Knee-jeck Ideology and Reflective Argument
By David J. Shaw
In every era there seems to be those who prefer knee-jerk ideology to reflective argument. In the 1990s there were "Clinton-haters," people who accused the forty-second president of virtually everything and were willing to believe virtually anything—provided it was negative. There were also Clinton-defenders who broadly grouped all critics together and dismissed them as "haters." Calling the John Birch Society cranks is one thing; categorizing Kenneth Starr with them, a former B.C. Circuit Judge and Solicitor General of the United States, is another. Both the "Clinton-haters" and his staunch defenders fall within the category, for lack of a better term, of "partisan hacks"—callous, shallow people who care for no other perspective than their own; who, indeed, seem incapable of conceiving of any perspective other than their own; or, perhaps (and this is most damning), care more about power or money or prestige to acknowledge any perspective other than their own.
This era has its own version of partisan hacks. Take, for instance, Liza Featherstone. A writer for the Nation, Ms. Featherstone has an article in December of 2004 issue on the evils of Wal-Mart. The entire article is interesting in that it reveals Ms. Featherstone's desire to be thoughtful yet, due to her unflinching presuppositions, her complete inability to be thoughtful. But one sentence in particular stands out. "Unlike so many horrible things, Wal-Mart cannot be blamed on George W. Bush." The presumption of this sentence, combined with its wonder, credulity, and didacticism, stretches my mind. Who, I am tempted to ask, is dumber? Ms. Featherstone or her readers? The answer depends on this point of analysis: did Ms. Featherstone write that sentence tongue-in-cheek? If so, she is either mocking her readers or mocking the uninformed perception of her readers. (Perhaps she is both mocking some readers and sharing a joke with others.) This, were it true, excuses the sentence. The tone, however, of both the Nation generally and the rest of Ms. Feathersone's article particularly, makes this explanation unlikely. Partisan hacks tend to lack humor—at least as related politically. If the butt of the
joke is their ideology, they are offended; if the butt is an ideology they oppose, they believe it unflinchingly.
The sad fact is Ms. Featherstone probably believes that "so many horrible things" can be blamed on George W. Bush. And, not only Ms. Featherstone, but many (most?) of her readers probably share her opinion. Indeed, Ms. Featherstone & co. not only believe that "so many horrible things" are Bush's fault, but that the litany of "horrible things" is so long, so many, that it comprises most horrible things. How else can one explain Ms. Featherstone's need to carve out an exceptional "horrible thing," i.e., one not caused by Bush?
In writing this sentence, Ms. Featherstone places herself above her readers. She has perspective broad enough to perceive of a horrible thing not caused by Bush. Her readers are generally incapable of seeing this and must be alerted to its existence. This also demonstrates Ms. Featherstone's open mindedness. She is not so blind as to attribute evil only to Bush. The world, Ms. Featherstone implicitly proclaims in her wondrous sentence, isn't that simple. It is complex. Bad things can occur apart from Bush. Not many—certainly not most—but some can and do. Take, for example, Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, according to Ms. Featherstone, is a bad thing and it exists apart from Bush. It is the result of consumerism. Consumerism is the product of capitalism as modified by Henry Ford. Now, Bush supports consumerism, so he is not off the hook, so to speak, but nonetheless, he is not to blame in the same way that he is to blame for the environment, the deficit, dead children in Iraq, the economy, joblessness, homelessness, homophobia, hate crimes, racism, Islamophobia, the curtailment of civil liberties, the rise of the Religious Right, intolerance, the insurgency in Iraq, dead and wounded American soldiers, high oil prices, Halliburton corruption, Enron corruption, etc.
If we were to ask Ms. Featherstone what other "horrible things" Bush isn't to blame for, I wonder what answer we would get? The Holocaust, maybe? After all, he wasn't born yet. Maybe the Great Depression? In this light, the absurdity of Ms. Featherstone and her ilk becomes apparent. We laugh because we hate. Ms. Featherstone is trapped in her own perspective; we are on the outside, and we are able to see its flaws, to perceive its shortcomings. Of course, we who are on the right are not the only ones who see Ms. Featherstone's insular extremism. There are those on the left who, while despising George W. Bush and his policies, would never imply that Bush deserves blame for all or even most "horrible things."
The dichotomy, then, is not "right-left." Rather, the dichotomy is knee-jerk ideology versus reflective argument. There are Liza Featherstones on the right,
too, possessing the same laziness, committing the same intellectual sins.
But what of ourselves? Do the ideological commitments that we make necessarily exclude us from participating in thoughtful discourse? Simply because we can perceive Ms. Featherstone's absurdity does not necessarily mean that we escape her errors. I only ask the question. Asking the question is important because asking it helps mitigate the self-ghettoizing tendency that we all possess.
