Anti-Rational Politics
Politics in America will get more and more pathetic unless and until rationality and the natural world, as it is understood by science, get some respect.
The anti-intellectual tradition in America is part of the cultural bedrock supporting right wing power, but the Left also has a version of it. The corresponding phenomenon on the Left is New Age sentimentality. If you believe in what makes you feel good, then you'll believe whoever makes you feel good. You might vote for some charismatic figure or not vote at all if no candidate makes you feel good enough. If, on the other hand, you believe in hypothesis testing and reality, then you are more likely to figure out how to vote for your own best enlightened interests. Which is what hasn't been happening enough in America.
The spread of belief in comforting supernatural fantasies intrinsically helps politicians who don't face reality, and at this moment they tend to be Republicans, but that could just be a passing phase. New Age magical thinking ultimately harms progressive politics as much as fundamentalism propels the current excesses of the Right (where it strengthens the alliance between the churches and the wealthy.) Somehow I doubt Deepak Chopra is a big Republican supporter, for instance, but by promoting Intelligent Design he discourages reality-based thinking and therefore encourages our current sorry crop of reality-challenged leaders.
[Jaron Lanier, "Intelligent Design and the Quest for a Survivable Spirituality", The Huffington Post, 29 August 2005.]
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 at 01.54
Permalink
Excellent piece of exposition. I'm especially taken with this:
"You might vote for some charismatic figure or not vote at all if no candidate makes you feel good enough."
It explains Ronald Reagan's electoral successes and in no small part, George W. Bush's, if likeability can be substituted for charismatic.
As unsettling as having to endure what passes for leadership from these people is the realization of what their success tells knowledgeable, experienced, dedicated, quality people who seek, or might like to seek, elective office. The worry is that after awhile, our best and brightest will no longer be willing to give it a try.