In a world where you can believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it — and your beliefs can be shared by others who want to believe what you want to believe too — there’s no room for genuine dialogue and debate.
There’s an old expression in Washington: “Everything’s been said, but not everyone has had a chance to say it.”
Rather than succumb to this temptation and simply observe, like countless others, that the Obama-Reverend Wright controversy has transformed the Post-Racial Man of Hope into Lying, Race-Obsessed Political Hack, let me focus on the broader issue at hand; namely, my contention that the present state of American politics has deteriorated to such a point that fully one-half of the voting population couldn’t care less if Obama is nothing more than an empty suit who mouths racially harmonious platitudes while looking for spiritual guidance from a race-baiting bigot. Or, if the O-man is somehow denied his party’s nomination, once the brouhaha in Denver subsides a large portion of this same electorate will put their differences aside and openly embrace a lying, manipulative, sniper-dodging phony who will do, or say, virtually anything to acquire political power.
Now, we all know that differences exist in every election, and the political rhetoric that gives expression to these differences can at times be extreme. Pacifists routinely get tarred as Unpatriotic Pinkos, just as law and order proponents get unfairly labeled as the New American Gestapo. Exaggerations and excesses are as much a part of this country’s political dynamics as motherhood and apple pie. To rail against these as injurious to the very system that gives them voice in the first place is to understand nothing about how politics is actually conducted in the real world, with real people.
But, it’s also true that at some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. Exactly when that threshold is crossed isn’t always clear, but like the Supreme Court which can’t define pornography but knows it when it sees it, that threshold exists. Bill Clinton helped cross one line by making “penis” a word of common, every-day usage, where previously an endless series of euphemisms were employed when publicly speaking about it. Now, thanks to Bill and Monica and a box of cigars, even fifth-graders can talk openly about the exit point of the male reproductive system, oral sex, and a myriad of other once-forbidden topics without the slightest hint of social inhibition.
And so it is with politics in general. Questioning one’s patriotism once merited a full-blown investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Now, thanks to the excesses of McCarthyism, it’s just the first arrow in the political quiver of both the Right and Left which simultaneously condemns Code Pink and General Petraeus as disloyal subversives.
Heated rhetoric in and of itself no longer captures the public’s attention. Today it’s the normal, expected medium of political discourse. It only becomes a story worth covering when a candidate publicly disavows the use of inflammatory language by one or more of his supporters; or, where bigoted language contradicts the primary message of the candidate himself. Had Obama run as an angry “black candidate” instead of a post-racial messiah, there never would have been a Reverend Wright story. There’s nothing particularly newsworthy about a black nationalist denouncing the U.S. of KKK, whether he’s speaking from the pulpit or participating in a CNN-sponsored presidential debate.
So where does all this lead to? Are we to simply accept the fact that American politics constantly “evolves,” pushing the threshold of acceptable speech out farther and farther with each passing year?
I don’t think so. I believe that the last 10-15 years have given birth to an entirely new phenomenon, one that poses a serious threat to the integrity of the political system itself. We’ve crossed a threshold that, like opening Pandora’s Box, is not easily backtracked. And, the brave new world it has ushered in is ripping apart the very fabric of our society.
To illustrate what I mean, we first need to recognize a tendency that misinforms a lot of political analysis. When thinking about the world in which they live, people tend to mark the beginning of history with the moment of their own birth. Those for whom the Great Depression was the defining experience of their lives never quite saw the country the same way as those born in the post-WWII era. Baby Boomers like myself, whose perspective was shaped by the fifties and sixties, carry a different image of the country from those born into a post-Carter world of high technology and seemingly endless economic growth.
Each of these generations, and sub-generations in between, measures the flow of history from their own starting point. Forget about the fact that politics in the 19th century was in many ways infinitely more brutal than it is today. I wasn’t around when Grover Cleveland ran for president, so it’s not a touch point for me. My point of reference is Kennedy-Nixon. For others it’s Carter-Reagan, or Bush-Gore. In doing so we arbitrarily pick an election and use it to evaluate the propriety of all future presidential campaigns. It’s the same reasoning science uses in demonstrating or refuting man-made global warming. Start with the 1880s (an exceptionally cold period), and everything that follows is warmer. Start with the 1990s (where temperatures reached a peak), and the last 10-15 years have been “cooling.”
