The Candidates
Featured Archives
From the vulgar satire site Encyclopedia Dramatica (WARNING: EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE CONTENT)
To Republicans and Fox News fans, Barack “Saddam” Hussein Osama is an unpatriotic Islamic Manchurian candidate, a Muslim posing as a [Christian] who may even be the Antichrist…
To Democrats and Daily Kos readers, Barack Jesus F. Kennedy Christ is a messianic cult leader, the reincarnation of John F. Kennedy born as a black Jesus come to save America from six years of Iraq, eight years of George W. Bush, and two centuries of white guilt…
For all of the interest surrounding their existence, the Netroots and the Conservative Blogosphere both have little to show for their constant noisemaking. In the past, I have likened the disconnect between movement partisans and everyday Americans to being insulated from the outside world or living inside a bubble, but the actual reason for its existence, I have to come to believe, is very simply explained. Movement partisans — members of an apocryphal and ever-shrinking “base” — increasingly are not involved in politics to promote a particular set of convictions or a certain philosophy to which they will adhere to first and foremost. Rather, they view it as a sports competition of sorts: there’s an irrational need to root for the team above all else. Once a side has been chosen, it’s Them vs. The Other, and the only thing that matters is beating the other guy.
One can quickly figure out whether they’re a partisan or a principled thinker by their gut reaction to an article that criticizes their candidate of choice. There were articles that were released in the fall, for instance, that accurately called out Sarah Palin for lying about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere. Although there were a few who conceded that she was at the very least distorting her record, most Republicans’ reaction to anyone who brought it up was to dismiss the source — or even the person furthering the information — as left-wing trash (”Are you working for Kos now?!”) and, quite simply, reject the information from their mental processing. What mattered to such people was not whether the charge was verifiable, but whether it helped their side. Intellectual integrity took a back seat to being a Republican, little different than being a fan of a sports team.
Once you’re a devoted member of a team, accurately filtering information takes a backseat to cheerleading. Because they are not fellow team members, any information that comes from the Huffington Post, MSNBC, Slate, Salon, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos can safely be ignored and dismissed. The problem with this, of course, is that, by this chain of logic, if Hitler says the sky is blue, then people who oppose him are then obligated to disagree with him. But this is absurd: we opposed Adolf Hitler because he tried to conquer the Earth and massacre the entire European Jewish population, not because everything that he ever did in his entire life epitomized evil. One can safely presume that Hitler also enjoyed the occasional bowl of soup; this does not mean that anti-fascists are obligated to refuse to eat soup (”Are you eating soup? What are you, some kind of Nazi?”). By the same token, one should oppose Keith Olbermann simply because he espouses liberal views, and not conflate this with an inability to say anything that’s accurate. Considering the source and making sure to verify the information that one is being given is what has to be done, not ignoring or flatly disregarding a source that’s disliked.
Most Americans aren’t movement partisans, nor are they all that concerned with ideology. While most Americans will call themselves moderates or conservatives when made to select a label, this does not mean that they are subscribers to a rigid ideology or that they will refuse to vote for a candidate that isn’t “on the same team.” For those that mostly interact with other movement partisans, it’s often difficult to get into the mindset of someone who could have been torn, like my own grandmother, between supporting Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson back in the fall of 2007. But like her, most Americans are not dogmatic ideologues and don’t reject information right out of the starting gate based upon the source. They quite often see the partisans as having their own personal little memory eraser from Men in Black: Sure, Sarah Palin performed terribly in that interview, but man, that Katie Couric sure is left-wing! INFORMATION REJECTED.
One can acknowledge a candidate’s flaws while continuing to support him wholeheartedly. In fact, it’s the best way to support him and convert others to the cause: who wants to listen to a surrogate blabber about his candidate’s infallibility? Acknowledging the flaws of one’s own candidate is very attractive to converts, who will see you as intellectually honest, rather than as a cheerleader. And Lord knows that the world needs fewer of those.
