A Guest Post From Dorian Gray
From time to time you will start seeing guest posts from various commenters and other bloggers. If you don’t read this first ever guest post then you are missing one hell of a post. Please comment and let DG know your thoughts.
On Conspiracies and Commentary
By: Dorian Gray
Their great need, their hunger, is for good sense, clarity, truth – even an atom of it. People are dying – it is no metaphor – for lack of something real to carry home when the day is done. See how willing they are to accept the wildest nonsense. – Herzog, Saul Bellow
In an interesting coincidence this week the Mike Castle “birther” video went viral on the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. The latter, along with the JFK assassination and the 11 September attacks, have been the quintessential riddles of the lunatic fringe. Birth certificate-gate is quickly catapulting to the Mount Rushmore of conspiracies theories and this got me wondering. Why are some so prone to this type of thinking? Are these people ill or stupid or what? I don’t think so. I think most are quite bright actually (the nutter in Georgetown as a potential exception). So what then is clouding their thinking?
So I think I have had a breakthrough. I stumbled across a brilliant essay written by Mark Oppenheimer in Tablet Magazine. He interviews two of America’s leading holocaust deniers. They historically have collaborated but have recently fallen out. It is a fascinating read and illustrates how, although they champion the same issue, they do it for different reasons and have different goals. It is most certainly worth your time. It’s presented in four parts:
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/7264/the-denial-twist/
One of the deniers just fancies himself a libertarian who takes unpopular and shocking opinions just, well just because he is a “skeptic” and wants to exercise his free speech. The other is a very smart guy who is very well read and has an incredible breadth of knowledge. He even has a Masters Degree in European history from Indiana. This is the analysis that struck me and to my mind is analogous to conspiracy theorists in general.
But as one professor of mine, who had worked as a public historian, once told me: “Beware the history buff.” The buff—as opposed to the scholar, or the curious peruser, or the dilettante—eats up all this knowledge but can’t properly digest it. He (most buffs seem to be male) cannot keep facts in perspective; he fails at precisely the task the scholar is good at, figuring out which facts matter most, which pieces of evidence to privilege, what to weigh more than what. So a particular truth—that there are a lot of Jewish executives in Hollywood, or that African Americans commit more crimes, per capita, than whites—assumes an outsized importance. With no ability to create proper contexts for facts, the buff is in danger of becoming either a conspiracy theorist or a bigot, or both. This is why there is so much crossover between the communities of, say, 9/11 skeptics and anti-Semites. Conspiracy theorists and bigots are people with faulty judgment casting about for answers; but whereas the conspiracy theorist needlessly increases the complexity of the world, the bigot needlessly simplifies. “The Jews have secret meetings where they plan the world economy,” says the conspiracy theorist; “the Jews are treacherous, bad people,” says the bigot.
I think in our current 24 hour news cycle, a billion blogs, confirmation-bias driven discourse this commentary is right on target. An argument can be made to support anything, but we are failing to properly evaluate the foundations for these arguments. More often than not preconditioned ideology determines (predetermines?) conclusions and no one has the skill, the time, or the courage to challenge her or his own philosophy.
So we have a fundamental problem and I think we are all predisposed to this type of thinking. The problem defined nicely by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptics magazine. “You want to have a mind open enough to accept radical new ideas; but not so open that your brains fall out.” This is what happening to all of us.
We recognize this easily when it comes to wild conspiracy foolishness but not so much in daily political banter. This to me is the biggest hindrance to finding some common ground.
WELL DONE, MR. GRAY, WELL DONE INDEED!
Excellent post, DG! You’ve really summed up what is happening – and, yes, I plead guilty.
(I kinda missed the salty language, tho… 😉 )
I’ll be sure to click through to read the whole thing. The excerpt is excellent. To your point that it is hard to find middle ground with people lacking “the skill, the time, or the courage to challenge her or his own philosophy.” I would say that it is the central tenant of modern conservatism that introspection of any kind is repellent.
All truths are received truths, so to challenge any part of conservative doctrine is to challenge all of conservatism. That is simply undoable. Critical thinking skills are not on the list of things you need to be a modern conservative.
