The Left vs. Right divide goes deeper than politics. It is also a "culture war" which is, to a substantial degree, a matter of reason vs. faith.
Reason has potency. But faith, for better or worse, is often far stronger. It has been so in most cultures during most periods of human history. The ascendence of the Religious Right in the US was not an aberration, it was a relaxation - a "blessed" relaxation, one might say - of a collective human nature that's been stretched out of its indigenous state for a time.
Reason is by nature self-debating and quarrelsome. Philosophers and thinkers argue. It's what they do. The topic can be anything - ethics, justice, military strategy, the meaning of life. Science, a pinnacle of the climb towards reason, is about argument too. A theory is persistently debated and challenged until it is mightily proven. (And even sometimes afterwards - cf. evolution).
By "faith," I do not mean only religious faith, which is what makes fundamentalists so violent (like Islamist terrorists) or socially destructive (like the Sarah Palins of the Christian world). I also mean unthinking adherence to any dogma. Bush, in his "stay the course" phase, was guilty of faith. The neocons were guilty of faith. American Communists in the 1930s were guilty of faith. Libertarians, when they deny realistic limits on their philosophy, are guilty of faith.
Liberals - or "progressives," as we're now supposed to call ourselves - are guilty of faith, too, when we let our convictions blind us to realities. Our curse is that we endeavor to remain on guard against lapsing into faith, with the result that we are often seen questioning ourselves, and when that happens we lose our political appeal.
It happens to Barack Obama all the time. Asked a question, he doesn't (always) spout ideology. He thinks a moment, then gives a considered, nuanced answer. That's tough to handle for an audience accustomed to digesting only soundbites.
Reasonable people question and debate. Often a sensible consensus arises out of the flurry. But sometimes we end up tangled in a web of uncertainty that prevents decisive action. And people who feel insecure don't want to see uncertainty in their leaders. As Bill Clinton put it, "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right." That insight is all one needs to explain George W. Bush's wartime reelection in 2004. It also helps explain John McCain's appeal at a time when most Americans disapprove of how his party has run the country.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cannonshop
Jon, I don't think he's Got any faith to balance-he tossed his pastor under the bus after twenty years.
As for "Reason" I refer you to the Daily Kos, and the difficulty Obama supporters seem to have in talking up their candidate's record, most of what I see is purely attack-ad material, much of it debunked. As for Kerry being a "candidate of reason"?
Not so much either-he was the Candidate of "anybody but Bush", and he tried to run as Rambo. Americans don't like phakes-the real liberal Bill Clinton, who never disavowed his flirtations with radicalism as a young man got two terms in the white house. His Charisma helped, but his ability to own his defects instead of running away from them helped more. Kerry didn't have that, and lost an election he might have won if he hadn't tried to pretend to be the war-hero he wasn't. (it would also have helped his case if,when cornered on the GWOT, he hadn't essentially said, "I'd do the same things, but Better, 'cause I'm a War Hero." It doesn't work.)
Right now, I'm sitting as a reluctant Republican because the Democrats haven't given me much reason to vote their man, while the Republicans have at least provided SOME cause to vote theirs.
I rather suspect I'm not far off from the uncommitted in that-I'm still willing to to be Persuaded, but it's got to be something that I can confirm, and check, and prove.
2 - bliffle
IMO Sobel is right about the appeal of 'wrong but strong', and that accounts for Bush in 2000 and 2004. IMO the voters think that the rest of the world is always imposing on us and criticizing and cheating us and that we need a tough guy to slap those lousy foreigners around. What better way to win THAT vote than to slap around primary opponents and your actual final opponent?
Everyone knew that Bush treated McCain horribly in the 2000 SC primary, but people voted for him anyway because his chutzpah demonstrated that he wouldn't be a patsy for those damn foreigners!
It was a good show, anyhow.
Too bad Bushes acts in office weakened the country, destroyed the military, created enormous debt and wrecked the economy.
Well, you can't have everything, and Bush DID provide an entertaining show!
3 - Baronius
Faith and reason aren't in opposition, at least not in the eyes of most people of faith. I think that the cultural divide in America is between thinking people of faith and thinking people who oppose faith.
You can weaken that word "oppose" however you want to; it's the only word I can think of. Maybe "without faith"? But that's not right either. There is no reasonable ethic about, say, stem cell research. There are facts, but how we view them is a matter of our own biases and priorities. We each have our own metaphysics, and unless they contradict reason there doesn't seem to be a reason to place one ahead of another.
4 - Jon Sobel
Baronius, my "reason vs. faith" dichotomy is undoubtedly overgeneralized, but I believe it has a lot of truth. When I listen to the Right's endlessly repeated "talking points" I mostly hear dogma - and I don't mean religious dogma, I mean, well, blindly repeated talking points that ignore the complexities of the real world in which the United States, despite what some people might wish, exists.
5 - Baronius
That's funny; I hear blindly-repeated talking points from the Left, which fail to grasp the realities of the world. Maybe if you agree with the points, you assume that the people who hold them are thinkers. And when you hear your opponents, they seem blind.
