Maynard rambles on and on about the abstract question: Who is the Boss? (strictly for serious pseudointellectuals)
Our politics often derives from our emotional baggage. I find the baggage (fundamental stuff) much more interesting than the politics (which are only symptoms).
Forgive the cliché, but with respect to the question of “Who controls the world?”, there are two classes of people. We all understand that there are many powerful forces that exercise some degree of control: Governments, corporations, unions, religions, secret societies, space aliens, etc. etc. The two classes of people I refer to are those who, on one hand, a) Believe that powerful forces are in full control of the world, as opposed to b) Those who believe that powerful forces merely aspire to control the world.
The distinction is important. Class (a) tends to think in us-versus-them or authoritarian terms; Class (b) is more inclined to live and let live, somewhat reassured by the notion that the world is full of bumblers who must ultimately rise and fall through merit, in spite of their stupid and/or sinister ideas. Obviously there is much blending of the two ideologies in the real world, so I don’t want to oversimplify, but I think most of us lean one way or the other in our interpretations of events. I’ll broadly claim that the “Leftists” (or, more broadly categorized, paranoids) lean towards (a) and the “Conservatives” lean towards (b).
For example, consider the question of why there are there slums, or why there is AIDS. Class (a) people think that slums and AIDS and other bad things happen because of a grand plan that it should be that way. Class (b) people will offer various opinions about why slums and AIDS exist, and may go so far as to assert that non-slum dwellers should do more to eliminate slums and that we all should help battle AIDS, but they do not believe that slums and AIDS are the result of a malicious or deliberate plan.
I’m thinking about how Class (a) people come to their worldview. I don’t want to single out the African-American community, but it’s the example that comes to mind, and where Class (a) thinking seems to predominate, at least as expressed by political leadership. I wonder if that goes back to the culture of slavery and the plantation. In the plantation days, there was a Boss, and the Boss was responsible for everything. And, once you have the notion of a Boss in your head, it’s hard to get that notion out of your head. You assimilate your perceptions within the framework of a certain structure, even if you have to warp a few facts to make it fit. We tell the freed slaves that the Boss is gone, and they can’t help but wonder who the new Boss is. If I’m not the Boss, then you must be the Boss. And the person who stands accused of being Boss can argue until he’s blue in the face, and it doesn’t mean a thing. There cannot not be a Boss. It’s unthinkable.
Obviously a broad parallel about slavery could be made of many historical cultures in which people were subject to absolute authority — either in the form of monarchy, or various degrees of involuntary servitude, such as serfdom, or even victims of a rigid class structure.
The Biblical analogy comes in Exodus, where the Israelites escaped from slavery in Egypt following a series of miracles, and yet they immediately backslid and worshiped a god of gold and contemplated a return to Egypt. And thus they were condemned to remain 40 years in the desert, until the first generation passed on and the next generation had shed the bondage of the mind.
The American Revolution may have been a unique event in history. There have been many, many revolutions, and usually the revolutionaries ended up making an even bigger mess of things than the predecessor they deposed. Indeed, there were certain perilous ideas contemplated in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Perhaps a President should preside for life? Perhaps a President should be featured on our coinage, as were the monarchs? Or, more ominously, the Continental Army was seriously tempted to march on Philadelphia and take over. They had been frozen and starved and mistreated, and they deserved more than they got. And that’s where George Washington made his famous speech about going grey and blind in service of his country. Do you recall the story? Washington had ostentatiously reached for his spectacles in order to read his correspondence. The topic under discussion was whether the Army should issues demands. Washington, by his show of humility, quelled the mutinous tide. And thus the USA became a new thing, the likes of which had not been seen before.
Nevertheless, I might also note that, in another sense, America was born on the plantation. The industrial northeast did not exist, and the power favored the South any way you looked at it. It stretched the imagination to contemplate that America would ever be more than an agrarian power. And many liked it that way. A quote attributed to Jefferson: “Leave the sweatshops in Europe.” The United States was to remain a sylvan paradise.
The Constitution was designed to assure that the balance of power would always favor the South. Then, unexpectedly, the industrial northeast grew and overtook the South. It’s pretty funny how that happened, when you think about it. The South was lush and verdant. The North was a bunch of rocks and mountains that ran into the ocean. No sane person would have predicted what happened. (In a similar sense, it’s hard for us to comprehend why so many places blessed by abundant mineral wealth (e.g., oil), are incorrigible hellholes. But it’s the same principle at work, and I don’t mean an evil conspiracy. Wealth is created, not extracted. Slave states create less wealth than free states, just as capitalist states create more wealth than socialist states. Sitting on an oil well is nice, but it doesn’t alter this fundamental principle.)
