american coliseum
I stumbled across an interesting op-ed in the New York Times today that provides some scientific support for my earlier blog posting entitled what it was.
In Joshua Friedman’s piece, This Is Your Brain on Politics, an analysis of brain activity is presented based on MRI observations of partisan Democrats and Republicans while watching political ads. He concludes:
This [research] suggests that the passions swirling through elections are not driven by a deep commitment to issues. We are not fighting over the future of the country; we are fighting for our team, like Red Sox and Yankee fans arguing over which club has the better catcher. Both in an election and in baseball, all that really matters is who wears the team uniform.
While this conclusion is essentially the thesis of my blog, what it was, I hesitate to jump on Friedman’s bandwagon because I do not agree that our being and thought can be reduced to nothing more than neurology and brain chemistry. Still, it is kind of interesting that some objective scientific evidence supports what I have been saying for a few years.
I think the evidence of politics as an American spectator sport continues to grow. Witness the reactions to the Presidential election and you see prototypical fan type of reactions. What a shame it is that we treat it as a game, when the stakes are far higher than laying claim to a championship trophy or bragging rights for the coming year.
26 Comments:
DavidR,
Wow...I missed that Brookism. What a perfect encapsulation of what it was all about.
CG,
I’m glad for you and that you believe the choice between Democrats and Republicans matters. Trust me, it is a safer place to be intellectually.
The truth is that all bona fide lefties will vote Democratic and almost all bona fide righties will vote Republican out of a sense of realpolitik. They may hold their nose, but they realize that this is our system and one choice is a lot closer to them than the other. It is this reality that causes the “party bases” to be taken for granted. It is this that leads to the mentality of “our team, right or wrong”.
As much as I hate the two dimensional analysis, here I go anyway. The great irony is that true leftists will never get even a smidgen of their utopia and rightists will never get a glimpse of their shining city as long as they agree to play the game by these rules. The agendas get lost in the mindless clamoring for the “middle”. The political elite know who their bases are and count on them election after election. They know that even if caught boinking an intern in the oval office or cooking WMD tracking books, the base will still give them their vote. So, from a policy standpoint, the “party base” doesn’t matter.
This is the part of the game that just galls me. For all the passion I hear put forth in the name of conservativism and liberalism, the one way you can GAURANTEE that no meaningful amount of your passionate agendas are implemented, is by voting for Democrats and Republicans.
Oh, I know you are all worried about theocracy-lite but we have been their as a Republic before: remember prohibition. This aspect of current stupidity will correct itself no matter how ominous the juggernaught may presently seem. This mentality will pass away with the next Presidential electon. Now the absence of any kind of substantive debate and the growing stupidity of the American electorate are permanent problems that aren’t going away.
Say it matters all you want but the facts tell us otherwise.
Can we cure this problem of voting for the "winning team" mentality? Two thoughts of mine are to get rid of political parties all together or to mandate three parties with the third being more towards the center. If you really want to get radical, how about a government by a jury composed of your peers, i.e. joe taxpayer. At any rate, I think as long as we have a strong two party system, it is only going to get more divisive.
To TexaCon, et. al.:
I would like to briefly state again why I feel disenfranchised. It isn’t because of some simple desire for perfection. Heck, I pulled the GOP lever for a lot of years because I really thought they meant that physical conservatism thing. I was never happy with them on the civil liberties front. I do not vote because I have nothing that my conscience will allow me to vote for. Primarily this is because of abortion and civil rights.
Further, I truly believe that a vote for either of the major parties is a vote for certain destruction. The events of recent years have borne out that belief on my part. As soon as a alternative ballot vehicle appears, I’ll be right there to cast my vote as I did for most of my adult life up until the point that good reason got a firmer grip on my mind.
I will admit that saying I “pontificate” hurts a bit. I do not think of myself as pompous or dogmatic. But, I am perhaps not sufficiently self-reflective. At a minimum I hope that at least I consider every viewpoint before rejecting any. To the extent that I am flawed in my ability to accomplish that goal, I am sincerely, and hopefully sufficiently, penitent.