6 - Lisa Solod Warren
Interesting. I am a person of deep faith, I think. A Reform Jew who attends synagogue regularly, has a deeply intellectual rabbi who I respect enormously, consider myself an intellectual (no Clav I do not wish to debate this with you or anyone else) and yet do not see a problem with melding the two. Which may be one reason (just one) why I like Obama and his thoughtfulness and his nuance. And why I am not frightened by his Christian faith and AM frightened by Palin's (and Bush's)--I was the victim of virulent anti-Semitism growing up, and hyper proselytizing.
I am able to separate my own personal faith (and what I may or may not believe in and choose to do with my body medically or morally, even so far as going to temple and praying) from what I believe is morally right for the country, ie., helping the poor, thinking of others instead of only myself, worrying about peace and the environment over warmongering, money and gain, caring about education, wondering how we can keep young men out of jail and in school and young women from bearing and raising children alone, how we can educate all our people to think before they act, etc. And this is how I can allow myself to give up lobbyists for causes I might believe in to get rid of lobbyists for causes that I feel are destroying this country.....
Anyway, I like the piece. It's thoughtful. Thanks.
BTW, My great grandfather was a Sobel. Of course he came from Russia during the pogroms so I am not entirely sure if that was his real name...
7 - Jon Sobel
Baronius: it would be interesting to compare the talking points you and I have in mind. I'll start with a few of the meaningless absurdities from the Right (I'm paraphrasing):
"Saddam Hussein = Hitler"
"Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11"
"Get government off our backs"
"Treating captives cruelly helps defend against terrorism"
"We must drill for offshore oil"
"Cut capital gains taxes and businesses will expand"
"McCain is a maverick"
"Palin said no to the bridge to nowhere"
"Obama will raise taxes on the average American family"
I'm getting tired of typing... your turn!
8 - Baronius
"Bush = Hitler"
"Bush was responsible for 9/11"
"Getting government to run health care will save us money"
"Treating terrorists as defendants won't lead to another 9/11"
"We'll somehow have enough fuel without drilling for offshore oil"
"Raise capital gains taxes and the economy won't collapse"
"Obama represents a break from politics as usual"
"Palin is an extremist"
"Obama will expand government without raising taxes on the average American family"
Tag - you're it.
9 - Clavos
Lisa,
I consider you an intellectual, too.
10 - Baronius
I can't sleep tonight, so let me expound on one of Jon's points: "Treating captives cruelly helps defend against terrorism".
I haven't heard any right-wingers of authority say that. We don't want to torture them in Cuba, we just want to keep them off American soil so we can prosecute them through military courts. Probably Sean Hannity thinks we should be cruel, but no leader does. So your so-called right-wing talking point isn't one.
I gave the left-wing counter as "Treating terrorists as defendants won't lead to another 9/11". The Left's focus seems to be on prosecuting terrorists, after catching them with Interpol and other international police systems. For example, there's been lots of complaining about Bush's low conviction rate against terrorists.
So, which paradigm is reasonable, terrorist as criminal or terrorist as unlawful combatant? A reasonable mind would look at the evidence: the acceleration of attacks against the US in the 1990's (the criminal paradigm) versus the post-9/11 success of the combatant paradigm.
11 - Jon Sobel
Perhaps that particular point hasn't been used as a talking point - it's obviously a policy, though - why would we be doing it if someone didn't think it would help?
I'll address a few of your points (obviously, I don't have enough work to do today...)
"Bush = Hitler"
That's never been a talking point of any sort. It's obviously hyperbole.
"Bush was responsible for 9/11"
Total fringe lunacy, never a liberal talking point of any sort.
"Getting government to run health care will save us money"
Hello, it couldn't be any worse than the system we have now.
"Treating terrorists as defendants won't lead to another 9/11"
I think the whole dichotomy of how we treat terrorists is a false issue. Obviously, a combination of legal and military responses must be used in appropriate situations to try to prevent future terrorist actions.
"We'll somehow have enough fuel without drilling for offshore oil"
No, that's not the point we make. The point is that the Republicans are trying to convince the public that drilling for more oil now will have a significant effect on energy prices now. That's absurd.
"Raise capital gains taxes and the economy won't collapse"
Taxes, taxes... oy vey. That needs its own forum... are you an economist? I'm not. But these issues are all about priorities. Where should revenue come from? Soak the poor and middle class, as is done now? Or ask the rich to pitch in their fair share? What do you think?
"Obama represents a break from politics as usual"
I'll grant you this one. Emotionally, it's true, but he wouldn't be where he is without being a consummate politician. Read up on his history in Chicago and that's very clear.
"Palin is an extremist"
Yes - that's always a loaded word that hides nuance. I wish we'd stop using it. She does represent some extreme positions. Asking to have books banned from a library? Defend that. No abortions even in the case of rape or incest? Defend that.
"Obama will expand government without raising taxes on the average American family"
I don't get you here. No one says or claims this. Who thinks Obama is going to expand the government? (Or are you talking about health care? The Republicans have less than zero credibility on that issue.)