Recognizing that where you start your analysis will influence what conclusions you draw, I still maintain that a new, over-arching phenomenon exists that has completely transformed the American political process. One’s personal historical starting point may make this trend seem greater or smaller, but the trend is still there. In certain respects it mimics the vitriol of American politics in the 19th century, but it’s on such a greater scale that the difference has become a difference of kind, not just degree.
And what is the source of this pox on the political process? It’s the very instrument you’re using now to consider my observation. The Internet.
The Internet has forever transformed American politics in some good, but many bad ways. It’s beneficial in that it’s a source of alternative information that keeps the Dan Rathers of the world from perpetrating election year hoaxes on the American public. And, it’s an excellent way for like-minded people to come together in like-minded ways to pursue like-minded goals. But the yin to this yang is that instead of isolating the real kooks as non-Internet modes of communication tended to do (it’s not quite as gratifying to wait days or weeks for a letter to be returned, or a magazine to arrive — assuming one kook could easily find another kook to communicate with in the first place), the Internet has made it possible for kooks everywhere on the planet to get together in real time and operate in a virtual world of their own making.
Almost anything can be said on the Internet without fear of retribution or condemnation. The person saying it doesn’t need to reveal their identity, and can lie about their age, gender, even nationality. In this medium facts are no longer immutable anchors of information, but wholly fungible delusions that assume concrete status if and when enough people choose to believe them. Not only was Bush personally behind 9-11, no plane flew into the Pentagon that day. So, where did all the passengers on that plane go? Modern-day “facts” don’t require coherency or consistency, so the answer is “Bush was behind 9-11.” That’s all the response required to end the discussion, and move on to another delusional topic.
In a world where you can believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it — and your beliefs can be shared by others who want to believe what you want to believe too — there’s no room for genuine dialogue and debate. Obama is post-racial, and will produce “change.” Demonstrate that he’s chummy with a race-baiting bigot, or just another Chicago machine hack who cuts cozy deals with shady real estate developers, and you get at best a shrug, and at worst the non-sequitur “Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.” If Obama shot Mother Theresa while holding up the First National Bank on live TV, about 60% of all registered Democrats would still vote for him because (a) he didn’t really do it despite the overwhelming evidence against him, (b) he’s for change and the country needs change, or (c) Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. The other 40% would vote for Hillary instead, but only after she offered the VP slot to Obama because — to quote Joe Biden — he’s clean and articulate. And anyway, Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
I wish I had the solution to re-instill some sense of reality into the political debate in this country, but I don’t. The problem isn’t limited to the political Left. Some of the people reading this essay who identify themselves as Conservatives will focus only on whether I or others are “conservative-enough” to lay claim to this designation. Others will ignore everything else I’ve said to affirm the existence of man-made global warming, since I mentioned it in passing earlier in this essay. Still others of all political persuasions will launch into a personal attack on those who disagree with some arcane point tangential to this conversation. Only a small portion of readers will actually ponder what I’ve said and refute or support it on its merits.
Things will change only when reality slaps us in the face again, and we no longer have the luxury of playing in the fantasy worlds of our own creation. The same people who supported “torture warrants” in the aftermath of 9-11 now decry the lack of due process afforded to non-uniformed military combatants captured in the Middle East. Slam another plane into a skyscraper, set off a bomb or two in a major American city, and the people today who condemn warrantless wiretaps will clamor for the political heads of those in power who “didn’t do enough to protect us from our enemies.”
Watching this spectacle unfold will be the American public who, except for the hardest of the hard-core kooks, will at least temporarily return to the real world and look for real solutions to very real problems. Their only hope is that in the intervening time we haven’t elected a bunch of kook-supported clowns to office who wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to confront a real problem other than to pander to the world community, or talk it to death with meaningless rhetoric.
