Random Blogging – Page 391

True Believer Syndrome

To me, one of the most frustrating aspects of contemporary public debate is something I call the “true believer” syndrome. The true believer can be on the political right or left; the distinguishing characteristic is a smug certainty that he or she is in possession of Truth (note capital T), and only the most unenlightened, hypocritical or downright evil person could possibly disagree.

On the right, true believers tend to be either biblical literalists or free-market fundamentalists. On the left, a disproportionate number are self-proclaimed (self-satisfied) environmentalists. What makes the environmentalists particularly annoying—at least to me—is that I generally agree with their basic message. It’s the aura of superior virtue that is off-putting.

I thought about this the other day, during a meeting of IUPUI’s “Common Theme” committee. The campus Common Theme program began a couple of years ago; much like the “One Book, One Community” project adopted by many cities, the Common Theme takes one book annually as its centerpiece. A year-long discussion of the themes raised by that book will include speakers, panel discussions, student projects and other programs. It’s an effort to encourage a more thoughtful and informed discussion of an important issue—and it is well worth doing.

This year, the Common Theme book is Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. McKibben is evidently a rock star of sorts in the environmental movement, and he will be on campus November 9th to kick off the year’s programming. I read the book, and found much of its argument—although certainly not all of it—persuasive.

I also found it annoying, thanks to the book’s moralistic tone.

A cover blurb from the Boston Globe might best convey what I mean: “A hopeful manifesto…an inspiring book that shows us not only the way we need to live, but also the way we should want to.” And indeed, throughout the book, there is the implicit message that if you are somehow so benighted as to disagree with one or more of McKibben’s prescriptions for a virtuous life, should you somehow, inexplicably fail to agree that this is the way you should want to live, you are to be scorned or at least pitied.

This is particularly irksome because—while there is much of value in the book—some of those prescriptions are just plain dumb. Others aren’t going to happen. (Small towns in America are not going to begin issuing their own currency. If you want to know what that has to do with sustainability, or saving the environment, you’ll have to read the book.)

Ideally, those of us participating in the Common Theme discussions will use these opportunities to separate the wheat from the chaff, to focus on the very real environmental challenges we face, to understand connections we hadn’t recognized, and to figure out how to make the changes that will inevitably be required. And ideally, we can participate in those discussions without being treated to the sort of elitism and moral snobbery that too often characterize these discussions.

Ideally, True Believers would stop being their own worst enemies.

Comments

Maintenance

I believe it was Eric Hoffer who said that the mark of a nation’s civilization was the degree to which it maintained its infrastructure. In other words, while the ability to erect impressive structures is a sign of technological and artistic expertise, the real sign of a mature culture is its attention to upkeep.

I thought about that when I read Masson’s blog this morning; he notes the need to attend to our aging sewers, and makes much the same point that Hoffer did. It is a point worth pondering in an age where citizens seemingly care about nothing other than low taxes.

Muncie has 368 miles of water lines and some 600 miles of sewer lines, many of which were constructed 75 to 95 years ago, Bennington said.

I only mention it to note the difficulty in budgeting for upkeep of infrastructure. Present needs have a way of shoving aside intentions to set aside money for future needs. When you build something, it’s a certainty that repairs will be needed in the future. It’s almost as certain that routine maintenance will be less expensive in the long run than deferring maintenance until something catastrophic happens. But, it’s hard to say “no” to a present need or to raise taxes just to pay for something preventative on systems that are largely taken for granted.

Bingo

One of the bloggers I read regularly is Ed Brayton, whose “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” takes on hypocrites of both the left and right. This analysis of charges of “media bias” is an example of his generally on-target commentary:

Let’s get something straight: there is no such thing as objective journalism. Every single journalist brings his or her own preconceptions to everything they do, including me. There is no point in pretending otherwise. Just own up to your biases and wear them on your sleeve for all to see and readers and viewers can take that into account. All that really matters is accuracy. If bias leads to inaccuracies in the reporting, then point out the inaccuracies. If it doesn’t, then accusations of bias are meaningless.