Now excuse me while I go enjoy a bowl of soup.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Just edited it a bit. Should be free of shaky prose now.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Most Americans aren’t movement partisans, nor are they all that concerned with ideology.”
Most Americans are too stupid or uninformed to verify and process information also. That’s why so many like to ride their emotions and willfully attach themselves to personalities like Olbermann, Limbaugh, etc. If the picture has to be black or white, otherwise people lose interest and gravitate towards someone who will paint their emotionally satisfying worldview for them. Forget nuance, intellectual honesty, thoughtful consideration, Americans are idiots and will vote for whoever gets away with the most outrageous lies and panderings.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Most Americans are too stupid or uninformed to verify and process information also. That’s why so many like to ride their emotions and willfully attach themselves to personalities like Olbermann, Limbaugh, etc. If the picture has to be black or white, otherwise people lose interest and gravitate towards someone who will paint their emotionally satisfying worldview for them. Forget nuance, intellectual honesty, thoughtful consideration, Americans are idiots and will vote for whoever gets away with the most outrageous lies and panderings.
Those that do follow people like Olbermann or Limbaugh tend to be more informed in general on purely factual grounds, actually. Too many of them, though, fall victim to the sports team mentality because they don’t enjoy having their thoughts challenged.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“Those that do follow people like Olbermann or Limbaugh tend to be more informed in general on purely factual grounds, actually.”
Ugh. You’re right. Have you seen the film “Idiocracy”? Don’t. It will make you too depressed
November 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Of course Alex.
Humans are a pack animal species. We tend to think of ourselves as tribes even if we don’t call them tribes.
We have in-group loyalty that clouds our perspective on reality.
Our brains recognize challenges to our in-group as challenges to ourselves. We don’t often think these thoughts but explicit thoughts are a minor part of the brain’s processing.
The majority of people will exhibit this behavior in some area. If people aren’t making their tribe a political group then it will be a religious or social or economic group.
This is how human operate.
Most non-political people belong to different sorts of tribes:
Yankees fans
Baptists
Middle Class
People who work at the DMV
Outdoors Enthusiasts
This is as close to universal human behavior as anything.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
You sound much like a determinist of sorts, Doug.
The beauty of human reason is that, with proper self-examination, we can determine whether what we’re doing is rational. Should we be engaging in the sort of Go, Team! nonsense that I described? “Yes” is a potential answer, of course — but please provide a reason other than “‘Cause that’s human nature!”
November 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I think we should try to be aware of our natural dispositions.
That allows us to temper and moderate our innate programming. Our instincts can be moderated or redirected but not overcome.
I’d suggest that if you start considering the Republican Party or the conservative movement your “tribe” that you consider finding another one.
Politics is difficult to reconcile with strong tribal emotions. George Washington said about the same thing when he warned of political ‘factions’.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Our instincts can be moderated or redirected but not overcome.
So you think that modern civilization just sort of popped into existence?
Or, on a more basic level: monogamy? Is that the natural state of things? Is our instinct for monogamy? But so many people remain faithful day after day.
You as a Christian should know better than anyone that values can easily come to supplant instincts.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I think modern civilization is an extension of our social groups.
It took hundreds of thousands of years to go from hunter-gather to farmer.
Then thousands more years to develop cities. Then thousands more years to develop civilizations.
From the first civilization until now it took 400 generations. We may be a bright primate but we’re still a primate after all.
Any casual observer of history would realize civilization was gradual development with each stage building on the previous one.
Monogamy is a good case of redirected instincts. Male instincts are for multiple couplings to extend the reach of his genetic material. This was possible because in prehistoric society (and in some cases in other times) females outnumbered males by a wide margin.
In social groups this was moderated because the male-female ratio began to equal out. Men of modest standing began to find monogamy preferable to the alternative (bachelorhood).
The social capital involved in having two parents gave monogamous civilizations an advantage over their polygamous neighbors.
