A jaundiced look at the world we live in.
In lieu of my usual morning fulminations, this morning I’m turning the task over to Steve Benen, at Political Animal, who chronicles–and refutes–some of the many “misstatements” (aka lies) of Mitt Romney.
Maybe there’s some truth to the claim that you can’t trust a man who would drive for hours with his terrified dog strapped to the roof….
CommentsNot being a fan of right-wing conspiracy blogs/commentators, it was only a couple of days ago that I became aware of the latest “outrage” perpetrated by the Obama Administration–a Halloween party kept secret until now, where liberal Hollywood stars mixed with costumed members of the First Family and Staff in an expensive, decadent party paid for by our tax dollars.
I saw a clip of Rush Limbaugh–red-faced and shouting, vein in neck throbbing (okay, that’s his normal look)–accusing the White House of cavorting at taxpayer expense while average Americans suffer through the recession, and darkly asking “If they hide these extravagant, indulgent parties from the American People, what else might they be hiding??”
I consulted the Google oracle to find out more, and discovered that those crafty Obamas managed to “hide” the fact of this party, which turned out to have been held for the children of veterans, by posting about it on the White House Web site, Facebook and Twitter, and inviting the media to attend.
Oh, those crafty Obamas–it’s the Purloined Letter all over again! Hiding in plain sight!
It’s tempting to simply dismiss this silliness as another manifestation of Obama Derangement Syndrome, but there’s a darker side to these constant attempts to demonize the administration. Remember the Boy Who Cried Wolf? He was a shepherd who kept insisting he saw a wolf menacing his flock. When the real wolf came, no one believed him.
When everything Obama does–including, apparently, breathing–prompts accusations of high crimes and misdemeanors, what happens if and when the administration actually does engage in behavior that we really should worry about?
When the level of outrage is set on maximum all the time, how do we distinguish between a Halloween party for the children of our fighting men and signing the Defense Authorization Act?
CommentsThe persistence of bigotry in society is widely acknowledged, and there are plenty of examples of people who are just plain hateful. There’s a robust literature that tries to explain the roots of prejudice, and a lively debate about what constitutes an appropriate response to its expression.
But how should we react to behavior that isn’t motivated by animus, but is just stupid and/or insensitive? What do we do with the clueless?
There are a couple of videos that have been going around the internet that address this issue. One compiles embarrassingly dumb remarks white girls say to black girls, and there’s another doing the same with “shit” gentile girls ask Jewish ones. (As someone who was a Jewish girl, I can attest to the accuracy of the latter one; I still remember a high school “friend” who asked me in all seriousness whether Jews had tails.) These videos are being shared for their comic value, and maybe that’s all we can do–laugh.
But an article shared by a colleague yesterday points to some of the less laughable consequences of clueless behaviors.
In Norcross, Georgia, a third-grade math assignment used slavery as a basis for story problems–as in “If Frederick received two beatings each day, how many beatings did he get in a week?” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, one of the math teachers decided to use a social studies lesson on Frederick Douglass as a basis for a series of story problems that were–to be kind–incredibly inappropriate. Inexplicably, his worksheet was then reviewed and used by three other teachers.
Here’s a math story problem: if one third-grade teacher has no common sense and three of his colleagues don’t notice, how many third-grade teachers are clueless?
Parents in this racially-diverse school district were understandably outraged, and the school is “investigating” the incident. But this is one of those times when people of good will are really at a loss to suggest appropriate action. Some parents are calling for the teachers to be fired, but in the absence of intentional animus, that is probably an over-reaction. (Of course, if this incident is an indication of pedagogical competence, perhaps not…)
There are things we can do to combat bigotry and racism. Combatting well-meaning ignorance is a lot harder.
CommentsSince I so often fill this space with depressing observations, I’m going to begin this week by indulging my inner Pollyanna.
My (non-scientific) theory is that the rash of efforts we are seeing around the country to break the backs of unions, ensconce anti-gay laws in state constitutions, and weaken government oversight of everything from financial institutions (the “banksters”) to the environment are motivated by a recognition on the part of the proponents of these measures that their window of opportunity to get the job done is fast closing.
It remains important to explain what is wrong and troubling about all of these assaults. (There is a very good, very clear analysis of RTW here, for example.) But those of us who are astonished by the vitriol with which many of these measures are being pursued need to recognize that the sense of urgency being displayed by their proponents reflects a genuine reality: the culture is changing and they know it.
Bashing gays and union members, dismissing environmental concerns as evidence of “tree-hugging,” and characterizing all government action as “socialism” won’t have much traction in the America that is emerging.
I just wish it would emerge a bit faster.
In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare has Cassius deliver the immortal line “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars..”
But what if our faults are “in our stars”? What if the age-old debate about how much of who we are is determined by nature, and how much by nurture, is gradually being decided, and the answer is nature? I, for one, don’t find it particularly appealing to think that the person I am was genetically determined, but there seems to be more and more evidence suggesting that who we are is less a matter of human will and reason than we may be comfortable with.
Sometimes, of course, recognition of the role of biology can be liberating. The discovery that genetics–not bad parenting or “perverse choices”–largely determines sexual orientation falls in that category. But what if it isn’t only being gay that is biologically determined? What if being a Rick Santorum is equally the result of a genetic roll of the dice?
A recent article in Psychology Today reports on a study from University College London that found self-described conservatives have larger amygdala than self-described liberals, and that the liberals had more gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that helps people deal with complexity. (The results are consistent with some other recent studies; just a year ago, researchers at Harvard and UCLU reported finding a “liberal gene,” although its reported effects were limited.) The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active when a person is anxious or fearful.
In other words, people who are more likely to be anxious and fearful, and less able to deal with complexity, are most likely to be politically conservative–assuming we define “conservative” as a person opposed to social and political change. Social conservatives would fit this definition; fiscal conservatives probably wouldn’t.
In one sense, such a conclusion would be consistent with what we see around us. The hysteria that Obama’s election evoked in a significant number of people is often attributed to racism (and that certainly explains a lot of it), but it is equally likely that it wasn’t the President’s race per se, but the fact that the election of a black man was unavoidable evidence of dreaded social change. As I have noted before, many of the people who seem most irrational–who think the President is a Muslim Socialist, that gays and lesbians have a diabolical “agenda,” that all Muslims are terrorists–are clearly terrified of a world they don’t understand. In the words of social historian Stephanie Coontz, they’re nostalgic for “the way we never were.”
Of course, one study doesn’t settle the nature-nurture battle, and even if these results are replicated, they don’t answer the causation question: are some people born with a larger amygdala, or did it grow larger as a result of frightening childhood experiences or authoritarian parenting? (We Moms are never wholly in the clear…)
But it does suggest that we should have some compassion for folks like Santorum. Maybe he was born that way.
Of course, if he were to become President, my amygdala would grow.
Comments