But hey, if such a situation does one day arrive, as long as our new leader can make a good speech, or represents the correct race or gender, we should all take comfort in knowing that at least the wrong Conservative didn’t make it to the White House.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
I'm sorry, but I started reading this article, and gave up because of the new format of Arial 9.5 single spaced. As a Professor, I ask you Dr. Jackson, whould you accept such a thing from your students?
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | March 31, 2008
Ivan: Yeah, it's tough to read this way. I think it's one of the glitches they're still working through. Check back later. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Dear Phil,
Here are some observations from Albert Schweitzer (The Decay and Restoration of Civilization – Second Edition, 1923):
”From childhood up the man of to-day has his mind so full of the thought of discipline that he loses the sense of his own individuality and can only see himself as thinking in the spirit of some group or other of his fellows.” [page 28] – I call these people Logo men, and Logo women.
“It was supposed that there was no need for a definition of civilization, since we already possessed the thing itself.” [page 35] – How much more true today!
“But now, when events are bringing us inexorably to the consciousness that we live in a dangerous medley of civilization and barbarism, we must, whether we wish to or not, try to determine the nature of true civilization.” [page 35] – Sound like our generations? But without the effort to determine the “nature of true civilization!”
“But civilization can only revive when there shall come into being in a number of individuals a new tone of mind independent of the one prevalent among the crowd and in opposition to it, a tone of mind which will gradually win influence over the collective one, and in the end determine its character.” [page 73] – the theme, I think, of your article!
“The final decision as to what the future of society shall be depends NOT on how near its organization is to perfection, but on the degrees of worthiness in its individual members [my emphasis] - [page 73].
But ALAS, “[Modern man] does not want to think, and seeks not self-improvement, but entertainment, that kind of entertainment, moreover, which makes least demand upon his spiritual faculties.” [page 19] – which sums it up really!!
What I want to know is where all the great minds like Schweitzer have gone? Today we only have pygmy minds because, as Schweitzer again so astutely observed, “as though in obedience to some secret order, they made no attempt to settle and make clear the conditions of our intellectual life, but devoted themselves exclusively to its origin and history.” [page 2] – And “they”, by the way, are our educational and political institutions, preoccupied with demonstrating their mastery of what has been said and done before, but absolutely impotent when it comes to original thought and ideas!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | March 31, 2008
“What I want to know is where all the great minds like Schweitzer have gone?”
Joseph: Here’s how I see it.
Things began to change in America, starting in the 1960s. Two forces combined simultaneously: the zenith of the Civil Rights movement, which successfully challenged our basic social assumptions, and the Bay of Pigs, which removed the post-WWII sheen from American politics and questioned the veracity of the president himself. Had things stopped at this I think we’d have been okay. We’d have re-tooled some of our core beliefs, but not abandoned them all together.
However, these two trends marked the beginning of the multicultural revolution (which grew out of the civil rights movement) – which ultimately reduced every historical fact and philosophy to a moral equivalency — and the Watergate mess, which dramatically reinforced the growing, fundamental distrust of government.
As a consequence, where before certain things were always taught in our schools (i.e. Western history and political thought), and certain things were therefore universally believed to be true, by the 1980’s “education” was whatever a group of people wanted it to be, and “facts” were nothing more than opinions. And, to make matters worse, the people educated under this system have now become the educators and opinion leaders of the 21st century.
In short, where before you actually had to know something before you actually knew something, today you just need to feel strongly about an issue. And as long as at least one other person shares your feelings, a “fact” has been established.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Phil:
As a temporary fix, you can increase the font size by displaying the status bar (on Windows Explorer) and clicking "Page", then "Text Size", and then selecting "Largest" text size.
It would also help if they went back to a white backround behind the text.