Anyway, the point I’m meandering towards is that Jefferson founded the predecessor to the Democrat Party, and thus the roots of the Democrat Party are in the agrarian South. The Republican Party was born of the vision of an industrial nation, with a productive and educated work force. (Example of Republican vision: In 1862, the Morrill Act granted lands for the promotion of colleges “related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.” Under this grant, each qualifying state received 30,000 acres for each member of congress from that state. This was a foundation of the system of state colleges.) Some suggest that the Republicans have lost touch with the people these days, and have become a business party, and that it’s the Democrats who stand by the little guy. But the fact is, the Republicans have always been a pro-business party at heart, because they understood that industry and prosperity went hand-in-hand. The Democrats have gone from representing the plantation owners to representing the entire plantation, but the general acceptance of a Boss man is fundamental to the Democrat philosophy.
Obviously the foregoing is a vast oversimplification, and you can easily cite anecdotal counterexamples. And obviously both parties have vastly evolved over many years of existence. Nevertheless, I may have stated a basic truth about why the parties are as they are. In a structural sense, the Democrats were born on the plantation and the Republicans were born in the factory.
To carry the analogy in a different direction: What is the difference between socialism and capitalism? I’ll offer this unusual definition: Socialism (and all the other isms) derive from the theory the a man is smarter than his money. The theory of capitalism is that the money is smarter than the man. I feel awkward saying this, because of course I’m a capitalist, but I also prefer to think that I’m smarter than the bills in my pocket. Doesn’t everybody want to believe this? But it’s not true. Sure, we capitalists all have our theories of what should be done with money. Should we buy a car? Should we invest in a factory? So the money goes here and the money goes there, and some of it fails, and some of it is fruitful and multiplies. In a capitalist environment, we make our best guess, but the money has the last word. When we guess wrong, the money goes away. When we guess right, the money comes back having reaped a bountiful harvest. But we accept, and are educated by, the verdict of reality. On the other hand, in a socialist model (consider public schools as an example), we don’t let the market decide. We command the money to perform a task, and then we declare the task a success (or, occasionally, a failure). There is a very indirect linkage between whether the endeavor actually succeeded in its avowed purpose. We declare that is succeeded. We are smarter than the money. We are smarter than the world.
In short, socialism proclaims a Boss. Capitalism perceives, not a Boss, but a winner.
Again, I don’t want to oversimplify. Darwinism also proclaims a winner, but I don’t want to laud the Law of the Jungle. We temper Darwinism with a moral structure. That is, capitalism is a tool, just as socialism is a tool. It just so happens that capitalism is, on the evidence, a better tool.
This brings us back to religion. It’s easy to proclaim God as the Boss, but what does that mean? And this could be the subject for another endless rant, which I mercifully won’t enter into now. But I do appreciate the model of God as the source of our absolute principles; principles that could not be derived by logic alone. For example, logic can’t tell us that slavery is wrong; neither can it tell us that humans are more important than chickens. It’s a matter of faith that all men are created equal, and also a matter of faith that your life is of greater value than a chicken’s life.
Of course, when we apply our principles to the complexity of the real world, things get murky. I think it’s important to ask questions like “What would Jesus do?”, although the answers may be evasive. But asking the question implies that you do believe an answer exists, even if we can’t quite nail it down. And of course it implies that you are accountable for that answer to a Higher Authority.
Israel is the name God gave to Jacob, the Jewish patriarch. Jacob met an angel of God while traveling, and he got into a long, physical fight with that angel. The name Jacob means, approximately, “man who wrestled with God”. I like that. It validates my own sense of struggle; the quest to be more righteous in spite of my imperfections, and the knowledge that I’ll never quite get there.
By contrast, “Islam” translates approximately to mean “submit to God”. You see the contrast? The Jews struggle; the Muslims obey. Perhaps this makes the Muslims fall into the Class (a) I described earlier. And when I think of obeying, I also think of the Germans. Perhaps, in order to achieve Class (b), we’ve got to struggle with God. If we merely submit to God (or whatever brave new authority replaces God), perhaps we’re doomed to become robots and fanatics.
However, I can’t say anything like that without contradicting myself (just to show how I struggle), so it must be noted that Hitler’s infamous book, “Mein Kampf”, means “My Struggle”. And this is perhaps the supreme irony. Because if you ask what is the perfect title for anyone’s autobiography, a title that would apply to all of us, then how could you do better than “My Struggle”? And who was it who claimed this universal autobiography title? Hitler! Do you think God has a sense of irony? I do.
I shall conclude this essay now. If I had a point, I’ve either made it or it isn’t going to happen.