12 - Lee Richards
#10:
"I haven't heard any right-wingers of authority say that."
Cheney: Waterboarding to try to get confessions and information is a "no-brainer".
13 - Arch Conservative
Why is it that every left wing moonbat and his mother loves to bring up FDR?
Aside from the socialist new deal, FDR has absolutely nothing in common witht he uber leftists that wield teh power in today's Dem party.
I doubt FDR would have had a hard on for the uber left's pet causes such as abortion on demand, gay marriage, the removal of all signs of Christianity form our culture, open borders, and the subjecting of American sovereignty to foreign concerns.
FDR was no stranger to discussing his own Christian faith and he gave a parayer on d-day on the radio before the entire nation.
If he tried doing that today the ACLu would be suing him and the loonie libs would be ridiculing him.
14 - Zedd
Sobel,
What a brilliantly thought out piece. Thank you!
It's a bit frustrating when one considers that being nuanced or multidimensional is detrimental if you are trying to serve publicly. The political establishment, the Right namely, has reduced the spectrum of excellence that is required for holding leadership positions to the mastery of exhibiting simple, cliched characterizations (most of the time having to do with a movie western theme).... the myth of the rugged individualist gone bad. Being smart, diligent, resourceful, diplomatic, humble, FOCUSED, collaborative and did I say smart, no longer seems to be of real value even though those are the qualities that are needed in a leader. One would conclude that we don't want good leaders, we want people who will keep us entertained. The skill level that is sought after is limited to being able to throw a verbal jab, quip or shoot a polar bear, oh and decide! Unfortunately, those skills don't meet the expectations of the rest of the world. What these lowered standards do is diminish our significance as a nation. We are reduced to being laughable and because of our arrogance the laughter does not come with pity but a mockery. We also end up with useless policies and disjointed solutions. Our resources are wasted and our talents are ignored. We end up fighting irrelevant battles and diverting from the types of engagements that will create a good quality of life for its citizenry, withering away our hard fought for inheritance.
15 - Baronius
Ding ding ding ding ding!
Soaking the poor and middle class. There's a perfect example of what I think of as a "talking point". (We probably should have defined that word before arguing about them.) I don't know what you think the exact rate is that the lower versus higher incomes should be taxed. But "soaking the middle class" sounds like a casual assumption to me. We do have a progressive tax code in this country, and even with exemptions, the rich carry a higher burden than the poor.
So basically that's my point. You know the subtleties implied by a heavy-handed statement like "soaking the middle class". I understand what "Saddam = Hitler" means, even if it's a clumsy phrase. There's another recent thread on this site, saying something like "We are not amused by the way They try to separate people into Us and Them". At some point, you've just got to say that yeah, I'm guilty of the same thing. I guess that, on my part, treating Rosie O'Donnell as a Democratic spokesman on 9/11 isn't fair.
16 - Baronius
Zedd, you're proving my point. It's amazing how one's own side requires intellectual subtlety, but the other side always appeals to the idiot.
17 - Zedd
You forgot:
Palin = Executive experience.
hahahahahahahah
18 - Zedd
Baronius,
Please state you point simply. I want to understand it.
19 - Jon Sobel
We all tend to be guilty of unfair rhetoric, I agree. I'm working on a little essay about that, actually.
We do have a somewhat progressive INCOME tax (although it should be more so, in my opinion). Capital gains, however, are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. This is one sense in which the poor and middle class are "soaked" - they are the people who earn most or all of their income from paychecks, not capital gains. Where is the fairness there?
There are also a lot of other expenses whose weight bears most heavily on the non-rich. The cost of health care, child care, getting to work, feeding one's family - none of these are progressive.
20 - Zedd
Oh are you saying that Bush, Palin, et al are intellectual giants and we just cant see it because of our political leaning?
21 - Baronius
Zedd - I'm saying exactly what I said. I was chatting with Jon about the fact that both sides look down on the other side's intellect, then you posted a comment attacking "simple, cliched characterizations" from Republicans. That proves my point.
Jon - Of course costs of essentials weigh more heavily on the poor, but that has nothing to do with the tax code. Also, it's worth noting that capital gains taxes are paid by the poor the one year that they're "rich": when they sell off their investments and move to Arizona.
22 - Jon Sobel
Noted, but you didn't address my point. Where's the fairness? And what about the poor and lower middle class who get by paycheck to paycheck and don't actually have any investments? These are the kinds of people Republicans don't care about.
23 - Baronius
Republicans don't care about the poor and middle class. You're just listing these cliched talking points for my amusement, aren't you?
24 - Zedd
Baronius,
You cant ignore issues by simply stating that " but everyone does it". Perhaps you don't have the exposure that would inform you as to the extent of the problem.
25 - Cannonshop
Define "Poor". Define "Middle Class". I've known guys making over thirty an hour without a pot to piss in nor window to throw it out, and I've known people (immigrants mostly) who, making minimum wage, have a bigger portfolio than I do, because they started on it immediately.