Comment by sedonaman | March 31, 2008
Phil:
“…these two trends marked the beginning of the multicultural revolution (which grew out of the civil rights movement) – which ultimately reduced every historical fact and philosophy to a moral equivalency…”
A large dose of defiance to authority also fueled the ‘60s counter-cultural revolution – and still does. Note that imparting knowledge, e.g., through formal education, depends heavily on recognizing the authority of educators and educators’ recognizing their responsibility to impart truth or suffer professional ostracism. Once the educators abdicated their authority, it was a short step to the jettisoning of “Western history and political thought” and “certain things [that] were therefore universally believed to be true.” Moral equivalency was needed to avoid these universal truths and to turn liberal/Leftist fantasies into “truths”.
Coupling their enormous pride with a tendency “to mark the beginning of history with the moment of their own birth,” one generation believed it could re-invent what took 800 prior generations.
Comment by sedonaman | March 31, 2008
Sedona — Good comments. The sad thing is, many of these people aren't even aware (intellectually) that 799 generations preceded them.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Dear Phil,
“ … certain things were therefore universally believed to be true.”
Is that not perhaps the problem? How do such universal truths come into being, and how do they come to be believed?
Schweitzer again: “[Man] is like a rubber ball which has lost its elasticity, and preserves indefinitely every impression that is made upon it. He is under the thumb of the mass, and he draws from it the opinions on which he lives, whether the question at issue is national or political or one of his own belief or unbelief.” [same book, page 30]
And this: “The general determination of society has put freedom of thought out of fashion, because the majority renounce the privilege of thinking as free personalities, and let themselves be guided in everything by those who belong to the various groups and cliques.” [page 31].
And Schweitzer could have been writing about what happens today when he wrote this: “Every year the spread of opinions which have no thought behind them is carried further by the masses, and the methods of this process have been so perfected, and have met with such a ready welcome, that our confidence in being able to raise to the dignity of public opinion the silliest of statements, wherever it seems expedient to get them currently accepted, has no need to justify itself before acting.” [pages 31 – 32]
Since Schweitzer was writing at the turn of the 19th Century, it seems this phenomenon pre-dated the 60’s! But I may be wrong.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | March 31, 2008
Joseph: Like I said in my article re: your comment about Schweitzer and the 1960s, there's nothing new in American politics (or America itself) about ignorance, stupidity,excesses, beliefs-as-a-substitute-for-facts, etc. What distinguishes today from the past is that it's reached a point where it's become a difference in kind, not just degree.
The Internet, I believe, exacerbated trends that accelerated to a breaking point in the 1960s. Without the Internet we'd just have pockets of stupidity here and there. But with the Internet, this stupidity can be shared and reproduced worldwide.
The 60's accelerated a trend that the Internet took far beyond its original borders. Without it we'd be debating which school of philosophy was correct; which facts were supportable given the evidence assembled, etc. Not, as we are today, why a deeply held feeling isn't a "fact", and a strongly held belief isn't a coherent philosophy.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Joseph — one more thing. Please don't take what I've said above as a defense of the position that people prior to the 1960s were somehower more noble, less moronic, more studied, etc. than they are today. What Schweitzer said about the common man is pretty much what the common man has always been — easily persuaded by mass appeals, more interested in entertainment than reasoned debate, etc.
What I find different today is that people who define themselves as intellectual, educated, thoughtful, etc., are as vacant as the common boobs who normally comprise "the masses". People who want to debate real issues with real arguments have an increasingly difficult time even finding a common language or shared set of references upon which to build the debate.
In a world where you can believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it — and your beliefs can be shared by others who want to believe what you want to believe too — there’s no room for genuine dialogue and debate.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Phil, I agree mostly. As von Schiller said: “with stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” So what chance have we got?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.fredomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | March 31, 2008
What chance have we got? I really don't know. Short of a natural or man-made catastrophe which forces people back to reality, I don't see any return to sanity anytime soon.
It's been my observation that the vast majority of people who need to change (actions, opinions, beliefs, etc.) never do so unless and until they run out of options to continue their present course of action. And the change only lasts as long as the memory of the crisis persists. Then it's back to business as usual.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Phil, Joseph:
“But with the Internet, this stupidity can be shared and reproduced worldwide.”