CG,
I have never failed to “own up” that I believe our rights come from the one God who is. But I have always said consistently that this does not prevent me from supporting a political philosophy that is independent of my personal view on Man’s special position in Creation. What I mean is of course that as legal matter, we merely need to view Man’s rights come from his Manishness or Humaness if you prefer. If you take this view as a matter of political philosophy, then it is up to individuals to determine for themselves what the origins of Man are in fact.
Now, you have put me in the odd position of defending TexaCon. It is clear to the most casual observer that gay people choose to be gay just as heterosexual people choose to be heterosexual. We have had this conversation in the past; you know where I stand. The short version is that just because someone has a deep felt passion is immaterial to whether acting on one’s passions is volitional. I dare say, if I acted on my deepest passions, there would be a few dead people laying around but thankfully, I have another moral voice in my head that prevents me from making that choice. You may intellectually be consistent and view homosexuality as moral, however it is a hard thing to argue that it is not a choice.
First, I must say this is a most excellent discussion. I’ve enjoyed reading this greatly.
On to CG and his attempt to hold me accountable to that for which I am gleefully accountable...
I think you are way off base CG to suggest that just because 80% of Americans view humans as having value endowed by a Creator that that in anyway reduces anyone else to second class citizens. You attempt to reject my parsing apart of the personal beliefs from legal arguments, but I think you are very inconsistent in doing so. On the one hand, you maintain that you support this vision of secularist utopia, but then you have a problem when I advocate our traditional framework for separating the laws of men from the laws of God.
You asked me where I believe our rights come from. I have a strong opinion on that matter because I have repeatedly confronted the question over many years. It is clear to me that any philosophy that roots the value of man in anything other than our creation in the image of God, leads anyone who gives serious contemplation of the meaning of life and personal quest for significance on a path of personal destruction.
But, the great wisdom of our system of laws is that it totally and completely sets philosophy aside and endeavors only to be a system of man’s law. I believe this is the only way you can build a successful heterogeneous society. I don’t believe from a legal perspective that your assumption that we must perfectly agree on certain things is workable in even a more homogenous society such as that of Revolutionary-era America. I think your statement that it is a “false contract” totally misses what our agreement was and by legal succession through the generations is in fact. That contract is that we will not root law in personal philosophical beliefs.
It is a happy thing that rooting rights in our humanness is consistent with most of the philosophical belief systems that are out there, though the growing nihilism of Western Culture cuts against this proposition. If you are unhappy that 80% of Americans believe also that Man’s special position is a gift from God and not a chance occurrence and/or product of evolutionary processes, then that is OK. You are simply in the minority and the truly magnificent thing about our rejection of building on a theocratic foundation is that your right to believe as you do is as solidly protected as is my own.
Or at least has been. And this is why the whole discussion over gay rights is so critical because the debate frames the issues clearly and puts one’s thinking right in the bull’s-eye of the most important discussion of our day: Are we to continue our path of classical toleration or are we going to set down a new path where the personal philosophical belief the majority can be codified into law?
And in answer to that question, I utterly reject the notion that somehow the Creator is between the lines of our Constitution simply because a majority happens to reason things out for themselves that way. I celebrate the fact that the majority does not rule in America.
CG,
You say I’m ducking the issue, I say I’m meeting it head on.
What part of our Constitution not mentioning God, our Creator or Providence aren’t you getting? There is a powerful negative inference that We the People consciously chose to exclude personal philosophy from the legal equation. No matter what Shrub, Falwell and Robertson say nor how many times they say it will change this legal principal.
You have read enough of the history of the day to know that the concept of “natural rights” is the meat and potatoes of what our political institutions were built upon. And this is exactly what I believe in as a political philosophy.
You incorrectly describe my viewpoint when you say, “if you believe your rights come from a Christian god, you believe our pluralistic nation's rights come from your religious belief.” In fact, I do believe our rights belong to us because we are human. As a matter of social contract, I think that Americans generally have held this common belief.
You further mischaracterize my position when you say, “You throw out the word humanness, but that's not what you believe.” This is an incorrect statement: I absolutely do believe that. And from a legal standpoint, we need not explore further. As long as you, I and the rest of society agree to that point as a legal proposition, it doesn’t matter what we individuals think regarding the next level of that discussion.