I don’t know if has always been that way, but seeing the out of hand denial of simple facts on a daily basis, it clearly is what conservatism is all about nowadays.
Great post…
Reminds me of the ‘narrative falacy’. Human beings also have a predisposition to simplify facts, often reducing a topic, event, or theory into the easiest story to tell, dropping the nuance.
So we interpret the stories we are told on the news through our Republican or Democrat filter and instanly ascribe motivations that fit well into our narrative that says the other side is bad and why.
It is a powerful enough phenomena that you see many poor and marginalized people with aspirations of one day being wealthy getting all behiend the idea that the rich are getting a bum deal (the Joe the Plumbers on the political spectrum). You get educated liberals who contort the obviously bought and paid for political contortions of the Democrats as a real effort to promote egalitarian programs like health care reform (like, say, liberal bloggers).
At the end of the day we have a corporatist system and our willingness to accept and propogate these narratives supports the division of people with common political and economic interests. All the while a class of political parasites drag the economy down with graft and favoritism to rob us blind. Rather than making good public policy they propogate the narratives and meaningless polemic arguments.
So here is my question back to Dorian – I think the “birther” chick is more a parrot of whatever she hears (her narratibve supports her combined conservatisn and raciscm maybe)… but think of a intellegent person who actually believes that based on research, or a holacaust denier… wouldn’t you trade millions more of those freaks (the ones who were so open their brains fell out) for a public that did not reduce every issue into a Republican and Democratic talking point and no real critical thought or skepticism?
Even the excerpt contains an excellent example of what happens when “facts” are considered without context: The notion that “blacks commit more crimes per capita than whites.”
The actual situation is that blacks get ARRESTED for committing crimes more often than whites. Even police understand why: There are more police in poor black neighborhoods because of drugs and the violence that accompanies the dealing. If the police spent as much time investigating fraudulent workers’ comp claims as they do looking for crack dealers, we’d have a lot more white, blue-collar people in jail than we do now. If they spent their resources looking for white-collar criminals, lots of rich white guys would be playing golf in orange jumpsuits.
In short, the jail population represents not who is committing crimes, but who is getting caught.
Not Brian – Don’t give me that BS that liberals are just like conservatives. I, for one, accept questions and consider alternatives. I weigh evidence. I change my mind on issues all of the time.
I’m more interested in progress and results than I am in my “team” winning an argument. That is the central difference. I reject your premise until you provide some proof that liberal bloggers are some kind of mirror image of conservatives.
Have you every heard of the game “Would you rather…”? You are presented with two horrible options and you are required to select the “preferable” one. Would you rather chop off your own finger with a Wusthof clever or be shot in the shoulder by an archer?
As far as NB’s question… If you pressed me I guess I’d probably shallow the bait and take the trade (chosing millions of radical skeptics) as I lean toward anarchy anyway. Plus I am beginning to despise the bicameral frame of ever issue more and more each day. The problem is that at least with the corporate sell-outs and oligarchs and thieves we have a semi functioning nation state. Highly flawed but still. For Obama as corporate sell-out refer (most recently) here:
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/07/23/another-curious-obama-nomination/
You clearly get the idea though. Lack of critical thinking and challenging your own beliefs. That’s why Jason’s comment is a bit disheartening. He immediately applied the concept to conservatism. The point is it applies to everyone. The site is called Delaware LIBERAL after all so that’s expected I suppose.
Sometimes I find myself in full agreement with the Kim Jong Il puppet in Team America. Why is everyone so fucking stupid?
Hey, thanks for the link, and I appreciate the thoughtful comments afterward.
My pleasure. Your essay was an example of great writing and a wonderful piece of journalism as well.
Jason – and any relatively moderate conservative would reply with the same answer if I saifd they were like a liberal.
Fact is the Democrats won the election. Obama, via the simple stoke of a pen could fulfill many of his campaign promises on gay rights, torture, and other issues. I’m still waiting… maybe you know something I don’t.