Thus demonstrating literally what Churchill once said to the effect, “A lie can get around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
“The general determination of society has put freedom of thought out of fashion, because the majority renounce the privilege of thinking as free personalities, and let themselves be guided in everything by those who belong to the various groups and cliques.”
Pressure to hold the politically correct opinions is nothing new. It has to have been around as long as ruling “cliques” since human nature has not changed. There was a delightful scene acted out in last week’s episode of “G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense” in which a young Victorian lady convinced her fiancé to accompany her to a discussion club in which she had applied for membership. He thought he would be bored, but he agreed to go anyway. The members gathered around the couple, and one, with a somewhat condescending attitude, explained to them that the club was devoted to discussing opinions, that no opinion was too outrageous to be expressed, and that all opinions were welcomed and respected. You could see where this was going, and the fiancé baited them by expressing very conservative opinions about society, much to the shock and disbelief of the membership. He inquired what was wrong with his statements since they were his opinions, and all opinions were supposedly welcome. The young lady supported her fiancé, but the membership committee chair informed them that she would not be recommending her for membership. Both were glad and left the meeting happy to have been rejected by hypocrites.
Comment by sedonaman | March 31, 2008
Phil and Sedonaman - "without accepting the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditioned and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world by numbers, man could not live – that renouncing false judgments would mean renouncing life and a denial of life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life – that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that risks this would by token alone place itself beyond good and evil." That’s Nietzsche in, as the quote suggests, Beyond Good and Evil, Part 1, section 4.
Perhaps we are regressing as a species. I think that we can only agree with Philo that human beings "have been constantly degenerating" since the "first man who was ever formed appears to be the height of perfection of the entire race" and "far superior to all those who live in the present day" (and for Philo, the "present day" was 2000 years ago).
What, I wonder, would he think of those who live today - those who find comfort "beyond good and evil"? Perhaps the ultimate degenerates - or should I say last? Or even both!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | March 31, 2008
Joseph:
“…without a constant falsification of the world by numbers, man could not live…”
Ha! I’ll bet there was nothing falsified about the number of dollars written on his paycheck! If he took it to the bank and they told him there was nothing real about it, what would he do? The fact he would scream like a stuck pig should be sufficient proof that there is an “is”.
Comment by sedonaman | March 31, 2008
Phil:
As usual, several good points. You’re right about modern education, it has become political indoctrination rather than training in the methods of scholarship and the production of educated citizens. When you think about it, 90% of what we know as individuals is learned from others; we didn’t experience it first hand, we didn’t discover it, nor did we perform the experimental science that led to “knowing” it. The reason history begins for each of us when we’re born is due, I suppose, to this fact. History within our life time is more “real” to any of us than what we’ve learned regarding historical periods that precede our existence.
I can remember hearing about John F. Kennedy being shot shortly after it actually happened, I lived through the 1967 and 1968 Detroit race riots (literally lived near the burnings and snipers), I vividly remember the Viet Nam era protests in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Those events are very real to me and I’m a self-appointed expert on exactly what happened at the time and can easily discern any attempt to revise history or misconstrue past motives and events in service of present day political purposes. But, I’m “first hand” ignorant of earlier events. I didn’t know “Old Blood and Guts” Patton the way my father who served under him did, never experienced the Great Depression like my grandparents did or knew George Armstrong Custer the way my ancestors did (they came from the same area of Michigan).
Reading modern day interpretations of events we actually lived through, it’s easy to see how history is continually revised for many different motives and in the service of many different agendas. Currently, the effort to revise all of “Dead White Men” history is underway complete with factual distortions, telling only half the story and ignoring the objective judgments of legitimate scholars who put in the research work. Is our current love of victim group-ology just a passing fad or an instance of mass psychoses? I don’t know, but I do know that anyone should be suspicious of what’s read on the internet regarding past events. Is it truth or lies?
