The crabby, rambling, pre-election "I've had a cold for a week and I'm mad as hell" post
Yeah, I've had a cold for a week. I was totally useless at work on Monday, and have been home ever since. La how jolly, and boy has it done wonders for my outlook.
Exhibit A: The other day, RFKJ, Mich, Dim and I were crabbing about politics and economics in general, provoked by one of our loser classmates having floated to the top of the Hawai'i GOP. RFKJ sent us a link to a post by Rude Pundit that set me off:
The problem with that RudePundit post is that all of the heroics he cites (there's a pluralism problem in there somewhere but I can't find it right now) are things that the loonies on the other side either1) don't believe (they still think iran-contra is purely conspiracy theory, because nobody in the Reagan whitehouse got smacked for it, and that whatsisname who took the fall is a hero of the conservative side, and thus perfectly good as a talk radio host)
2) don't appreciate -- see Iran-Contra as well; they still think whatsisname who I still can't remember was a lone gun operating alone, and that The Greatest President In American History, Ronald Rambo, uh, Raygun, whatever, that he had nothing whatsoever to do with it because after all he was such a hero, right?
3) really don't understand, like the whole BCCI fiasco. I personally never got it until I saw an essay in a book on information design by the guy who was tasked with designing an infographic on it for, I think, the Wall Street Journal (truly a heroic act of information design, but I digress) which showed his graphic, and clarified the relationships for me in a way that I had never gotten before.
If the last four years have proven anything to me, it's that, no, despite all of my liberal "people are fundamentally smart and good" views, really, the great bulk of Americans are fucking numbed sheep who are only a half-step away from needing someone to wipe the drool off their cheeks while they slump semi-conscious in front of fox news.You want America? This is America. (RIP Garry Winogrand).
STOMP STOMP STOMP
Now, I've gotten a little better since Wednesday and I'm no longer semi-hysterical, so I have a slightly more reasoned perspective... although, frankly, I don't see anything in that statement that I would disavow (or, you know, I wouldn't post it on the web for the whole world to see).
But what I'm more interested in today -- and what's been interesting me for a few months now, really -- is a simple question for 50% of likely voters in the US:
At what point did you part ways with reality?
I'm not talking here about simple disagreements, or unverifiable statements -- was Bush's election legitimate, did his administration drop the ball on Al Qaeda before 9/11, should he have leapt to action instead of hanging out in the classroom, does his tax cut serve only the wealthiest of Americans or is that actually a reasonable strategy to improve the economy, etc. etc. And etc. I'm willing to put all of that aside.
What's really been fascinating me during this election (because I'm a human cognition nerd) has been the ability of the human animal to endure and absorb cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance, if you'd like a hugely overgeneralized explanation, is what you experience when your expectations of the world don't match up with what some schools of psychology call "here and now reality". For example, if you expect something to be heavy, and when you pick it up it turns out to be light, that jolt of confusion you feel is cognitive dissonance. If you've ever known someone who is certain that they're a star performer, even in the face of their manager telling them they need to shape up, that's someone who's masterful at absorbing cognitive dissonance.
Human beings are, strange to say, designed to absorb cognitive dissonance. Why? Because it's a good long-term survival strategy.
If my world view says that all sharks are dangerous, and I meet one that's friendly and likes to cuddle, it's better for my long-term survival if I'm still wary about the next shark I meet. Sure, the here and now reality of Cuddles The Tiger Shark might have contradicted my world view, but that doesn't mean I should change my world view immediately.
But still...
There's a house on my walk to the bus that is plastered with signs proclaiming their faith in the current administration, and exhorting passers-by to support our president and our troops, etc. Lately I've been entertaining a fantasy about knocking on their door, sitting down with them, and trying to understand what makes them tick. Not to convert them... I just want to ask them the same simple question:
At what point did you part ways with reality?
Can I support the president and the troops at the same time? He doesn't, clearly, or he wouldn't have cut veteran's benefits, hazardous duty benefits, family medical benefits, etc.
What makes you think the war in Iraq is still a good idea? I know plenty of people who supported the war at the beginning who have changed their minds in the face of mounting evidence. Do you still think there was a relationship between Hussein and bin Laden? Do you still think there were WMDs in Iraq? If not, why are we there? Do you really believe there's some "terrorist army" that we can defeat on the field of battle? Have we forgotten the lessons of our own revolutionary war* so quickly?
* Remember that part about the Redcoats liking to fight in long, clean lines, marching at an opposing army that was firing back at them the same way? Remember how we kicked their asses by not playing by their rules? Anyone? Anyone?
What makes you think Shrub is helping make America more safe? There are fewer first responders on the street now than there were before September of 2001. Homeland Security money was spent in areas where there's a low likelyhood of terrorist attack, and on expensive hotels for HSA officials. And now, of course, his administration has simply lost 300+ tons of explosives.
I hate the idea that the answer to all of this is "we get our news from Fox". I would hate for it to be that simple.
Robert Jahrling, on Friday, October 29, 2004 at 12:40 PM:
c.v. Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine cover story a couple of weeks ago. "Reality" is something that Bush feels that it's up to him to create. So there is no diverging from reality in this weltanschauung, because reality is what Bush says it is. For them, it's all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. They have won the victory over themselves. They love George Bush.
Robert Jahrling, on Friday, October 29, 2004 at 12:42 PM:
Yes, by "c.v.", I meant "c.f." It's been a long day.
Laura, on Friday, November 5, 2004 at 10:51 PM:
What's really been fascinating me during this election (because I'm a human cognition nerd) has been the ability of the human animal to endure and absorb cognitive dissonance.
I agree. I think, in order to accept the truth (i.e. that came out with the 9/11 commission) people would have to 1) accept that the President (to whom I think many have weird father-attachments) lied to them and 2) to accept they were f--ing stupid enough to believe him for a couple of years on this.
Yep. Cognitive dissonance rules the day. I just hope the D's get their heads out of their butts and start to understand more about the psychology of elections and voting. I think emotion will trump logic any day of the week and Those That Are Evile (aka Karl Rove et al) know all too well how to manipulate this.
I am glad you are over your cold by now and on your well to Italia. Save a space for me over there if you decide to stay a while...
RS, on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 3:06 AM:
Remember that part about the Redcoats liking to fight in long, clean lines, marching at an opposing army that was firing back at them the same way? Remember how we kicked their asses by not playing by their rules? Anyone? Anyone?
Not sure David's analogy with our own Revolution is entirely appropriate, given that the Redcoat plinking tactics were phased out rather early on in the war. The kind of sniping David is referring to probably had more psychological impact on the British troops than anything else. The smooth bore muskets then in use were just too inaccurate to do much actual damage when not massed. And the few rifles that were available took about a minute to reload, meaning almost no volume of fire. Although we had some limited success with unconventional operations in the early days of the war, it soon became apparent that the only way to win was to copy European tactics and go toe to toe with the Redcoats using their rules. It was really a function of technology. The only way to effectively put lots of led on target with muskets was to have one's troops stand shoulder to shoulder and pump out as many rounds as possible, creating a sort of "wall of lead." It was messy, but it worked. We even hired European soldiers to train our own troops in the art of linear warfare. Eventually the continentals became quite an effective force, easily the rival (at least in terms of professionalism) of the Europeans. Basically, by the time of Yorktown, there was very little difference in the tactics of both sides.