Maynard wrote:
“Our politics often derives from our emotional baggage. I find the baggage (fundamental stuff) much more interesting than the politics (which are only symptoms)”
From one pseudointellectual to another, that is my attitude as well. Perhaps we both need to get out more.
I look to personality theory as the model to understand the emotional “fundamental stuff” behind the politics as “symptoms”. For my own self, I have a compulsive personality and consider myself a raving conservative. Let’s look at existing models to understand personality — the DSM-IV’s OCPD (Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder) and NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), or compulsives (OCPD) and narcissists (NPD), which are really polar opposites of each other. I run the only active internet support forum for those with OCPD and their loved ones (google OCPD) and there are a myriad number of forums concerning NPD (google npd support forum (no quotes) for the best one). What interests me is the apparent affinity between OCPD and the right wing, and NPD and the left wing.
Compulsives have harsh consciences and as such always try to do the right thing, tell the truth, and hew to their own personal values. Good professions for them: accountant, computer programmer, copy editor, medical transcriptionist, court reporter, or some other technical field. Narcissists are more concerned with image over substance and would rather feel good than be right. They are good at acting, sales, advertising, and public relations. To use a very rough generalization, those with OCPD don’t how how to feel while those with NPD don’t know how to think ; compulsives are more interested in doing what they think is right, narcissists in feeling good. With respect to your phrase “fundamental stuff”, the personality of compulsives is organized to avoid guilt and so can’t stand doing anything wrong while the personality of narcissists is organized to avoid shame and so can’t stand feeling bad.
When I read Tammy’s humorous nickname for some on the left as “malnars” (short for malignant narcissists) I wondered is there a similarly pejorative appellation for those on the right. Perhaps “selfrights”, short for the self-righteous?
To return to your thesis of the (a)s and (b)s. It’s almost a question of where one believes meaning comes from, the outside or the inside. To liberals meaning is in the social milieu. Stereotypes are living things with great power. Things happen to them from the outside in. For conservatives the power is in the individual and the action is from the inside out. Lady Thatcher once said “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families”. As a conservative I must ask, isn’t that wonderful?
Back to personality. When you ask who’s the boss, for compulsives it’s the individual, for narcissists, it’s society, or powerful institutions, or “the Man”. Narcissists frequently feel like the victim, that things are being done to them. Many on the right such as Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Bernard Goldberg have written about the mind of the left wing. It’s fascinating to consider. I was just browsing a comments thread on a left-wing blog (it might have been atrios, not sure) and what struck me was a common theme of “right wingers, we’re making the same kind of personal attacks you are, we’re only doing what you’re doing — you’re criticizing us for the same thing that you do”. As if this is a justification for behavior — “you do it too”? What right winger would ever argue that to excuse his own behavior? Would it ever happen? “You do it too”? No, the right winger has his own values, that is the yardstick he uses to measure his own behavior.
It’s easy to criticize the mind of the liberal. But I try to recall the biblical admonition “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?”. The right wing is about justice and the law while the left is about compassion. Maybe I need to work a bit more on developing my compassionate side and not demonize others just because they may be a bit narcissistic.
We must ask ourselves — how well can we discuss political issues until we conclusively sift through our own emotional baggage.
A final caveat. Not every conservative is a compulsive and not every liberal is a narcissist. It’s more of a (strong, IMHO) trend than a truism. After all, Ted Bundy was a Republican. We can fall on any side of the political spectrum we wish. Yet it’s instructive to understand how closely the underlying dynamics of these two predominant American political ideologies relate to these two basic personality types of OCPD and NPD.
From one Thinker to another — good topic.
Quick comment on “market forces†as something that simply observes a “winner.â€What happens now that so many nations are rushing toward the same economic objectives, developing toward a homogenous future that is so crowded and where we are so much alike that nothing is special? Standing room only in the rush to be the same. Yuck. With such narrowing of choice and direction in human endeavors it sounds like we all lose. Also, there is no freedom when there is no room to maneuver.
Also, good to be a struggler, Maynard. In my view, they are people who grapple with the knowledge that all human activity is self-defining. That things like decency and fairness should have expression in all activity (even through the market) because it matters if we are to matter. Strugglers don’t experience that sense of inevitability about the world that submitters or those prone to prophecy have and there is an understanding of the connectedness, a unity among all people. Strugglers do right because it is right and enhances us all. When right is not accomplished, we are all diminished. I consider myself a struggler, btw. 🙂
Btw: I think I would have liked Jefferson. He worried greatly over loss of social decency. He wanted to “keep the workshops in Europe†in order to preserve the “manners and spirit†of the people. In all things, his innermost commitment was to the greater social good and felt that factory cities (really unconstrained growth of any kind) would eat away at our society, our laws and our constitution. he has a point.