Regarding your point about the internet, I think the web has become the corner bar for many, a place to blow off steam among friends, to trade opinions and experience intellectual companionship. If you remember the old television series “Cheers”, some websites and opinion forums are places “where everyone knows your name” as the “Cheers” theme song lyrics stated. These same fictional “Cheers” characters would meet after work each day for a beer, they were expected to be there, they were welcome and their opinions were always tolerated. I suppose that’s why some folks read Intellectual Conservative frequently and others spend their time on The Daily Kos – different bars but the same search for companionship. And, individual opinions are cheerfully tolerated among the like minded, although facts are often wrong, perspective is sometimes lost and emotions can run high.
Robert Putnam, a Harvard sociologist (author of “Bowling Alone”), has studied Americans and their search for a place where everyone knows your name and he worries that few such places exist any longer. Maybe that’s why the internet web sites, blogs and opinion forums are so popular. Putnam also believes that multiculturalism has worked its dark magic and isolated folks even more than in past eras. In a recent study, he notes that Americans within the same ethnic and racial groups tend toward greater isolation within multicultural communities. And, they choose isolation not just from neighbors of different ethnicity, religion and racial background but also from neighbors of the same ethnicity, religion and racial background. He doesn’t claim to fully understand this insight or that this finding is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but his research results are painting that same picture throughout much of American society.
So, the intelligentsia must remind us over and over again why we should eagerly embrace diversity and multiculturalism. Whatever the reasons are, it certainly escapes me. And, it’s sad we’ve become so culturally isolated within our society that people who have never laid eyes on each other have to meet frequently in cyber space for intellectual stimulation and a sense of community.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 31, 2008
Pat: Sounds like we lived through the same experiences.
I like your "corner bar" analogy. But it's a bar without any lights and a lot of background noise, so the people there can't be sure of the real sex, age, or identity of the individuals conversing with them. Words get communicated, but as long as people can mask who they are they can say just about anything without consequence. No personal ridicule for their stupidity or dishonesty. If they really screw up they can just change their code-name and re-enter the discussion again as someone without any baggage.
It's the lack of accountability that makes this a different world. There's no downside to being an anonymous kook, and thus no incentive to really know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
It's for this reason I always have the greatest respect for people who post their real name, or if they use a pseudonym, talk with me off-line so I know who they really are.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 31, 2008
Phil:
Excellent point. Anonymity brings out the anger and petty meanness far more easily than a face to face conversation would allow. For others, anonymity can shield the opinion holder from problems at work, from politically correct critics within the same profession or for several other valid reasons.
And, this borderline insanity you described has happened before. In a college history course covering the period just before the American Civil War through the late 1800’s, I recall a book (although not the author or title unfortunately) which described the incredible loneliness and psychological damage suffered by frontier settlers opening the American West. One frontier mother killed her children and herself in the midst of a severe winter and while confined to a sod hut on the Great Plains. The geographic isolation from her neighbors (miles away), being confined to a small, snowbound cabin with a constantly howling wind drove her mad and led to a horrible tragedy. Makes you appreciate the hardships those pioneers faced in trying to build a better life.
The problems those frontier settlers faced were brought on by geographic isolation and the physical hardships of life without modern technology. Women seemed to suffer from isolation more than men according to the historians. Yet, we don’t have those excuses for our modern pathologies related to isolation and loneliness.
However you view it, this modern loneliness, or a desperate need for recognition, is bizarre. Folks living within the midst of major cities are self-imposed isolationists. Others spend time lashing out at their fellow citizens for real or imagined faults on the internet, in the newspapers and within journals. I think sociologists like Putnam are on to something important, although miles away from a comprehensive explanation of this modern insanity. And, I have no answers, other than an intuitive feeling that a world of faceless communication, a dark, loud and distracting bar as you described, isn’t necessarily an unequivocal good. Somehow an advanced, technological civilization has been made to function smoothly while slowly losing the human sense of community needed to build a template for polite and intelligent dialog.
Comment by Pat Skurka | March 31, 2008
Re comment 3.