I have known people of extremely diverse religious and philosophical backgrounds that concur with the rest of society on this very point. What problem you have with this foundational principle I still have not discerned.
And for the record, I have been vociferous in making the point that this is most definitely NOT a Christian Nation. And I am prepared to go a step farther in my argument and assert that not only is the United States not a Christian nation, but for one to claim that it is so is blasphemous to God.
I don’t know how to make it any planer than that. If you still think I’m ducking, maybe you should clarify the issue for me.
DavidR,
As you and most of the readers here already know, I totally agree with your outlook on the gay marriage issue. Thanks for a succinct articulation of a very reasonable approach to the problem.
CG,
Whew! Thank goodness you let me “off the hook”...I was soooooooo worried. :-D
And yes, I agree that the social contract I describe is not what 43 and many in the radical religious right are peddling. It is clear to me that this is revisionist.
As far as the larger public and what it believes, I think you are trying grasp the non-existent with that one. This is much of what I decry about our society: people are willingly ignorant on such important matters. If you asked people where our rights come from, you would get a plethora of answers most of which don’t even make sense much less which are tried to a coherent political philosophy. In fact, most people even luxuriate in their own ignorance and are very comfortable with adopting simple labels like conservative, liberal, patriotic and democratic.
I personally don’t know Newdow’s work well enough to comment comprehensively. I will say that I agree that custom is not an adequate defense. I think it is a combination of things which revolve around simple practical notions. Can I defend “In God We Trust” on our money any other way? I think custom is about the only defense. Does the anti- crowd have a legitimate complaint? Certainly. But I simply am not concerned about it because it frankly is not very important. As I said in an earlier blog post, nobody seriously gives a second thought to that issue except when the argument is running hot and it is a matter of principal. Simply put, equal protection under the law is far more significant than any of a number of things that are in fact customary.
TC,
I am personally of very good cheer. God has blessed me richly and high on the list is the blessing of being born in the United States of America. It is out of gratitude that I blog and express my opinions. If I didn’t care about America, I would remain silent and let the corrupting influences which are destroying our land go unopposed.
The danger is, of course, that you come across as being very negative in a personal way. While my out look on America is extremely bleak, my personal attitude is anything but negative. I take great comfort that God is sovereign and will provide-not capitalism. America is dying and I mourn that death, but there is one of two possibilities that give me great joy. The first is the possibility that we are entering the end times and the second advent is at hand. The second is that while America fails around us, the spirit of classical liberalism is being taken up around the World and out of the ashes of the American Empire we may yet see a larger global liberalism that will bring peace and prosperity to a larger segment of mankind than what has ever been so blessed before.
That is what you call winning either way.
This is, of course, a depressing day for most of Western civilization and I feel shameful regarding what is being done in my name. But we have a long and rich history and We the People are far more than a sum of our recent past. We are far more than a sum of our worst moments and worst leaders. But the question remains whether We the People will rise to the challenges before us and set America back on the course to the traditional values of human rights and the rule of law which have served us so well in preceding generations.
There is precious little time for the barbarians are at the gates.
Rather than the challengers to Western civilization being the Franks and the Visigoths, instead they are the Democrats and Republicans. These latter day barbarians wish to impose their will on us, but the vehicle of their power is a new and different weapon that has only existed for around a century or a little less. It is the weapon of public relations and their products are public images. Brilliant in their devices, these minions of Madison Avenue use a tool that is hidden by its own ubiquity and disguised further by its passivity: a mirror. They give us that for which we clamor and we gleefully ask for more.
If you wish to see the enemy, it is into that mirror which you must look.
CG,
I can personally vouch for TexaCon: If all of my enemies were like TexaCon, it would be a happier world indeed.
He sure is woefully misguided at times though. :-D
I guess I miss how Shrub's toture endorsement is consistent with "America's belief in human dignity". I guess dignity is less than rights?
