The Democratization Of Intellectual Dementia
Jonah Goldberg, writing over at Real Clear Politics has an analysis of the weirdly inflated hyperbolic paranoia which the "intellectual" elite has perpetrated on American politics. Take some minor occurrence, frame it in intellectual terms then select factoids to "prove" the theorem. Apply magnifying glass and spew.
If the Christian base of the GOP gets its way, "All government employees – federal, state and local – would be required to participate in weekly Bible classes in the workplace, as well as compulsory daily prayer sessions." We would all have to carry religious identity cards that "would provide Christocrats with preferential treatment in many areas of life, including home ownership, student loans, employment and education." Non-Christians would be indulged as second-class citizens, "but younger members … would be strongly encouraged to formally convert to the dominant evangelical Christianity." Homosexual sex would be illegalized, while "known homosexuals and lesbians would have to successfully undergo government-sponsored reeducation sessions if they applied for any public-sector jobs." Dissidents would be on the run, the popular culture censored by bureaucratic Cotton Mathers, and "the mainstream press and the electronic media would be beaten into submission."
All of that is according to James Rudin in his book "The Baptizing of America." I learned about it from a brilliant essay in the August-September issue of First Things, in which Ross Douthat surveys the scare literature demonizing "Christianists," "theocons" and "Christocrats" – people who were under the impression that they were actually law-abiding, tax-paying, patriotic American citizens who happen to subscribe to the Christian faith. Little did they know they're actually all about rounding up infidels and torching the Constitution.
Liberal paranoia isn't solely Christophobic. "On the Media," a public radio program that purports to be an objective watchdog of the press, recently interviewed Lawrence Wright, the author of the acclaimed book "The Looming Tower," who also wrote the script for the mediocre 1998 movie "The Siege," starring Denzel Washington. According to "On the Media," the film was "prophetic" in that Wright had successfully "predicted" what would happen if America were attacked by terrorists. In the movie, Muslims are rounded up and put in concentration camps in sports stadiums, while martial law is declared in New York City. I guess I forgot to read the newspapers the day that happened.
The fact that this kind of inflated, nonsensical rhetoric is parroted back by the pseudo-intellectuals on the left puts these ideas into a positive feedback loop, reinforcing the insanity and increasing its amplitude. The whole crazy mess cycles up, higher and higher into the realm of the deranged. As Goldberg puts it:
One is tempted to invoke Orwell's dictum that some things are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them. But, truth is, lots of otherwise normal people believe this stuff.
They believe it because it is a positive feedback cycle*. Self amplifying and ultimately self-defeating. Instead of debating serious issues, we are left scratching our heads over the outright insanity we see. How do you disabuse someone of an insane idea? True believers dismiss facts and rely instead on factoids analyzed endlessly until they become mammoth structures. That the structures are constructed on a foundation of sand and completely out of playing cards fazes them not at all.
* (For an example of a positive feedback cycle see the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure).
Other Links to this Post
-
The Scratching Post — October 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
By reddog, October 11, 2006 @ 8:36 am
I commonly hear christians state that abortion is murder and that those that have them or perform them are murderers and should be treated as such. How should a liberal with a deep belief in the right to chioce take that one.
By Dan, October 11, 2006 @ 8:57 am
“True believers dismiss facts and rely instead on factoids analyzed endlessly until they become mammoth structures. That the structures are constructed on a foundation of sand and completely out of playing cards fazes them not at all.”
Sounds a lot like conservative thought on the justification for the Iraq war. Keep in mind I’m still not explaining my stance on the war before you tell me I’m giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.
Your (repetitive) hypocrisy aside, I find it pretty ammusing that you don’t think that ultra-Christianism is running rampant through the Republican party. I’m not a Christiaphobe. Far from it. I completely respect everybody else’s right to believe in whatever God they want. I take issue with ultra-Christian’s desire to legislate the aspects of their faith into federal government, which effectively infringes on my own right to believe in whatever. If you don’t believe that is happening, you are a victim of the factoid-mentality you so eagerly criticize.
By syn, October 11, 2006 @ 9:39 am
How come liberals use the word ‘right to choice’ instead of calling it what it is: abortion?
That said, how can a liberal believe in the Dred Scott decision or rather the idea that females have the right to own another human being?
Whose faith was judicated under Roe vs. Wade?
As an aside, from a scientific point of view with the advances made in technology it is becoming increasingly difficult to state scientifically that a fetus is not a human being. However, commonsense will state that when the baby exits the birth canal never has one come out a sheep dog.
What about people who argue against abortion with non-religious arguments?
Most likely answer to the above questions is that liberals have been conned by Marx Statist with words and actions that do not exist under Liberalism. Frankly, Liberalism died the day JFK was shot dead. Liberalism was destroyed by Collectivist conformity.
In any case, it is difficult for me to believe in this bizarre Christocrat fear since the majority of Americans are basically forbidden to mention the ‘Christ’ word in the public arena.
By Dan, October 11, 2006 @ 10:15 am
No one’s faith was judicated in Roe v. Wade. That’s the point. No one is saying, you have to have an abortion, regardless of your religious belief. On the flip-side, the Christian GOP is ALWAYS willing to legislate their faith without EVER considering the fact that not everyone is Christian.
“Liberalism was destroyed by Collectivist conformity.”
You mean the kind of Collectivist conformity that would ammend the US Constitution to make sure no one can ever appear gay? That kind of conformity? Or maybe the one where anyone who doesn’t agree with the war or the pretexts for it is a traitor?
Syn, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take you even a little bit seriously.
By K T Cat, October 11, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Ha! Let them think that and worry about threats that don’t exist. The fools! All the time the Feline Theocracy grows larger right under their very noses. Soon it will be too late. We shall be too strong to stop as we rise up and demand tuna!
By Gaius, October 11, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Dan, The attempt to amend the US constitution was to ban gay marriage – which I called a bad idea at the time. It was also championed by Hillary Clinton. Let’s not twist that arond, shall we? Nor do I label people as traitors. Idiots, yes.
By Dan, October 11, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Yes, I know what the ammendment was for. I don’t think I’ve twisted anything around. The ban started on the Christian right. I’ve never voted for Hillary Clinton so i don’t really see your point. Are you saying that Democrats can be as bigoted as Republicans? Fine.
“Idiots, yes.”
Well I guess all’s fair. I call you an idiot at least twice a day…
By Black Jack, October 11, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
It’s an unbeatable combination of technology and human behavior. Technology advances to the point where we have the ability to record and playback a self reinforcing loop, that combines with the most powerful theory for predicting human behavior: monkey see, monkey do.
There you have it.
By syn, October 11, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Dan
That is right, Roe vs Wade was not judicated by faith so why then do you keep bring up Christians?
I wasn’t aware that gays need to appear gay however I am aware identity politics demands such appearance. What does a gay look like anyway?
By syn, October 11, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
I thought the Defense of Marriage act was meant to define marriage, not ban gays. Under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) I do not know one American who has been banned from marriage. For example, McGreevey was allowed to marry twice so how can it be stated that gays cannot marry?
By Dan, October 12, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
“I thought the Defense of Marriage act was meant to define marriage, not ban gays. Under the definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) I do not know one American who has been banned from marriage. For example, McGreevey was allowed to marry twice so how can it be stated that gays cannot marry?”
This is far and away the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. I’m hoping this is your just a poor attempt at sarcasm and literal humor.