"But ALAS, "[Modern man] does not want to think, and seeks not self-improvement, but entertainment, that kind of entertainment, moreover which makes least demand upon his spiritual faculties.""
Welcome to the Brave New World. Aldous was ahead of his time in seeing how things could change…
(I really dislike this new format, not being able to copy for one)
Comment by Leigh | April 1, 2008
Leigh: I've complained about the copy issue too. By accident I found that if you start with the text of the essay, you can extend the copy function into the comment section. Paste it into MS Word, and then you can copy the comment section directly. It's a poor way to do it, but it beats re-typing someone's remarks to respond to them.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 1, 2008
Thanks Phil, that works well. Then I can change the font to TNR 14 and double space the whole thing.
This is an interesting idea that time starts at our birth. I think that is true for many people, but the progress of humans proves the opposite, in general. With free will, we can read Plato’s Republic and see that he was more an intellectual totalitarian than a democrat and then add the Lenin/Trotsky writings to the mix and see the similarities. Jared Diamond takes us back to the beginning of time so that we can see where we come from. For my own history I can go back to 1800 and imagine my family living in the time of the Brothers Karamazov. Or at about the same time of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which I just recently read and realized that for Obama to truly be an agent of change would require him to admit that Uncle Tom was a hero.
I suppose it’s true that the texting crowd does not think this way, but Dmitri Karamazov had the same problem. We are in a time of great change, but the USA and the world will survive whatever happens in November.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | April 1, 2008
PS to Phil: I would be happy to reveal my true identity to you if you can contact me directly. It's a bit of an interesting story. I looked, in vain, for your email, but you should be able to find mine.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | April 1, 2008
Ivan: Click on my name and it takes you to my website, which has an email address for me.
I'd love to get to know you personally. This is one of the reasons I decided to write for IC in the first place, to develop this kind of network of friends. But it's not necessary to reveal your identity if you prefer to remain anonymous. My comment about people hiding behind pseudonyms was meant for the kooks who wander in, shoot off their mouths, and spout nonsense without consequence. Your comments have always been the opposite.
To your point about when history starts, not to belabor the point, but I think there are perhaps 3 types of people here:
1. The mass of people who never think about anything of substance beyond their immediate needs, wants and interests.
2. People who actually think beyond themselves and struggle with understanding real issues vs. simply expressing their feelings-based opinions. #2 is actually in two parts: (a) people who have a sense of history based on their own family history, or their group/country's history; and (b) people who in addition to (2a) look for universal truths and/or non-culturally specific "facts".
My belief here is that while Group 1 has always had a simplistic, moronic view of reality, in the last 20 or so years Group 2a has increasingly joined this parade, as well as a significant number of Group 2b.
People who look to Aristotle for the answers to life, for example, clearly have a sense of history; but often these people can’t figure out how to apply Aristotelian principles to 21st century life. Thus they end up mouthing platitudes instead of practical policy prescriptions.
The real alarm for me has been Group 2b. Some very bright people have entered past discussions at IC and offered nothing more than utter nonsense as objective reality. It’s one thing to say that Ancient Philosophy X is a practical guide to life in 2008. It’s another to maintain that some kook-based concept of reality (Bush lied about WMD because he was wrong about WMD; the CIA invented AIDS; etc). is an actual objective fact.
The so-called “masses”, which are easily led, have their own narrow-minded prejudices reinforced when opinion leaders behave like kooks. This leads to a hardening of kook-based opinions, which leaves no room for honest debate. Because of this one entire party (the Democrats) have gone off the deep end like I suggested in my essay. The political Right is threatening to polarize too in a related way, with all-or-nothing Conservative litmus tests.
So, as this country faces very real threats to its security, half the electorate thinks we can just walk away from Iraq with no real adverse consequences, while a fair portion of the other side either believes the same thing as the Left Wing Kooks, or is prepared to let Obama or Hillary be elected because McCain isn’t pure enough to suit their tastes.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 1, 2008
Pat Skurka:
Ever read The Machine Stops by E. M. Forester?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_Stops
Comment by sedonaman | April 1, 2008
No, but I've been published in Modern Machine Shop and I've read The Ghost in the Machine.