I’d also question your monogamy statement. Psychologists suggest less than 40% of couples are strictly monogamous. We haven’t quite bred monogamy fully into our genome yet.
As a Christian I realize that values are constrained by biology. Values succeed only insofar as they gradually alter biology, redirect it, or co-opt it.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
This quote (Block-quoted it for you to avoid confusion.
– Alex ) is what I am talking about. The labels do not mean what they once did. This in not the 1980’s there over. You see one party as I mentioned before in an example along with others cons wanted to keep segregation in the 1960’s while the Liberal Party did not (JFK). All cons values were not good then nor were all liberal ones. The same is true for today..
Second Katie Curic is a leftist. Ah….I am sorry as you already put it………the interview performance Palin did was bad. What books do you read come on…………..putin and his head come on………….. if Palin could not do a simple interivew with a quote “leftist” person, then how could she talk to a Castro, Putin, etc who would have a FAR GREATER agenda
November 29th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Katie Couric is a lefty, sure, but the interview didn’t even promote an agenda. The questions were fair.
I think modern civilization is an extension of our social groups. It took hundreds of thousands of years to go from hunter-gather to farmer. Then thousands more years to develop cities. Then thousands more years to develop civilizations. From the first civilization until now it took 400 generations. We may be a bright primate but we’re still a primate after all.
Once we got to the Age of Enlightenment, though — meaning, once the ball got started rolling — it hasn’t stopped since. In just a few centuries we’ve done the impossible.
Monogamy is a good case of redirected instincts. Male instincts are for multiple couplings to extend the reach of his genetic material. This was possible because in prehistoric society (and in some cases in other times) females outnumbered males by a wide margin. In social groups this was moderated because the male-female ratio began to equal out. Men of modest standing began to find monogamy preferable to the alternative (bachelorhood). The social capital involved in having two parents gave monogamous civilizations an advantage over their polygamous neighbors.
You just proved my point, then: that’s a wonderful example of how certain values (social capital) can come to replace instincts (polygamy).
I’d also question your monogamy statement. Psychologists suggest less than 40% of couples are strictly monogamous. We haven’t quite bred monogamy fully into our genome yet.
That’s still tens of millions in the United States alone. Surely you would agree that they prove that we can overcome our instincts through will?
As a Christian I realize that values are constrained by biology. Values succeed only insofar as they gradually alter biology, redirect it, or co-opt it.
Why even advocate certain values if humans are doomed creatures, anyway? What are you doing in politics if you think that certain social mores are too ingrained in our biological makeup to change?
November 29th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU
November 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
All that the Constitution requires is that the US President be a “natural-born citizen.”
Barack Obama is undoubtedly a natural-born US citizen as his birth announcement appeared in a Honolulu newspaper in August 1961:
Unless you believe that the international conspiracy to make Obama President began on the day he was born, there is no reason to believe in the validity of this claim.
Also, Obama’s Indonesian father could not legally revoke Obama’s US citizenship on his behalf.
Even if he could, Obama is a sitting US Senator which requires someone to be a US citizen. Since he already is a US Senator, the question of his citizenship is moot.
I really hope people will drop this. It is a moot point and there is no reason to argue about it now.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Unless you believe that the international conspiracy to make Obama President began on the day he was born, there is no reason to believe in the validity of this claim.
This was my immediate thought when I heard of this ridiculous conspiracy theory.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
even if karl marx had asked the questions, palin should have been able to answer the questions “what newspapers do you read, and name one supreme court case you disagree with” . good article alex. no soup for you!
November 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Modern politics revolves around 6 central paradigms. On the Republican side, those paradigms are:
1) Capitalism: Free marketeers who crave latitude for economic action and empowerment. These people are focused on progress on all fronts and realize that the power of the market is greater than the power of politics to solve problems. Media include Barrons, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, the business networks, and books by people like von Mises, von Hayek, Friedman, and many others. Organizations include The Chamber of Commerce, the Small Businessman’s Association, The Club For Growth, and others too numerous to mention.