TexaCon,
Wow. You loaded up on the question asking with that one. Not that I really mind being asked to “pontificate”. :-D
Believe it or not, I have thought seriously about what the threshold would be that would cause me to leave the United States. The truth is I like living in the richest country in the world. I like my comfortable lifestyle. I’ve never denied that. I love the freedoms I still enjoy and hope, probably vainly, that I will be able to enjoy most of that Liberty for a bit longer. And frankly, whatever the warts are on our formerly great nation, America is still home. Where I have come out on it is that I’m here for the long haul. This determination is equal part selfishness and equal part defending the home I love.
I do love America, but I do not love the direction it is heading. Things are changing and the direction is very bad indeed. I’m not sure where the point of no return is, but my hunch is that it was the Clinton impeachment circus. This is what causes me to think about places like Australia and New Zealand, but the realist in me knows that there is no land with out flaws. And as I said, America is home even though at times it has begun to seem alien to me.
In short, I’m in it for the long haul but I’m not ruling packing up and leaving entirely out.
One thing that just occurred to me that might tip the scales. That would be the reinstatement of the draft in furtherance of the desire by the rich and powerful to impose their neo-con imperialist utopia on yet more of the world. This is an increasingly real possibility and a development I would look upon with the utmost gravity.
On the Geneva Convention: yes, of course it was violated.
On Shrub’s lying, I doubt we have much common ground. There is no possibility whatsoever that the administration was doing anything other than lying through its teeth on any of a number of things said to garner support for their Iraqi excursion. They do not worry about being “caught” because they, much like the administration which proceeded it, are masters at building in plausible deniability and spinning things in ways that the lemmings will accept.
It frankly mystifies me how anyone could believe otherwise. Do you think Shrub was lying about supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment? My hunch is you buy the story they are just holding back for lack of votes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yoshi,
No need to worry about being off-topic here. We are pretty much anything goes.
TC,
Sorry but I literally only have seconds to respond...heading to Tulsa to visit a very ill Grandmother.
First, Shrub clearly has sponsored torture. If there was not enough proof before, the steadfast support of Rumsfeld in spite of his admitted knowledge and the subsequent appointment of Alberto Gonzales for AG is an explicit endorsement of torture.
We have lots of tools for protecting ourselves from terrorists. I have written extensively on how the Patriot Act is unnecessary-perhaps CG can help out because I don’t have time to dig out my words from before. The really short version is that there is precedence for obtaining warrants without a face to face appearance before a judge and I think that should be built upon.
As to torture, all I can say is that it is simply not acceptable. As moral actors on the world stage, we should set the standard. We can not lower ourselves to those standards to protect freedom with out becoming the very monsters which we purport to loathe.
Sorry for the poor and hasty response. I’ll be back Monday.
As long as we’re jumping on various pet topics...
Tony, Did you see the article on the front page of the Star-Telegram this morning (1/25/05) entitled “Bill Would Track Children’s Weight”? I assume this is going in a direction you would not like to see public education going.
If they are so concerned about tracking and informing parents of their child’s BMI (body mass index), then maybe they could provide some good old fashion example setting and frame of reference by giving a list of the legislators who voted for this bill and their BMI as well as the faculty and staff of the public school your child goes to and their BMIs.
Would this “grade” on your child’s obesity also include suggested dietary changes? And given that there are a multitude of dietors that disagree on the fundamental make up of diets, which one’s will accompany the report card, and when did those example setting legislators and teachers begin on that dietary regimen?
Once again, the government seeks to take another part of our child’s life and put it under their control. Government never seeks to withdraw from control, but always to advance. It is its nature. It is impossible for it to act contrary to its nature.
On May 6 and 7 of this year the Home School Book Fair will be at the Arlington Convention Center. If you are even a little bit curious about home schooling or supplementing your child’s education with good Christian material, I implore you to make the effort to visit the book fair. If all you did was take your children to see Gettysburg: The Second Day by Bob Farewell, your family would be truly blessed. It is worth the price of admission alone. If you are even the least bit curious, go to www.homeschoolbookfair.org for more information.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
Hey there!
No, I missed the BMI tracking story. Very interesting and yet, very typical. Consistently we try to track and control things that are easy to track and control. This is really no different than the extraordinary effort we put in to traffic control. I often wonder what might be possible if half of the resources currently devoted to catching speeders were put into catching real criminals. But I digress.
