Reflecting on Politics: Partisanship as Anti-Intellectualism
“The ideologies of the left and right took shape before Darwin, before Mendel, before anyone knew what a gene or a neuron or a hormone was. Every student of political science is taught that political ideologies are based on theories of human nature. Why must they be based on theories that are three hundred years out of date?”
– Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
I get a kick out of what is known as politics. At its base, the idea of, to put it simply, who gets what and how much, ultimately is moral in nature. Yet morality arises from a strongly influenced genetic basis, an often unacknowledged need for group identity and preservation against attack.
Put in this context, the naming of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate was an exceedingly well-executed strategy (attack, for the cynical among you) against democrats. On top of it, the timing was impeccable. What validates the success of this strategy is the voluminous commentary since.
On the political left, it’s been particularly amusing. One local blogger, a feminist no less, refers to Palin as mere “passive” “arm candy” whose appointment is but a positive career move.
The subtle viciousness of these scenes should be given more prominence as sociobiologic states of self-preservation, as in the hard-wired prevalence of, in this case, cognitive dissonance.
[ad]
In them olden days we may have ganged up for an ouster (and it’s well-established that women are no less prone to being extremely nasty perpetrators). Today, we merely cast aside with ad hominem comments that attempt to dress up the world as we want it. Our associations back us up, and it all occurs online.
In the politically adamant 21st century, such behaviors are manifested as celebrated commentary if serving a perceived larger good. At the same time, their destructive nature is rooted in such practices as placing the head of one’s enemy on a stick.
The problem lies in the gravity toward such dialogue. People are naturally attracted toward what affirms their beliefs, which is why the political left and right share more strategic, operational and dysfunctional commonalities than most appear to want to acknowledge. Even intelligent, educated folks succumb to taking sides with great amounts of attachment, which perhaps should make them the greatest offenders. If measured merely as click-throughs, like voices — especially if clever, and smart! — will always demonstrate a greater return on investment. Politics as a mainstream phenomenon exemplifies these affinities to a tee, and sarcasm and well-placed comedic insults ensure higher readership.
It’s not that such behaviors should inherently be viewed as problematic — our history is more noted by our nasty brutish sides rather than our remarkable peace-making abilities – it’s that the denial of the heritable aspects of motivations renders such dialogue woefully incomplete.
Wallowing at this level, then, means the discussions are shallow indeed.
August 31st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Sarcasm is inherently shallow because it’s defensive. Often, it’s unnecessarily defensive. Also, it’s well known that some people do not (never will) hear and understand sarcasm, so they merely remain confused.
Sarcasm sucks in written word, because there lurk no social clues to verify such lying. And it is lying. Too bad.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I don’t think this is, nor should it be, a treatise on the pros and cons of sarcasm. It definitely has its place. If you don’t get sarcasm, it’s your problem; not the problem of the person writing it. Assuming sarcasm until you know better is the safe route for the interpreter. That generally requires you to read at a time when you’re thinking clearly and not hot-headed. If you still don’t get it, then I guess the joke is on you.
This is a very good post, Bob. It’s a major part of the reason I don’t care for political commentary on blogs anymore. I tried to get into it, but I was often the guy who everyone disliked because I was:
1) Not a diehard Republican
2) Not a diehard Democrat
3) Against anonymous posting
4) Sarcastic, but very real (I’d say anything on my blog to your face, and have)
5) Outspoken about all of the above
You know that I am in agreement about so much of this stuff that we sometimes try to out-agree with each other. It’s also another reason that referring to online commentators - people who write about their kids, people who write about sports, boors who write about politics, and people who do real investigative work or whatever, as bloggers, needs to die a fast death yesterday. Lumping them all together is a disservice to all of the others, who all have their niche. Can’t we just assume that if you’re an online-only political writer that you’re a partisan hack, only less-known than the partisan hacks on TV? I propose we call all online-only political writers “obscure political hacks.” Where “obscure” often means “full of shit.”
September 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“I propose we call all online-only political writers ‘obscure political hacks.’ Where ‘obscure” often means ‘full of shit.’”
Demagogues don’t listen to reason. Actually, they don’t listen at all.