How Would the Right Know It's Wrong?
While the left despairs of Barack Obama's capitulation to K Street and Wall Street, the right continues to insist that he's a Marxist, socialist, communist enemy of capitalism. What could possibly convince the right that it's wrong -- about that, or anything else?
Not the press. The right gets its facts from Fox News, talk radio, the screaming sirens on the Web and the mandarins of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. It maintains that the mainstream media is in the tank for liberals, which is hilarious, because the prestige press is so terrified of the right that it has substituted the diligence of he-said/she-said stenography for the challenge of refereeing disputes, and because the 24/7 chase for ratings and page-hits makes covering sex, celebrity and crime -- and celebrity sex crime -- way more important than figuring out what's actually important.
Not the political system. Demagoguery is fun. It wins airtime. Its plumage-ruffling signifies to the Beltway culture a mature appreciation for the virtues of pandering and partisanship. It's also profitable: polarizing plus demonizing equals fundraising. Whatever hopes the Founders had for the deliberative grandeur of our legislative system are mocked by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and James Inhofe.
Not philosophy. For a few Enlightenment centuries, the dream of reason -- a culture of science -- was embraced as the best defense against tyranny, whether the oppression came from cardinals or kings. The supreme modern exemplar of this view was the British philosopher Karl Popper. What separates rational argument from ideological or religious wrangling, Popper explained, is the possibility of disconfirmation. A scientific statement can always, potentially, be refuted by evidence, while an ideological or theological contention can always -- no matter what seems to contradict it -- be held fast.
Marx and Freud both said they were scientists, but Popper exiled them from that kingdom. Marxism is too versatile, its explanatory power too great. There's nothing that a Marxist economist can't explain; no new evidence can ever falsify the system. To Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes it's a penis, but sometimes it can be anything at all; there are no interpretive maneuvers that an analyst is prevented from performing. The Open Society and Its Enemies, which Popper wrote in the shadow of World War II, extended the urgency of falsifiability to the clash between democracy and totalitarianism. In an open society, leaders make their beliefs vulnerable to challenge and revision. But the salons of a closed society belong to a cult; nothing can prove to them that they're wrong.
Late in the twentieth century, the scientific worldview lost its luster. Far from being a privileged epistemology, a universally valid way of knowing the world, science was declared to be a cultural artifact, just another tribal value system. Enter postmodernism. Everything is subjective, relative, political, socially constructed. No opinion is better, or more reasonable, than any other. No fact exists independent of a perspective. Efforts to establish hierarchies of values, to separate true from false, are actually pernicious attempts to disguise power plays as citizenship and to present self-interest as sweet reason.
No wonder our press couldn't settle whether Obama was palin' around with terrorists or not, and can't say whether a public option is a government takeover of health care or not, and wouldn't dream of holding entertainer Rush Limbaugh accountable for his poison. On the news, who's to say whether a protester toting an AK-47 is potential assassin or a Fourth Amendment advocate? Philip Morris shill Betsy McCaughey deserves equal time with CIGNA whistleblower Wendell Potter. "Socialism" isn't an actual idea with an actual meaning; it's just a slogan, whose definition in the eye of its beholder.
No wonder our political system can't solve big problems. Ruthless opposition and dingbat delusions are the currency of right-wing success, and sand in the gears of democracy. Whether they're cynical postures or sincere beliefs doesn't matter. The grand national conversation that was intended to enable citizens and their representatives to find common ground for conflicting values has become a grand national midway of carny-barkers and rodeo clowns.
If it weren't so scary, it'd be funny that the loons who spread the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, who say that global climate change is a hoax and who want creationism to share equal time with evolution in our schools are the same furies who shout "You lie!" at the president and make insatiable demands for evidence of his American birth. Funny, because -- from Moliere to Stephen Colbert -- hypocrisy is part of the human comedy. Scary, because the epistemological checks and balances that are supposed to protect an open society from totalitarianism are pretty much impotent in an age of PoMo politainment.
This is my column from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. You can read more of my columns here, and e-mail me there if you'd like.
Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan
Robert L. Borosage: Glenn Beck Isn't Blocking Health Care Reform
It is worth remembering that Glenn Beck is not blocking the passage of a good health care bill. The old and new carny acts of the right aren't undermining the energy legislation or frustrating financial reform. To focus on who and what is standing in the way -- follow the money.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
When there is no reason, can it be called madness? I think that if one is entirely incapable of altering their world-view based on observable and repeatable evidence then they are truly not a sane person. There is clearly a thinking disconnect among a vast number of Americans that is wholly frightening and does not bode well for the future of our society and government. What is disturbing is that the reason we have a representational democracy rather than simply a democracy is so that really really stupid things don't get implemented. Because our representatives have sold out, every cockamamie opinion on the planet, not based in anything real has been allowed to have equal merit and gain traction. To answer your question, the right will know they were wrong when America is in flames.