Hope this made some kind of sense. (smile). Best to everyone.
I’m not nearly OC enough to even think of addressing all the things that caught my attention in Hors…, uh, I mean Maynard’s and Paul’s lengthy comments.
But I couldn’t let this one by Paul go. “The right wing is about justice and the law while the left is about compassion.” I hope you don’t really believe that about the Left.
The Left harbors none of the compassion they pretend to. Because in their arrogant self-righteousness (or their state of MalNar if you prefer) they operate strictly from human viewpoint which strictly narrows their way of thinking. They detest people, believing the majority of us are only fit to rule over… because they know better.
Love and compassion lives in the heart of a true Conservative. Because we love, we want everyone to have the opportunity to participate. Because we love, we want to destroy the evil amongst us. Because we love, we want everyone to be free. Because we love, we would give our own lives.
I John 4:19 “We love because He first loved us.”
~From someone who is not an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise.
:o)
Tink wrote:
“But I couldn’t let this one by Paul go. ‘The right wing is about justice and the law while the left is about compassion.’ I hope you don’t really believe that about the Left. The Left harbors none of the compassion they pretend to.”
I *so* knew someone here would contend with that. I KNEW it. Since I’m on the right, in most ways I agree with you. I’ve been on the internet since working to get my quotes up onto Talkback Live on CNN from Compuserve chat in 1994. I’ve seen a lot. I’ve seen the way liberals “debate” and how they treat those who disagree with them. I’ve seen the venom. I’ve even noted how more solicitous those on the right are than the left when a newbie arrives in a chat room and needs help getting situated, or even with some personal problem. I used to say liberals seem to love humanity, it’s just individuals who they hate.
Being on the right perhaps I can’t do justice to the good qualities of those on the left. But consider this. Who is more likely to bend or break the rules to help another person, someone on the right, or on the left? The leftwinger, yes? Sure it probably makes them feel good to do so, but do you discount it for that reason? Is it ever compassionate to take money from person A and give it to person B? Sometimes it’s a tough call. Sometimes yes. Yes, sometimes, perhaps most times a well-meaning social program can have the opposite effect, such as LBJ’s welfare programs which seem to have done so much damage over the years. I agree with you completely when you write “Love and compassion lives in the heart of a true Conservative”. But the truth is I need to move past my current sentiment that “I guess the left is just a bunch of bug-house nutty insane crazy nutball moonbats”. It’s a struggle. I’m working on it. Sometimes though it’s really difficult to see past their venom. I’d love to see more articulate spokesmen on their side. I’m sure there are well-meaning people on the left. Frankly I have a lot of trouble understanding their logic though. Sorry this is quite a disorganized post. It’s late.
That’s an interesting suggestion, that the narcissists naturally lean Left and the compulsives tilt Right. I might say the Left derives its structures from its emotions, whereas the Right is inclined to create structures more objectively, to which it then reacts emotionally. That’s what compulsion is; the sense of being trapped within a structure. I’m not sure if this bit of trivia is relevant, but I’m free-associating to a snippet of the movie (not particularly recommended) “Bad Timing. Art Garfunkel, playing a shrink, offers a passing observation that practitioners of bondage activities tended towards political conservatism. I wondered whether that line was actually a clinical comment, or maybe it was just tossed in randomly by the scriptwriter. Can’t say from my own personal experiences, which is limited to maybe a little (ahem!) horsewhipping and the like. Nor have I ever had any particular issues with OCD. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive. I am not obsessive.
“Who is more likely to bend or break the rules to help another person, someone on the right, or on the left? The leftwinger, yes? Sure it probably makes them feel good to do so, but do you discount it for that reason?”
—Yes I usually do discount it because it makes them feel good to bend the rules only when it is for some real or perceived benefit to themselves…the “helping others” rationale is merely self-justification.
Paul maybe you’re getting too deep about it. I only think of the Leftists in the “business” as nuts. In my own life I just take each person as they come and figure it out from there, and try to find some common ground. One of the most interesting things I’ve observed among my friends and people I work with (most all are on the left to some degree) is that they personally live and function much more like Conservatives than Leftists… and they don’t even realize it. I’ve really come to appreciate Tammy’s repitition about the groupthink of the Left. I sort of view it as a slave mentality like the Exodus generation who wanted to go back to being slaves in Egypt where they would be taken care of. The Left stands firmly on the shifting sands of their beliefs and don’t even know why. Maybe they are full of fear.
I’ve enjoyed our little chat Paul. :o)