But the sheer chutzpah of conservatives, of all people, feigning outrage at politicians criticizing news outlets? You have to be joking. Bashing the media has been one of the most important strategic elements of conservative politics for decades. Media bashing is not merely a staple part of conservative thinking, it’s so deeply ingrained that it’s almost a reflex reaction for most right wingers.

And that’s the whole point of the strategy, to get their followers to instinctively react to any news that is inconvenient for them by dismissing it as another example of liberal media bias. It’s an inoculation against reality and it is very, very effective. Hearing conservatives whine about media bashing is like hearing Paris Hilton whine about Lindsey Lohan being shallow. The pot and the kettle might as well die in a mutual murder/suicide pact at that point.

“Morality” Policies and Political Realities

In Indiana, I cannot buy wine (or any kind of liquor) if I go to Costco or my local grocery on Sunday. Since–like most women in America today–I work during the week, Sunday is my preferred day to shop. Thanks to the Indiana legislature’s determination to protect my morals and their pocketbooks, I have the choice of making an extra trip, or changing my preferred shopping day, in order to buy wine.

As a matter of public policy, this is insane. I do not drink less because of this policy (actually, being a woman of a “certain” age, I pretty much limit my imbibing to one glass of red wine with dinner anyway). My dinner party guests are not deprived of a nice vintage due to this policy. It is simply inconvenient and annoying.

Periodically, there is an effort to change the law that forbids Sunday sales by groceries. We are seeing such an effort now, with advocates of change pointing out that we can drink at restaurants or bars on Sunday, so it seems silly and inconsistent to prohibit the purchase of spirits at the grocery.

What are the policy arguments being made by those defending the status quo? According to my morning paper, those arguments are: 1)Hundreds of neighborhood liquor stores might go out of business if groceries are allowed to compete. 2)There will be more drunken driving. 3) Remember the Sabbath.

Let’s take this one at a time.

If liquor stores cannot compete, then they should be allowed to fail. It is not government’s job to protect them, just as it isn’t government’s job to protect the corner hardware store from Lowe’s.
I hate to point this out, but the prediction that drunkenness, or drunk driving, will increase assumes that no one is drinking at those restaurants and bars, or buying enough liquor on, say, Thursday, to last until Sunday. This assertion is clearly not grounded in logic. Or reality.
Sunday isn’t MY Sabbath, nor is it the Sabbath of 7th Day Adventists, or atheists, or many others. And even if it were, the Establishment Clause prohibits the use of government to advance religion.

Of course, this was originally ALL about “it’s the Sabbath.” It was about reminding us heathens that this is a Christian (Protestant) Nation, thank you very much. Most states have moved beyond this; not Indiana. Here in the Hoosier state, it has become a source of campaign cash from the liquor store lobby for those politicians willing to protect those stores from competition by making my life just a bit less convenient.

I’m sure they consider it a fair trade-off.

Is Obama’s Nobel Prize Unconstitutional?

That’s the argument some right-wing lawyers are making. My own reaction was not dissimilar to that of the Florida congressman who said “If Obama cured world hunger, the Republicans would accuse him of causing overpopulation.”

Jack Balkin, the eminent Yale legal scholar who blogs at balkinization, says it more eloquently–and more authoritatively.

This episode has led me to two conclusions. First, the Washington Post Op-Ed section does not appear to have a lawyer on hand to keep it from embarrassment. It does not take much research to discover that the argument in this piece is frivolous. But no research was done.

Second, I have noticed an increasing lack of seriousness among some members of the modern conservative movement. We see it in the tea party protests, in the work of talk show hosts and political commentators, but now even in the work of accomplished lawyers and intellectuals who should know better. It is one thing to disagree with a sitting president’s policies, but in our deeply polarized and poisonous political environment, an increasing number of politicians, operatives, and intellectuals now proclaim almost reflexive opposition to anything associated with President Obama or anything he does, says, or supports. Indeed, in this case, Rotunda and Pham have gone well past arguing that things that President Obama favors are unconstitutional; now they argue that things are unconstitutional because somebody wants to honor him.

It is increasingly difficult to parody what politicians and intellectuals will now say or do. Anything one can think of is already topped by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

This may be good politics, but I doubt it. It is certainly not sound legal argument.