The party is now in a very complicated and coreographed process of trying to extort as much money as possible for the special interests of the party and call it healthcare reform. We the people will get as little out of this as possible while every lobbyist, politician, soon-to-be-private sector regulator etc… makes cash off this. It has become it’s own multi-billion dollar industry.
That is who you believe is getting you progressive policies? This is how good pubic policy works? You really think that the party that has control of both houses and the presidency is completely hepless in getting quality policy crafted? As long as you believe this intentionally incremental crawl in the general direction of progress is actually progress you are aiding and abeiting the looting.
And I do not the the big difference between Republicans and Democrats except in their rhetoric… Bush was not Pro-Business Free Market (protectionism and favoritism)… Obama is not Anti-Business and Socialist (the man is shoveling handouts to industry while we debate about whether it is possible to pay for basic healthcare for the poor).
At then end of the day, throw out all the progressive platitudes you want… we have a 1 party system with two apologist parties complimentary narratives. Follow the money… we lose either way. As long as we join in the political food fight and support the home team there will be no progress.
DG-
1) Would you rather chop off your own finger with a Wusthof clever or be shot in the shoulder by an archer? Archer.
2) Disheartening? If you buy the premise that “liberals are just like conservatives” because of your worldview, failing considering the copious evidence to the contrary, aren’t you failing your own test.
Boohyah! Cased closed! Sorry loser. Try again anytime. (Kidding! (sorta))
Great, thought provoking post, Dorian, and stimulating discussion following it, which motivated, among others, a wise statement from ‘not Brian’:
“At the end of the day we have a corporatist system and our willingness to accept and propagate these narratives supports the division of people with common political and economic interests. All the while a class of political parasites drag the economy down with graft and favoritism to rob us blind. Rather than making good public policy they propagate the narratives and meaningless polemic arguments.”
I agree! Our system is a conspiracy operating in the shadows even though the accouterments are obvious but undetected by enough of us, nor are the puppeteers apparent.
We citizens have allowed this conspiracy to persist by being too fat and happy to be motivated enough to openly question it and act against it. But this may change in a prolonged economic downturn.
And then there is the critical thinking element in our mix, that is, the lack of it.
Could this conspiracy also extend to the dumbing down and lack of adequate support of our public education system? Where do the children of the corporatist elites go for their education?
We see this conspiracy in full bloom right now in the healthcare debate, to the point where the American people appear to be beaten down by the onslaught of the swift boat troopers of the corporatists. It’s outrageous, and sad!
Jason – Did you happen to click on the Taibbi link or read NB’s comments at all?
Not Brian,
Deft rhetorical move toward “parties” away from “liberal bloggers” right there. You nearly pulled it off.
(PS. I will always defend liberalism against fucking knowit all independents and libneratarians who think they are so fucking great on their high horses and above the fray.
It is a simple fact that there is NO true equivalence between liberals and conservatives on the issue of who is driven by doctrine. NONE.)
DG – As you can see from my reply to brian – I am not taking the bait (and switch).
I would say that it is the central tenant of modern conservatism that introspection of any kind is repellent.
No need to tell me that! I’ve found more progress in hitting my head against cinder blocks than getting almost anyone in modern right-conservatism to even attempt introspection.
DG’s reply to NB’s reply to you (J) is right, though:
You clearly get the idea though. Lack of critical thinking and challenging your own beliefs. That’s why Jason’s comment is a bit disheartening. He immediately applied the concept to conservatism. The point is it applies to everyone.
There absolutely can be quite a bit of intolerance to someone who challenges a closely-held belief here, but it doesn’t have to be a challenge from those already identified as activists on the right, either (I am refraining from saying “wingnuts” in the spirit of DG’s post). Heck, I’ve been on the receiving end of spit-n-fire here once in a while for asking “why.” This certainly is not meant to single out here, there, or wherever, however, but I think moreso a general warning that you ain’t got shit if you refuse to eat from different flavors and cooks every once in a while.
Where to start…
“Deft rhetorical move toward “parties” away from “liberal bloggers” right there. You nearly pulled it off.”
