(no subject)
Aug. 1st, 2005 11:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockThe Light of Reason's latest piece on Republican tribalism is definitely worth your time and effort to read.
It is this kind of tribalism that conservatives exhibit today in a very extreme form. (Many liberals are guilty of it, too, but they’re not in power now and therefore less of a danger.) We see this tribalism in Bush, who speaks of “loyalty” to his friends as one of his supreme values, and we see it in conservatives generally. This is why they defend Rove so desperately: the attacks on Rove are perceived as attacks on their tribe, and it is the tribe that must always be protected against outsiders. In this case, the law, the press, and those who criticize Rove and the Bush administration are all outsiders. Outsiders are the enemy, and they must be destroyed.
But even more interesting is a link in this blogger's piece to Matt Taibbi's fascinating Rolling Stone article:
The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That’s why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people—and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.
But here’s the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn’t matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn’t a policy imposed from above; it’s an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You’re arguing the particulars, where you’re right, while they’re arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.
Once you grasp this fact, you’re a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.
Really fascinating stuff, go read the rest.
It is this kind of tribalism that conservatives exhibit today in a very extreme form. (Many liberals are guilty of it, too, but they’re not in power now and therefore less of a danger.) We see this tribalism in Bush, who speaks of “loyalty” to his friends as one of his supreme values, and we see it in conservatives generally. This is why they defend Rove so desperately: the attacks on Rove are perceived as attacks on their tribe, and it is the tribe that must always be protected against outsiders. In this case, the law, the press, and those who criticize Rove and the Bush administration are all outsiders. Outsiders are the enemy, and they must be destroyed.
But even more interesting is a link in this blogger's piece to Matt Taibbi's fascinating Rolling Stone article:
The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That’s why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people—and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.
But here’s the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn’t matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn’t a policy imposed from above; it’s an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You’re arguing the particulars, where you’re right, while they’re arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.
Once you grasp this fact, you’re a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.
Really fascinating stuff, go read the rest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 11:44 pm (UTC)So how do we turn it around and make GWB into the demon he already is?
no subject
Date: 2005-08-01 11:54 pm (UTC)I'm hoping that year after year of consistent fuck-uppery will be enough but experience tells me otherwise.
Cults
Date: 2005-08-02 11:36 am (UTC)They are unable to use logic, reasoning and science to prove their bigoted, sadistic, narssicist statements. They don't understand the issues beyond what is "reported" by F(I)X.
In the end, I had to give up and write them off. Only a fool argues with fools.
On the other hand, I've had a couple good discussions with Congressman Stark. One of the things we talked about was a man who was arrested as a terrorist because he used a laser pointer with his telescope to point out stars to his 7y/o daughter. He faces 20 years in prison and a $250K fine. I don't know if I 100% trust him, but his votes are in the right place.
Re: Cults
Date: 2005-08-02 03:28 pm (UTC)They are unable to use logic, reasoning and science to prove their bigoted, sadistic, narssicist statements. They don't understand the issues beyond what is "reported" by F(I)X.
I think Taibbi has it quite right above when he notes that most don't even care about "facts" beyond those that give them the ability to feel persecuted or enraged. It's argument for argument's sake, belligerence at its most obvious. One is rather bound to wonder if perhaps it's a resurgence of long buried Neanderthal traits finally rising to the surface once more and becoming what passes for political discourse these days.
Re: Cults
Date: 2005-08-02 04:12 pm (UTC)The only thing I've come up with is passing oneself off as one of them, gaining credibility and changing from within.
I just don't like the idea of lying about my beliefs in order the herd the sheep, as it were.
Then again, it can only end in clashing factions. Once they run out of people to persecute, they'll turn on each other. At that point, I'm moving to Canadia for awhile, eh!
Re: Cults
Date: 2005-08-02 04:19 pm (UTC)Well every nation goes through its own version of the Dark Ages, but they don't last forever. Ignorance and hatred is easier than thoughtfulness and love but it's not self sustaining. That kind of thing devours itself in the end, and yes they will eventually turn on one another because they've run out of enemies, or the rest of us will refuse to play their psychotic little games.