In every era there seems to be those who prefer knee-jerk ideology to reflective argument. In the 1990s there were "Clinton-haters," people who accused the forty-second president of virtually everything and were willing to believe virtually anything—provided it was negative. There were also Clinton-defenders who broadly grouped all critics together and dismissed them as "haters." Calling the John Birch Society cranks is one thing; categorizing Kenneth Starr with them, a former B.C. Circuit Judge and Solicitor General of the United States, is another. Both the "Clinton-haters" and his staunch defenders fall within the category, for lack of a better term, of "partisan hacks"—callous, shallow people who care for no other perspective than their own; who, indeed, seem incapable of conceiving of any perspective other than their own; or, perhaps (and this is most damning), care more about power or money or prestige to acknowledge any perspective other than their own.
This era has its own version of partisan hacks. Take, for instance, Liza Featherstone. A writer for the Nation, Ms. Featherstone has an article in December of 2004 issue on the evils of Wal-Mart. The entire article is interesting in that it reveals Ms. Featherstone's desire to be thoughtful yet, due to her unflinching presuppositions, her complete inability to be thoughtful. But one sentence in particular stands out. "Unlike so many horrible things, Wal-Mart cannot be blamed on George W. Bush." The presumption of this sentence, combined with its wonder, credulity, and didacticism, stretches my mind. Who, I am tempted to ask, is dumber? Ms. Featherstone or her readers? The answer depends on this point of analysis: did Ms. Featherstone write that sentence tongue-in-cheek? If so, she is either mocking her readers or mocking the uninformed perception of her readers. (Perhaps she is both mocking some readers and sharing a joke with others.) This, were it true, excuses the sentence. The tone, however, of both the Nation generally and the rest of Ms. Feathersone's article particularly, makes this explanation unlikely. Partisan hacks tend to lack humor—at least as related politically. If the butt of the
joke is their ideology, they are offended; if the butt is an ideology they oppose, they believe it unflinchingly.
The sad fact is Ms. Featherstone probably believes that "so many horrible things" can be blamed on George W. Bush. And, not only Ms. Featherstone, but many (most?) of her readers probably share her opinion. Indeed, Ms. Featherstone & co. not only believe that "so many horrible things" are Bush's fault, but that the litany of "horrible things" is so long, so many, that it comprises most horrible things. How else can one explain Ms. Featherstone's need to carve out an exceptional "horrible thing," i.e., one not caused by Bush?
In writing this sentence, Ms. Featherstone places herself above her readers. She has perspective broad enough to perceive of a horrible thing not caused by Bush. Her readers are generally incapable of seeing this and must be alerted to its existence. This also demonstrates Ms. Featherstone's open mindedness. She is not so blind as to attribute evil only to Bush. The world, Ms. Featherstone implicitly proclaims in her wondrous sentence, isn't that simple. It is complex. Bad things can occur apart from Bush. Not many—certainly not most—but some can and do. Take, for example, Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, according to Ms. Featherstone, is a bad thing and it exists apart from Bush. It is the result of consumerism. Consumerism is the product of capitalism as modified by Henry Ford. Now, Bush supports consumerism, so he is not off the hook, so to speak, but nonetheless, he is not to blame in the same way that he is to blame for the environment, the deficit, dead children in Iraq, the economy, joblessness, homelessness, homophobia, hate crimes, racism, Islamophobia, the curtailment of civil liberties, the rise of the Religious Right, intolerance, the insurgency in Iraq, dead and wounded American soldiers, high oil prices, Halliburton corruption, Enron corruption, etc.
If we were to ask Ms. Featherstone what other "horrible things" Bush isn't to blame for, I wonder what answer we would get? The Holocaust, maybe? After all, he wasn't born yet. Maybe the Great Depression? In this light, the absurdity of Ms. Featherstone and her ilk becomes apparent. We laugh because we hate. Ms. Featherstone is trapped in her own perspective; we are on the outside, and we are able to see its flaws, to perceive its shortcomings. Of course, we who are on the right are not the only ones who see Ms. Featherstone's insular extremism. There are those on the left who, while despising George W. Bush and his policies, would never imply that Bush deserves blame for all or even most "horrible things."
The dichotomy, then, is not "right-left." Rather, the dichotomy is knee-jerk ideology versus reflective argument. There are Liza Featherstones on the right,
too, possessing the same laziness, committing the same intellectual sins.
But what of ourselves? Do the ideological commitments that we make necessarily exclude us from participating in thoughtful discourse? Simply because we can perceive Ms. Featherstone's absurdity does not necessarily mean that we escape her errors. I only ask the question. Asking the question is important because asking it helps mitigate the self-ghettoizing tendency that we all possess.
posted by Tim Hoskins at 5:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home