One more comment on Obama: I think this Rev. Wright revelation has proved one thing and it is that we pink people have assumed that blacks appreciate all the adjustments made by American society in the last 40 years. Now we know that it is not true. My question is, when will men see the same truth about Hillary and women?
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | April 1, 2008
Sedonaman:
No, I’ve never read the book, although I did visit the link you provided (thanks). Not sure where your thoughts took you in regard to Forester’s novel but if they went in the direction that we rely too much on technology and this over reliance is putting a considerable strain on human interaction and our sense of community, then I wouldn’t disagree with you. In fact, Robert Putnam probably wouldn’t disagree with you either; he blamed television, in part, for so many Americans “bowling alone”.
His book’s major theme was that we are no longer developing human capital due to various factors in our modern life, e. g. moving frequently to different locales, two career families, time schedules that can’t accommodate attending meetings at the Lion’s Club, The Rotary, the town council, cocooning within our homes, etc. His ideas of human capital are those reciprocal, face to face relations and friendships we build with other members of our own community. People at one time could call on one anther for help during difficult periods, could informally come together to complete necessary projects such as fixing the house of an elderly widow, etc. – and, although it still occurs, it’s more and more likely not to occur.
Phil Jackson’s various comments, taken together, reminded me somewhat of Putnam’s observations. The loneliness and disassociation from your community that leads to anger with and oversensitivity to the opinions of others. Also, the title of Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone” refers to the decline in bowling leagues and more folks knocking the pins down on their own or with only their immediate families. Growing up in the Midwest, bowling leagues were almost a state religion and I was amazed to suddenly realize that the businesses I’m associated with in California have few employee leagues or organized sport teams of any sort – one business I know of has had none for over 15 years.
On an amusing note, Putnam even tabulated the rise in folks giving other people the finger in recent decades. Yes, sociologists actually compile statistics on how many birds are flipped annually (it’s on the rise) – probably funded through a government grant. And, taken all together, these various isolating factors mean something important and potentially explain the underlying social cause of Phil’s disdain for those anonymous cybernet “kooks” who seek attention by voicing irritating and ridiculous opinions. Arguably, this doesn’t have much relation to the theme of Phil’s present essay, but might make an interesting topic for a future essay.
Comment by Pat Skurka | April 1, 2008
Mr. Jackson
I have only read to comment 4 of yours, in which you refer to the state of the education system today. This is exactly the sort of stuff that David Horowitz and the Students for Academic Freedom are trying to correct . . . against great resistance as you can imagine. Horowitz's "The Professors" is a great place to start. Once again, another great article, sir.
Comment by Paul_Bovis | April 1, 2008
Paul: Thanks for your kind words.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 2, 2008
Great article Phil. We find ourselves in the mist of a forest and all we see is trees. By surrounding ourself in an illusion of short term history we make life very easy for ourselves. We have taught the last few generations to take the easy way to find solutions and to our horror they have done exactly what we have asked of them. The unintended consequences of our actions have lead to multiple blind spots for most people. We are blind to the forces of evil, we are blind to the reasons of history, we are blind to character as a worthwhile trait, and the list goes on and on.
Most people today would read maybe the first lines of what you said and stop. They would then look at a couple of comments to see how the rest of the article sat with the readers. They would then evaluate the time to read the article against how it would benefit them. Building a base of logic and history for their character would never enter into the evaluation. I write this because the reason we have the problems you point out is because no one (in general) cares enough to understand the world we live in. Only a reset to basic needs will change the group think that has infested society today. This is why we can be surrounded by people who want to kill us and no one seems to care. To them it is just like a show on TV and someone will come along to save the day. Of course that may or may not happen. One of the lessons of history I learned early was that the future belongs to those who have a plan today. Sadly the west does not have a plan.
Sorry about the down comments but I think we are due for some major readjustments in the world and I think we are past the point of no return.
Comment by fbaginski | April 8, 2008