But as a society, we are so enamored with the superficial that it is unsurprising that we are becoming caricatures of ourselves. I’m not saying that America doesn’t have a problem with BMI: I regrettably am one of those who hurts the averages. Rather I am suggesting that we have bigger problems. We a have a societal rot that eats at not just the body, but the mind and soul as well. And clearly, our mental and metaphysical rot are of proportions that threaten our continued survival.
On home-schooling, I appreciate the reminder. We are actively looking at those options right now. We are presently leaning toward home-schooling our Son next year but this has more to do with his social immaturity than any thing specific. We do plan on attending the Home School Book Fair as well. I didn’t realize there was one in Allen this month so that might work out well for us because we are needing some new materials for my Son. It doesn’t seem most of what we find at the teacher’s supplies really fits well with what we need.
I don’t know at this point if home-schooling is a long term answer for our Son or not. We still envision him being in a traditional classroom at some point. But who knows what our future holds. We are also considering programs like Corum Deo and some other novel approaches that may allow us to tailor things to our boys particular learning style. I appreciate the heads up. Some time I might enjoy getting together with you to discuss home-schooling since you are so passionate on the subject.
CG,
Shilling for Randy White may be a deletable offense on this board!
:-D
I can promise you a hug is not in the works. You touchy-feeling hugger types have to take care of that business on your own.
I am proud to say we ain't got no stink'n grammer on this blog.
Afternoon Good,
“Have you heard of Usborne Books and Educational Development Corporation (link at bottom) before?”
There is always a distributor of Usborne Books at the book fair and often other book vendors that carry them in addition to other books. They are quite popular. We own a few at our house. Your welcome.
“I'm hoping the homeschoolers are very aware of EDUC. :)”
They are quite colorful and catch the eye. Their science books are carried by a number of the science vendors. I hope the dividend checks are flowing nicely.
Re: obese students
I liked your comment about if its that big of an issue it should be addressed societal rather than hitting on the kids at school. Rarely are these obese children the children of gorgeously sculpted parents. We all have strayed at varying degrees from healthy eating (which I believe should be our prerogative to do so), but to go into schools without first asking the parents of the students if they wish to have the schools monitor their children’s health, to me, shows their(the legislator pushing the bill and all who vote for it) desire to control rather than serve.
I feel for the parents in the wake of these and similar decisions.
--------------------------------------
Tony,
Social issues are definitely reasons many people choose to home school their children. Its one of my biggies. Any time (relatively speaking, this is tax season) you would like to meet, I would be glad to oblige you. If you go to the book fair, its quite probable that you would see me there. As we get closer I’ll tell you in an email how to find me there.
Prof. Ricardo
Probably most of you have seen that another commentator is on Shrub’s payroll. We can talk about this more on the old thread if anyone is interested.
Stewart missed a lay-up. It clearly should be called The Persian Mug.
CG,
As you well know, I would agree with Biden.
The suggestion that we have formal guidelines for the use of torture certainly appeals to the rule of law side of me. But the rule of law is only admirable when the body of law is moral. Now we can argue about how to define moral in a pluralistic society and that discussion is a good thing. But I take it as an axiom of our American law that human rights reign supreme. Now, I know that you have philosophical problems with the concept of individual sovereignty, and that discussion is also an interesting one, but there is little doubt that natural rights is the basis from which our law has proceeded up until very recent days.
So, I look at it as simply a matter of what human rights our government have the right to infringe upon. Clearly, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment that was unnecessarily promulgated (unnecessary because of redundancy that comes from the foundational concept of reservation of rights) in the Bill of Rights would encompass torture. So at a minimum such legislation would need to start at least with a Constitutional Amendment.
Now a Constitutional Amendment itself gets pretty complicated. There are Due Process considerations that I think would founder the whole attempt such as what kind of finding by what judicial body would constitute sufficient due process and whether there would still be some sort of limits on the type and means of torture.
But all of that is strictly legal and misses what I consider the most significant reason for not giving the government the power to torture no matter how limited and circumscribed by the law. The fundamental reason we can not do this is that humans are not to be trusted with such power. The revelations of Abu Graib and Camp X-ray prove that humans are not to be trusted. Just look at how far people are willing to go when the legal reigns are relaxed even the slightest little bit.
