country making stupid decisions either way, is because it affects how we talk to people. The Democratic message I remember from 2004, intentional or not, is that our president is stupid, America is stupid for electing him, and please don’t prove yourselves quite so stupid as to elect him again. Obama, though, he talked to middle America like they were smart, and preached unification and empowerment. This difference doesn’t just affect the commercials and headlines, it changes the conversations that his foot soldiers have on the ground with undecided voters.
A respectful message resonates much stronger, and all I’m insisting, by crossing out “stupidity” and writing “ignorance”, is that we have to know our enemy and respect its victims, if we are to win them over.
Eric Mill
Sep 7, 2:27pm
mill-industries.com