2) Religion: Catholics, Evangelicals, and Mormons in particular, as well as a variety of other religions. Media include everything from the 700 Club to Laura Schlesinger’s talk radio program and many others. These people want to stave off secular sin and it’s influence on our culture.
3) American Exceptionalism: Included are the NeoCon universe, the Military, the VFW, American Legion, the Weekly Standard, and 4th of July picnics and celebrations all across America. The view is that of our country having a unique role to play in world affairs. Defending liberty—great stuff.
The paradigms of the Democrats are:
1) Big Government: This is the view that government plays a special role in defending and providing for the weak and defenseless….that only it can make life more fair and redress grievances while doing away with injustice. Labor unions seek to correct the unfairness of the market. Greens want to use the power of the state to protect the sanctity of nature from the market. Gays want to use the power of government to become socially acceptable and eliminate discrimination. Feminists want to use political power to bring down the patriarchy. This list goes on and on.
2) Race: Blacks, Latinos, Asians and others want to use the power of government against the dominant culture and perceived discrimination in the market place. Organizations include the NAACP, LaRaza, and many others.
3) Secularism and Hedonism: These are libertines who want an end to religion and traditional mores that might constrain their behavior or cause them to be shunned. Media include Playboy, Cosmopolitan, most of the movies or television shows that get made, and a majority of the rest of the culture. Organizations include a wide variety of occultist groups, Hollywood, and the ACLU.
Each paradigm represents a world view…a filter through which to view reality. These paradigms are constantly being tweaked, and each is expanding or contracting. For example, Mormons are increasing a fairly rapid rate while Jews are decreasing in numbers. Also good, in theory, for our side, is that the Investor Class is expanding while labor unions are shrinking. These are but 2 examples on our side. However, the hedonist grasp on the culture is expanding. These examples could fill a book. It is this interplay that will determine America’s future, or whether, indeed, it has one.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
BTW, each of the paradigms mentioned in #16 can be viewed as its own political party, with its own media, its own stars, and its own organizations and interest groups. That, essentially, was the point.
November 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Why even advocate certain values if humans are doomed creatures, anyway? What are you doing in politics if you think that certain social mores are too ingrained in our biological makeup to change?
I advocate values because the presence of them constrains and improves our behavior even if it doesn’t overcome our ingrained instincts. The alternative is rather grim. Besides that in a way I believe the values are _true_ whether we acknowledge them or not.
In a real way acknowledging values we cannot live up to (by force of will alone) is a noble activity. It indicates to me a hint of something greater than our animal nature.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I make free will choices every single day. If we weren’t given free agency, why did God give us commandments to keep or admonish us to do certain things. It would be a waste of time for him to have done that if we were hard wired to a predetermined outcome. ANSWER: We’re not, and thank God for our ability to make choices.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I respect your religious beliefs, Illinoisguy.
I’m only discussing human behavior and evolutionary psychology.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
(WARNING: EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE CONTENT)
LOL! This little disclaimer gave me a laugh. What about the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry is so “offensive” to a conservative site…they only encapsulate every lie and smear about Obama the right has tried to spread for the past two years, as well as being honest about what conservatives really feel about his color/perceived ethnicity, etc.
Oh wait, I know…it’s only “offensive” because it airs conservative dirty laundry for the whole world to see. Shame on them!
LOL! You guys are hilarious — keep the laughs coming, please.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
21 – Check out the McCain entry for crap from Democrats. ED is an equal offender site, and while I find it hysterical, most people would indeed be offended!
November 30th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Oh, I’m quite familiar with ED, an I agree with you on that. It just makes me laugh that the same anti-Obama cliches shoveled down our throats by the boatload by the rightwing are considered “offensive” on a site pushing conservative so-called “values”.
The ONLY conservative “value” is use and abuse of others. All conservatives ethics, if they can even be called ethics, stems from this one rule.