j a c k *

Appeal to Sanity...

To all points of dissent, it says, "Who cares what you think?" To all contrary evidence, it says, "I believe what I believe is right." And to the offer that we might at least agree to disagree, it says: "Go fuck yourself."

Mark Crispin Miller, AlterNet

That's an exerpt from a great article on the Bush administration and its opposition to the reality-based community by the incomperable Mark Crispin Miller.  His response to unreason, abuse and hatred, which I basically agree with, is to simply stand up and say "no."  We can follow the courageous lead of Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

-jack*

Runaway Spin...

With the election down to hours away, Republicans are confident that Bush will win despite historical projections to the contrary.  The only group nearly as confident that he will win are Democrats, who wring their hands in confused frustration over the 45% of Americans who support this president.  While liberal fears are based on very real evidence of vote suppression efforts, both systematic and blatantly racial, the conservative's projection of confidence and moral superiority in the face of any scandal or evidence is largely a function of will.

This is another break between the reality-based and the faith-based communities.  The faithful maintain their faith with willful disregard of the evidence, perhaps even disdain for it.  After all, faith has no value if what you believe in is factually known to be true.  The poor reality-based people, on the other hand, look external to themselves when evaluating the world.  Here the most stubborn fact they find against them and their world-view is that nearly half of their countrymen ignore any facts or evidence that support the reality-based world-view.  Frustration is understandable.

But is this an eternal bind?  Evidence and empiricism are the strongest weapons in the reality-based rhetorical arsenal.  If a majority of the plebiscite reject evidence in favor of faith, what possible response can there be?  The bad news is that if that were true we would be in a very bad place -- something rather like the dark ages.  The good news is that it is not true.  Despite a leaning on faith, a tendency towards faith, very few people reject empiricism outright.  The right evidence is still persuasive.

The right-wing in this country does not ignore evidence as such, but instead twist the analysis of evidence.  The evidence is still there, but the mechanisms by which the public evaluate the content, context and importance of evidence have been subverted.  The techniques and rhetorical devices used to do this are very old -- many of them have Latin names -- and should be taught in high-school or even earlier.  Sadly they are not, and many voting adults do not know how they work or why they are wrong.  Today we call this flawed reasoning "spin," and having good spin-control is oddly considered a virtue in many circles.  For the most part these are fallacies and errors of reasoning that would be very easy to spot if anyone in the news media cared to try.

The fight for the White House is nearly over.  But even if that is won (and especially if it is not), the fight to reclaim public discourse through the broadcast media will have just begun.

-jack*

Reality Bites...

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt", New York Times Magazine

The above quote at long last distills down a linkage that has been lurking and hinted at but rarely directly revealed -- the philosophy behind the so-called neo-conservative leadership of the Republican party and its followers.  Suskind calls it "faith-based," but it runs somewhat deeper than this.  It appears to be a wholesale rejection of the enlightenment principles of cause and effect, the empirical basis of knowledge, and eventually logic and reason.  This triumph of will over physical reality is a fusion of post-modernism with traditional religion.

Those of us who are proud to belong in the "reality-based" community have an obligation to fight back.  Not only against the unjust and immoral actions of a small cabal of power-hungry politicians, but against the direct assault on reason and rationality itself.  For the assault comes not only from the religious right but also from within academia and the New Age.  Normally considered bastions of the left, these also conspire to undermine reason for their specific ends.

The Case for Reason can be difficult to make, especially since detractors deny that any argument is possible, but once understood the case is inexorable and irrefutable.  All it takes is a hard-nosed approach to the realities of life, and a willingness to confront our fears.  Despite our deepest wishes, not all things are possible.  On the other hand, those that are, are pretty great.

-jack*