It's been known for a couple of thousand years that the biggest weakness in a democracy is that it doesn't matter if a voter's selection is based on thoughtful consideration or blind prejudice, all that matters is how many votes you get. Life is so complicated now that the proportion of the population that can follow what's going on is getting smaller and the proportion that relies on their own visceral responses is growing.
Great post (but now I'm really depressed!)
Couldn't the same be said about us? Many liberals are weak in their actions b/c they lack surety, and others are zealous as those on the Right.
If you are going to bring up these questions, surely you must have examples of our "weakness in actions" and zealousness. This article is not about weaknesses - it is about the fact there is NO comparison between the left and the right in terms of absolute insanity, incivility, and a pure and unending disregard for the facts. If you can say the same for the Left, then please - some examples.
Examples on the left?
Absolute insanity: the "free Roman Polanksi" movement
Incivility: Your claim there is no comparison between left and right "in terms of absolute insanity, incivility, and a pure and unending disregard for the facts." Kaplan's claim of "ruthless opposition and dingbat delusions.
Pure and unending disregard for the facts: All of the above.
Sometimes you guys make this too easy.
Good luck convincing anyone of that.
As a lifelong moderate, I have also often felt that there were an equal number of right and left crazies. Now, however, I don't see much if anything crazy coming from the left - what they say is fairly rational, even if I don't agree with it. It's the right whose arguments are based on ideology, not fact. Idealogically, right wingers oppose government intervention, therefore (they "reason") global warming can't be factual. As for the hundreds of scientists worldwide concerned about global warming? They're all simply involved in a giant conspiracy to rule the universe. (Maybe the right wingers have been reading too many comic books?). Perhaps the scientists behind the global warming "hoax" are the same scientists behind the moon landing, evolution and dinosaur "hoax"? If you don't like some data, call it a hoax. If new data proves it wasn't a hoax, call the new data a hoax or another leftist conspiracy - problem solved.
Like Kaplan, I'm distressed by the idea that fact-impervious people have any sway over politicians. Worse, the right wing seems to think their thickheaded to both science and verifiable fact is a positive attribute. On the bright side, millions of moderate and rational Republican voters have deserted the Republican party. Unless it regains a respect for scientific thought, fact based policy and civility, it will stay a minority party.
The right knows perfectly well that they're wrong. It's that they don't care.
You are totaly right, USA and the american people have a big problem because it is a educational problem. For a European it is amazing to see the crime, guns and killing mentality be promoted in the world like it was a product. Or listening the politicians against Health Care for all. We have that free, so it is difficult to understand that lack of solidarity that you have inside USA. The opposition to Global Warming is a stupidity and only show that Americans do not have a good educational system. And is incredible to see politicians mixing religion with reality or saying that Evolution is not proved. Or that science is not correct because some religion have said so.
Americans need to change the mentality of the great majority of USA people. You must embrace the future. not the past.
Thanks! You hit the nail on the head.
The US is the stupidest industrialized country in the world. We celebrate ignorance and treat stubbornness as if it represents true strength.
Who is this "we" you're talking about?
MK: "the dream of reason -- a culture of science -- was embraced as the best defense against tyranny, whether the oppression came from cardinals or kings."
We have found a new source of oppression to replace the historical ones Kaplan mentions. Today the oppression comes from the lords of finance and corporate America. Capitalism will enslave us all given time for it to develop complete power over our society. Already it owns many of our Congressmen and Senators and previous presidents. The jury's still out on the current POTUS. When the lords and masters of the universe have completed the take over, the bottom 99% will be slaves to the top 1%-ers. We are pretty close to that already and still going in that direction.
It is scary, isn't it? but so true. To tell you the truth, I cannot understand the lack of common sense, the lack of critical thinking and the resistance to knowledge and education that plague the American people. Our refusal to admit that the culture of denying science and our future is unsustainable is totally ungodly. I agree with you the self-destructive direction we are going is unphathomable but we, Americans, will not do anything to prevent it because those of us who foresee it are distracted by those who lack the common sense and the education to even think about it - The same people who carry ipods, cell phones and blackberries, who use radio and television to spew hatred, who are refusing to make available scientific discoveries to cure diseases and to prevent environmental disasters, who are fighting to deny other people healthcare and yet refuse to acknowledge evolution and science seem to be the people who are in control of the conversation. The Media whom we entrust to dissect and direct the conversation are taking a backseat to the crazies. The takeover is near and that is why the top 1% is all against regulations and self-moderation. It's almost like a movie out of the Twilight Zone. Government regulation is probably all we have left but even the Government (Congress, Senate, the Executive Branch, etc.) is in bed with the kings and cardinals of our society.
So if I'm reading this I must be getting my 'facts' from "the screaming sirens on the Web" instead of those other places, right? I love it when someone so convinced tells me I can't be convinced.
Does Kaplan think "the deliberative grandeur of our legislative system" is not mocked by the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Alan Grayson?