So you are saying I twisted your earlier comment by rhetorical transition to mention parties and avoid taking on the bastion of intellectualism that you are obviously the representative of. Not my intent, but let’s see where you take this now that we have established that you are offended by my linking Liberal Bloggers with the two-party food fight…
“PS. I will always defend liberalism against fucking knowit all independents and libneratarians who think they are so fucking great on their high horses and above the fray.”
Well, first, thank you for defending my liberal values for me. I did not realize I could not be liberal and disagree with anything you have to say. I did not realize that liberal thought requres a specific party affiliation. I MUST be a KNOW-IT-ALL INDEPENDENT or LIBERTARIAN because I am not a member of the Democratic party. It is amazing that correct politcal thought developed indepenedent of the party throughout history.
No dogna there – to be an independent I must be on a high horse and and full of myself. I can not be liberal. I would have to support one of the two parties to be a liberal.
And your comment on the difference between conservatives and liberals demonstrates your nuanced and open minded stance –
“It is a simple fact that there is NO true equivalence between liberals and conservatives on the issue of who is driven by doctrine. NONE.”
No dogma there. All liberals good, all conservatives bad. Was this comment intended to prove my point, or a poor attempt at Daily Show type sarcasm?
I guess I need to accept that as fact just like I should accept that evolution is a hoax from your equivilent on the other side of the arguement.
I must be overlooking your reasoned political commentary on the topic of this post. As you have asserted, it must be there somewhere above… ‘it is simple fact’. I do not know how I could have ever equivocated Democrats and Republicans. You have certainly demonstrated your fact driven open minded political philosophy. I apologize for comparing you to people who do the same exact thing on the other side. There is obviously a difference in your rhetoric.
ooph
NB actually sums it up nicely. Jason, by saying you’re not “taking the bait” and making a clearly dogmatic partisan statement you’ve basically taken the bait and proved my point.
Wrapping up liberal ideals with the Democratic party is exactly the type of weak thinking I was describing.
Again, NB has it just right.
Interesting article DG. I ran into a study not too long ago about high profile science deniers. If found that most of them (all men) were highly educated in a different field than the one they are denying. The most common field was engineering. So I think the leaders of these conspiracies are smart people that don’t have the training necessary to analyze the information but think that they do.
I also think you’re right NB about followers. I think the Georgetown lady is a follower parroting whatever the intellectual leaders of the birthers are saying. I think that’s why these things take off. They are led by smart, seemingly sane people and they tap into someone’s fear of deeply held belief.
Jason, another problem here is that you are dealing with labels which do not precisely describe the folks so labeled, causing miscommunications that drive even like minded people apart. There is no benefit in this, in my view.
Here we go again. “Liberals and Conservatives are equally dogmatic” is such obvious bullshit that I can barley rise to attack it.
Conservative dogmatism gave us George Bush in spite of the evidence that he was a nit wit. Conservative dogmatism gave us the Iraq war in spite of the evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Conservative dogmatism says that global warming is fake in spite of the evidence that it is real. Can any of you ivory tower libertarian fuckers come up with even one example of liberal dogmatism that comes close to anything accomplished by conservative dogmatism?
No. You can’t. Because liberalism is not faith based, but more like science. More interested in results, testing, keeping what works (regardless of the source) and throwing away what does not work. If anyone is being rigidly dogmatic in this thread is the people who stridently claim that liberalism is dogmatic as an article of faith.
You’ve missed the point. If “liberalism” is more like science than how do you feel about the mountains of evidence that the Democratic Party gets it pockets lined by big business at the same levels as Republicans. I’m liberal dude, but I don’t tie it to a corrupt political party.
What you are taking on faith is that the D party or Obama is going champion your (and mine) liberal agenda. So far, he isn’t. He is stocking the Treasury w/ ex-Goldman Sachs fuck wits and shoveling dough to Wall Street, he’s hedged on legalizing grass, he’s hedged on gay marriage as well as DADT, he thinks torture investigation and prosecution is a “distraction”… etc., etc.,
Who’s taking what on faith again? If you don’t even consider these issues and remain indignant on this point then perhaps you are the lesser of two evils. Nothing to be proud of.
