Thursday, May 24, 2012

Peacocks and Propheteers of the Left

We left off yesterday with the assertion that the lofty program of the mystico-political gnostic is pretty much half-baked if not half-assed, and that his actual goal "need not be understood very precisely."

In fact, this gaseous mystagoguery isn't optional for the political gnostic, since both the goal and the means will be seen as dangerous or cuckoo if spelled out in detail. It's not a bug but a feature. ("You have to pass the bill to see what's in it.")

Expressed another way, the political gnostic needs to arouse and enlist emotion without engaging the critical intellect. Or, if intellect is involved, it must be in conformity with deeper emotional prejudices.

This is why I am convinced that political differences have much more to do with culture than with fact and logic. We talk about a "culture war" as part of a wider political conflict, but it's really the other way around: the political war is a subset of the culture war. It explains why, say, Jews and blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat against their own values and interests.

The Democratic party surely helps some individual blacks through its corrupt system of victim patronage and racial spoils, but it cannot be seriously argued that leftist policies help blacks as an aggregate, as most recently witnessed by the disparate impact of the Obama economy on blacks and other minorities.

And Jews are so successful in any context that they are almost a case of the "peacock's tail," or handicap principle of evolution. The useless extravagance of the male peacock's tail is said to signal a kind of "conspicuous consumption" on the part of the cock, as if he is saying to the cockette: "Hey baby, look at me. I'm so genetically fit that I can squander my precious genetic inheritance on this crazy tail!"

Likewise, Jews -- and any affluent liberal, really, e.g., actors and rock stars -- telegraph various cultural signals via the adoption of extravagant, wasteful, and inefficient liberalism.

To take just one obvious example of how this might work, it is routine for anti-Semites to accuse Jews of greed, or money-grubbing, or selfishness (or Palestinian hatred, for that martyr). What better way to deflect this oogedy-bigotry than to adhere to a philosophy that pisses away trillions of dollars in the name of altruism? (To paraphrase someone, "my goal in life is to be wealthy enough to vote Democrat.")

I just recently read a book called Four Cultures of the West that adds some useful insights, one of which is that the cultural container is just as important as the content -- almost a variant of "the medium is the message." It explains how, for example, there can be prophet-based cultures that seem opposite but actually share the same deeper structure.

Looked at in this way, a wild-eyed "scientific prophet" such as Al Gore has more in common with the style (style, not content) of Martin Luther or John the Baptist than with Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein.

This also sheds light on a previous episode of cultural conflict, the European religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. In reality, religion was just a pretext to unleash violence and barbarism that had more to do with cultural differences than with religious doctrine. As O'Malley explains, different cultures were "doing battle with one another under the cover of religious polemics."

That line struck me, because I think it applies equally to the present, in which sub-cultures are battling one another under the cover of political polemics. This is much easier for a conservative to appreciate than it is for a liberal, since liberals are always blinded by the conceit that their ideas and policies are completely rational, "reality-based," and universal.

It is difficult for a liberal to recognize that he's actually part of a tribe (it was much more obvious in the 1960s), and that his intellect is influenced by deeper springs of kinship and xenophobia. This is why, even when they are trying to be charitable, they always regard conservatives as some sort of alien species.

Consider this typical example dissected by Taranto yesterday (second story down), a "lurid fantasy" penned by some liberal hysteric who imagines that the people who disagree with him constitute a tiny and irrelevant minority fit only to inhabit reservations. In other words, half the country should confine itself to self-enclosed ghettos. What's especially ironic is that we already have self-enclosed ghettos crawling with political eccentrics and batty moonorities. But maybe he never went to college.

Indeed, it is an enduring theme on the left that the mere fact of conservatism requires some sort of pseudo-scientific explanation, since the ideas and principles it promulgates needn't be taken seriously. Thus, the two cultures are often operating on different levels. Conservatives argue fact and logic, but liberals ignore this in favor of a hermeneutical/deconstructive approach that "interprets" what conservatives are "really saying."

For example, when we say that we cherish the liberal principle of racial color-blindness, they interpret this as a cover for racial bigotry. Or, when we suggest that it is a dangerously radical thing to redefine the essential unit of civilization, they interpret this as "homophobia." When we say that we don't believe women are an oppressed minority, they interpret this as misogyny. Fighting for our natural rights under the first amendment is just the nefarious business of a shadowy right wing cabal.

Here again, the left wages a culture war without even knowing it. They do not engage on the plane of ideas, but only pretend to do so. There is no need to actually do the math to determine if a punitive tax on the successful will do anything to mitigate our fiscal calamity. Rather, this is just another liberal dog-whistle that only the envious can hear.