What have these people done that would compare to Sen. Grassley's (and others, as just one example) continued perpetration of the "death panel" myth. When asked about Medicare (a government run program), he reluctantly provided his support, while condemning the public option....
What equivalent outrage do you see from the left?
Grayson told the truth? Republicans want you to "die quickly?" That is beyond a lie, it's beyond pathetic, and it certainly adds nothing to the "grand national conversation" any more than Kaplan's column or you agreeing with Grayson. You don't find it the least bit troubling to accuse Republicans of such an idiotic, incendiary claim, or like Kaplan to speak of our "dingbat delusions" while complaining about the level of discourse in this country?
Speaking of studies, maybe you should examine this "study" that claims 45,000 Americans die "due to" no insurance coverage (not a lack of access to health care as you put it). How exactly did they determine that? And when you tell me how Obama can swear to Senior citizens there will be no cuts in Medicare services while he slashes hundreds of billions out of the Medicare budget then we can talk about "irresponsible leadership
Kaplan is right, of course, but his criticism of the extreme conservative is also very descriptive of the extreme liberal. As a moderate, I am in the unfortunate position of getting fundraising mail from both sides. The shrill fact-twisting on the right is matched letter for letter by the left. Interestingly, Kaplan brings up the right's denial of global climate change science, while ignoring the left's denial of the science of homosexuality.
There may be an equal number of crazy theories on the right and left, but you can't possibly support any claim that an equal number of people on the right and left believe and spout those theories. Where was the march of leftwing crazies in Washington? Where are the TV and radio shock jocks of the left with audiences in the millions, like Beck, Rush, etc.? How many Dems in Congress openly questioned Bush's patriotism and truthfulness, even during a joint speech by the president?
Any claim that the vitriol on the right toward Obama is no different from that on the left toward Bush is absurd. The antipathy toward Bush resulted from his rush to war against Iraq without justification, warrantless wiretapping of Americans, failure to respond competently after Katrina, and massively increasing the federal deficit, among many other actions. There is no policy or behavior on the part of Obama that right wingers could possibly point to to provide comparable justification for their anger toward him. In other words, the left-wing criticized Bush for what he ACTIALLY DID, while the right-wing criticizes Obama for what they IMAGINE he MIGHT do.
The left-wing crazies are still trying to figure out why they failed at levitating the Denver Mint during their "Shake Your Moneymaker" event at the DNC. Otherwise they're failing miserably at drawing an audience.
I take it from your view we shouldn't be involved in or have an opinion on pending or proposed legislation and policies. That would be perfect, to have no opposition to what this President and this Congress want to do to our country, wouldn't it? I mean after all, there was no opposition to Bush's run up to the wars, Social Security reform, troop levels and strategy, tax cuts or any of his SCOTUS nominees was there? There was certainly no talk of the impending theocracy he was going to establish. So why should we complain that this administration and Congress want to completely remake the health care industry, expand the government exponentially and spend us into oblivion?
Bingo.
There is no equivalent to the disinformational rantings of the right. What evidence can you show that could possibly prove this absurd notion? Don't bother....
Exactly true.
"science of homosexuality"? Elucidate, please.
I gather from your article that you conclude that we are basically hosed as a society.
If we are not, what, exactly, do you propose to DO about it?
Personally, I think we may be too late to save the patient (our democracy). I suspect that the winguts realize that they have the power to destroy us, and destroy us they will. Why? Power. No other reason; the wingut leadership cares about nothing else.
I see totalitarianism in our future, and Obama has nothing to do with it, inasmuch as a victim is generally not the cause of their own victimization.
Can you imagine if Lindsey Graham or Sarah Palin becomes POTUS? Will there be a place for non-wingnuts (reasonable Americans) to hide?
You can have the west coast...ex
Thank you fro the article.
The group who is willing to fight to the death always wins. It is difficult for people who care about others to counter this type of movement. But counter it we must, else we allow lies to continue to push back justice at every turn.
Hmm......a
Yeah, you're real accurate and relevent.
Far more accurate and relevant that Fox "News", which I'm positive from your comment that you watch on a regular basis. Probably a huge Limbaugh fan also.
Then here's some news I'm sure you'll love. FNC's Red Eye at 3:00 AM has "more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN."
http://www
I resent the "Far Right" calling themselves "conservatives" - It gives true conservatives a bad name. I understand why they want to do it but those who I've seen wouldn't recognize a true conservative or understand the difference.
I think the far right has portrayed itself - or been portrayed as - "libertarian" (which they clearly aren't), "conservative" (you say they aren't) and as being representative of the Republican party (they are only a subset of that party). I think you are on to something. I would like to hear your explanation of why they aren't true conservati
Funny, their mis-portrayal of themselves is parallel to their misuse of the words "socialist", "communist" and "totalitarian" that other commentors have alluded to in these posts.
Yeah! And cherries don't taste as good as they used to, either, do they Marty?
But we sure still have our share of ID10Ts on here, don't we, langej?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