Again you are moving the goal post. The Democratic Party is not liberalism. When have I set out to defend the Democratic Party?
To bring this back to your original point:
The implication is that no one – neither liberal or conservative- has the courage to hallenge her or his own philosophy. I call bullshit on that implication.
If I am more stridently partisan than I was ten years ago it is only because dogmatic conservatives have forced us to lace up our boxing gloves on every issue. I am still willing to accept the outcome of a fair and honest debate in which rules of evidence are agreed upon and the participants are acting is good faith. I don’t find that good faith reciprocated – but as an American I still expect it.
This health care debate is a good example. Republicans have stated for the record that they will work to defeat it because the defeat will weaken the Obama Presidency. WTF is that? Is that patriotism? Is that working for the common good? No. That is the kind of dogmatism that conservatives trade in because it is all they have.
I think this is just an evil conspiracy to deceive people into thinking there is no conspiracy. 🙂
If I am more stridently partisan than I was ten years ago it is only because dogmatic conservatives have forced us to lace up our boxing gloves on every issue.
hmmmmm interesting
I definitely consider myself partisan-ized from the 2000 election onward.
Fair criticism, J330. I used “no one” and that’s probably overreaching. I could have said “very few”. I also used the party affiliation because that’s sort of how NB framed it and you nearly went into labor so I thought you were defending it. If you agree to the many and unacceptable shortcoming of the Democratic Party then we’ve agreed.
UI – Try to de-partisanize straightaway!
By the way, I’m logging off for the rest of the day. Thanks to everyone at DE Lib (especially DV) for giving me the space and the opportunity. It seems to have generated some nice conversation.
The article DG linked to was really good — more than the two people Mr. Oppenheimer profiled here, I was fascinated by the act of intellectual and emotional generosity he exhibited in facing these guys and respectfully letting them tell their story. It is never less than clear that Mr. Oppenheimer has no sympathy for their monstrous ideas, he let the men themselves have a pretty full measure of humanity. This is a difficult thing to do and it was nicely done. It was also fascinating to read the accounts of people who were close to these men try to account for what happened to them. The stuck in adolescent rebellion explanation for Weber seems like a shrewd observation for folks who build elaborate fortresses for discredited ideas or history narratives. Your parents are the authority keeping you from some full measure of control, so you get attached to something that they can’t really control — an idea, or a book, or some narrative or Dungeons and Dragons that may give you some common cause with other kids with few skills yet at the business of identity.
It is less clear to me what this has to do with politics, though. More in abit.
Jason commented on this from DG:
Even though DG has agreed that he probably painted with too broad a brush here, I want to point out that part of the difficulty with this statement is that it grants the writer something of a pass — it implies that we are in no position to think through our own philosophies, but the writer is free enough of this syndrome to be able to see this and critique our collective cluelessless from the rarified air of his ivory tower.
There is not much useful about standing outside of the process and telling people that they are doing it wrong. As much as the political conversation has certainly been debased there are patterns, rules causes and effects that need to be taken into consideration while we are critiquing other people’s intellectual blindspots. One thing that is true is that Ds accommodate a broader membership than Rs do. Which is a good part of the reason that the health care debate is where it is today. When the people who win elections for you are moderates, the political landscape is going to look more moderate. That is difficult to deal with when your agenda is much more liberal or progressive. Conservatives on the other hand are busily purging themselves of people who are not conservative enough — which leaves them with basically no governing coalition. Want a more progressive government? Then you need to not just elect more progressives, you must actively be a part of the education of independents so that they get and can endorse what you want.
Notwithstanding the money flowing to Congress, the thing that clear observers of Obama would have known well before now is that he was going to govern pretty much from the center and move towards the progressive goals that the political landscape would let him get to. He was never going to govern like a clear progressive or socialist no matter what the right would charge.
As far as partisanship — I don;t know that I am more partisan, but I am much more intolerant of the bullshit and outright falsehoods repeated ad nauseum from the right recently. Wingnut falsehoods and talking points need to be hunted down and shot. Too much of that crap gets to be CW or even the narrative from for awhile which is not going to be a vector for more intellectualism from anybody.