The four cultures described by O'Malley are the prophetic, the academic/professional, the humanistic, and the artistic. These days the academic/professional mostly goes under the name of science, while the humanistic embodies literature. Ironically, there is a huge culture war between these two that goes mostly unacknowledged, at least on the left.

For example, there is no way to reconcile the goofy relativism and deconstruction of the humanities departments with the type of pompously unambiguous truths churned out by popular science. This leads to all sorts of interesting conflicts, for example, the pseudo-scientific idea that sexual orientation is genetically fixed, vs. the subhumanistic idea that gender is just a cultural construct that is imposed upon us. (Someone -- can't remember who at the moment -- reminded us of the Monty Python skit in which the new father asks the doctor if it's a boy or girl, and he curtly responds, "It's a bit early to begin imposing gender roles, don't you think?")

One could also the cite the Darwinian idea that homosexuality is the one thing that should never occur in a system that revolves around reproductive success, vs. the romantic idea that there can never be anything unnatural about homosexuality.

Obama is a classic case (at least in 2008) of the prophetic genre, even though he and his acolyteweights like to think that they are all about Reality.

Of the prophetic idiom, O'Malley writes that "fundamentalists both religious and secular are comfortable here," for "it is the culture, above all, of the reformer decrying injustice and corruption in high places."

It is the culture that denounces the existing order, while holding out vague but grandiose "promises of better times to come," i.e., weaponized hopenchange. It is "the culture of great expectations, expectations that surpass anything that seems humanly possible." And it is usually gnostic, since it is "revealed to the few, hidden from the many." Which brings us full circle and ends this post.


JP said...

Homosexuality (male) could be somewhat adaptive if you decrease the masculinity of each subsequent male offspring to a given female.

The purpose of this would be to reduce the risk that the males in any given family end up killing each other.

Gagdad Bob said...

There are less disturbing ways. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Van Harvey said...

" We talk about a "culture war" as part of a wider political conflict, but it's really the other way around: the political war is a subset of the culture war"

Exactly so! My phone is not windy friendly, so I'll leave it at that for now... but...YEP!

River Cocytus said...

Not to mention the class war, if we define class as different than wealth (which it actually) is.

But how to bring the symbols together? We have the four suits: Swords, Cups, Rods and Coins:

We have the four cultures: Prophetic, Scientific, Humanistic, and Artistic.

As I see it, class is related to vocation, such as the fact that all Lords, no matter what their level of wealth or secondary interests were primarily in the business of ruling estates and governing.

It suggests a civilizational matrix not unlike the matrix given by Meyers-Briggs.

julie said...

... liberals are always blinded by the conceit that their ideas and policies are completely rational and "reality-based."


EbonyRaptor said...

"... the two cultures are often operating on different levels. Conservatives argue fact and logic, but liberals ignore this in favor of a hermeneutical/deconstructive approach that "interprets" what conservatives are "really saying.""

The impasse. Reason is insufficient if it can't be communicated.

Communication was confounded at Babel and just the opposite at Pentecost. Human communication cannot succeed apart from God's plan.

Gagdad Bob said...

Excellent way of putting it. Just yesterday I read something similar: "If modern men are so absent from each other, it is primarily because they are absent from themselves, since they have abandoned the eternal which alone establishes them in being and enables them to communicate with one another."

In the absence of this higher third which individual minds converge upon, communication cannot succeed except in trivial ways.

Van Harvey said...

Yep. If you are not open to the Truth, you cannot reason, you have nihil to communicate... you're just dancin' with yourself.

julie said...

Along those lines, earlier this week Sipp's son had some good observations about kids these days:

"-She's like my friends. She doesn't know how to answer a phone.
-What do you mean? They all have $500 phones.
-They don't know how to answer them.
-How can that be?
-They all are iPhone type slabs and they have to lock them so they don't butt-dial 911 and their mother twenty-five times a day. They can't unlock them fast enough to answer them.
-Well, why don't you leave them a voicemail and tell them to call you back?
-Dad, they have no idea how to use voicemail. All their mailboxes are full and have never been listened to."

There's much more, of course; as always with Sipp, it's good to read the whole thing. I've seen this same phenomenon with a range of people, not just kids. People who don't want to communicate, just stare in the mirror in such a way that everyone else looks, too.

Van Harvey said...

Julie said "People who don't want to communicate, just stare in the mirror in such a way that everyone else looks, too."

Echo and Narcissus.

Robohobo said...

One is just ignorant-stupid; the other is evil-stupid.

From Jeff's PW site by squid.

The Progs from Left Lagoon do not understand the hell on earth they may unleash should they actually get their wishes to bring down this house. It does not matter the nature of their stupid - evil or ignorant - to quote a fairly bright man - "Stupid is as stupid does."

When it all gets too rough they will not survive.