And in honesty, I would not want that power myself. The restraint of having to face a judicial body and account for my actions is an appropriate brake to ensure that individuals do not spin out of control on this point. If you know you are breaking the law when you stick the electrodes to a witness, you are much more likely to do so only when the stakes are extremely high. Which is the exact situation that advocates of such laws seek to clarify.
But looking at it the other way, lets say this legal structure was in place. Mr. Gliddy is trying to extract information from Mr. Onorth. He has the torture warrant in his pocket. He zaps Onorth with the electrodes and is told, “OK. I don’t know where the bomb is exactly, but it will detonate in New York city in one hour. Mr. Agonzales knows where the bomb is.” Mr. Gliddy’s warrant doesn’t cover walking to the next cell and torturing Mr. Agonzales. What is he to do? There is no time for a new finding that would permit the torture.
OK. So you say, well, that isn’t the way we would write the law. The law would be written broadly where people in that situation could torture whomever they might need to if there was big risks. The problem is, once you do that, then officers will still be forced into gray areas. What risk is big enough? New York City is clear, but what about a smaller town like Hope, Arkansas? Or smaller still, say Mayberry? Or a different risk like the assassination of the President?
You see, once you write such things broadly enough to be useful, then all sorts of acts might fall under the color of law. Look at the Supreme Court rulings that have set out a reasonable belief exception for warrantless searches. I totally disagree with those rulings that allow evidence into court that was not seized under a warrant where the officers reasonably believed they were acting under a valid warrant. Can you see the complexity of these things? What about the official who “knew” they were within the spirit of the law but it turns out that an informant was lying? I’m not saying some of this can not be solved, but rather that I believe this is far more complex than what most people even start to consider.
And of course I would repeat that I fundamentally do not trust the government with that power. When I look at how they abuse there other powers, I can not fathom opening that door even with the slightest of cracks. Our protection against such things is too hard won to abandon it when the benefits are so speculative and uncertain.
CG,
I guess I wasn’t being clear on the complexity of creating such law. What I was trying to say, and in retrospect never said so directly as to have made an intelligible argument, was that it is too complex to be codified into law. I’m saying it is impossible.
That doesn’t mean we do not have legal devices that provide a defense for would-be torturers. There is the tried and true affirmative defense of “self-defense”. Within that body of law there rests most of the answers to your concerns.
If found the following succinct summary of the law on self-denfense here:
One may justifiably intervene in defense of any person who is in actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and in so doing he may use such force as he has reason to believe, and does believe, necessary under the circumstances. The defender must be reasonable in his belief that the third party is in dire peril of death or serious bodily harm. He must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the force he uses is necessary to protect the apparent victim from the threatened harm.
So I do not really agree that by leaving things as they are we are putting them in any special legal jeopardy any more significant than if a police officer fires a weapon and must endure hearings and potential prosecution. People that don’t have the guts to do that type of work, such a you and I, have no clue as to how these people would approach such problems. My instinct is that they know that these kinds of risks are part of the job or they don’t get there in the first place.
On the whole “suicide pact” non-sense: I would look at it much differently though I too agree that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Giving the government explicit power to torture would indeed be suicidal and I for one don’t want to go down with you because you want to cut law enforcement some slack. I for one am grateful that our legal system has at its core the concept that you do not get to vote on what my human rights protections should be.
I agree Saurav. I think there is no real choice once you make the decision to intervene militarily in the internal politics of a country. What we did in Germany and Japan was to climb into the mess and get totally involved. This was sticky in Germany in particular because Nazis were everywhere. Different Allied leaders were criticized for leaving Nazis in place for many years to follow. They were decades sorting all of this out and Iraq, assuming it makes a transition to a reasonable facsimile of a democratic government will be no different.
Americans love to look for quick efficient fixes, but sometimes it just takes a lot of hard work and time to work things out. And by going into Iraq unprepared for the post-war situation, we guaranteed that at a minimum “fixing things” would take much longer. The administration was so dishonest with the American people on this at so many different levels, it boggles the mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home