http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=18179&forum=DCForumID35&archive=http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25450&forum=DCForumID35&archive=http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=18196&forum=DCForumID35&archive=
The Magistrate (4786 posts) Mar-24-02, 06:44 PM (ET)
34. Why Do They Do Those Things They Do?
This is an excellent topic for discussion. On any rational assessment of the prospects enjoyed by nine persons out of ten, in almost any polity, it is hard to escape the conclusion that psychological factors must condition any mass attachment to a rightist outlook. Serious consideration of this is a good step to advance beyond mere castigation of these people for being misled fools and malignant tools. That can never lead to forging political lines that can affect the enthusiasm of these people’s attachment to rightist views.
Projecting an authoritarian personality type is reminiscent of a common division of humans into those who place greatest value on upholding convention, and those who place greatest value on transgressing it. Both are necessities: things cannot function without being to some degree predictable, and cannot survive without a great degree of flexibility. Shared conventions define the social limits of human groups of all scales, from national states to families. Humans gain such benefits from adherence to some group that they must always be susceptible to placing great value on some collective entity beyond themselves, and willing to do what it takes to belong.
Rightist voting strength in the United States arises from three tendencies. First, a traditionalism of patriotic and religious stripe. Second, a gamble on free market beliefs by people who do not yet own property. Third, people who have calculated that what is good for the boss is good for them in the long run. Persons most moved by these tendencies, it seems to me, are well aware they vote against their immediate economic interest in most cases. Indeed, it is part of the behavior’s attraction for them, that they do so.
Patriotism, the civil religion of identity with one’s country, offers many a solace in their sorrows, by the feeling they are part of a great land; above, and envied, by all. Voting for a candidate who espouses patriotism, or rallying against a candidate who they can see is not a patriot, cements their identity with the national grandeur. For that pleasure, they are willing to pay; there is a positive value on sacrificing oneself for the nation, after all.
Religiosity, the politicization of traditional mores, offers many a panacea against the continual change afflicting their lives; they are sincere in their belief nothing would be wrong if things were like they think they used to be. Voting for a candidate who tells them they are right about that, gives them the momentary thrill of feeling they might actually be making how they think it used to be come true again. For that end, they are willing to pay any sacrifice, perhaps, even, bear any burden.
The largely property-less free-marketeer is in essence the patron at a casino. Voting for the candidate espousing free market principles is the price of admission. Most know, even, that most will fail of success in the game; still, each is sure those will all be other people who fail. The argument may be heard in its purest form from people who think they might win the Lotto, so they don’t want much tax on rich people.
People who calculate that what is good for the boss is good for them in the long run, are frankly confessing their dependence on the boss. Their vote becomes a tangible expression of loyalty, its casting a sort of “kickback,” like an old patronage worker buying tickets to the alderman’s ball. Identifying themselves with greater power makes them feel more secure, confident it will move mostly against other people in its abuses.
Most rightist voters will, as individuals, be moved by some mix of these most basic tendencies, but one or another will be predominant in most. A line based on educating them to their self interest does not seem promising, nor does a line based on increasing the payoff, so to speak, in benefits offered for voting left. These people ascribe a higher value to voting for a rightist candidate than their immediate economic self interest, even feel a thrill of virtue when they do so. They are willing to forego something for that, or simply will conclude that still the free market, or the boss, remains the surest bet in the long run.
It would be worth something to the left to contrive some line that would make the “anti-patriot” charge less easy for rightist politicos to sustain among the people. Patriotism in the United States has libertarian and revolutionist elements built into it that could just as easily be given a turn towards the left as to the right. Indeed, this was a leading feature of Depression Era radicalism in the United States, before the Cold War straight-jacket. Sullying the actual patriotism of rightist politicos does offer some promising lines of attack, to at least depress patriotic turnout to the polls.
By identifying rightists politicos with looted corporations and rigged markets, the attachment to them of largely property-less free-marketeers may be diminished. Left candidates who can display at least a familiarity with market workings, particularly by career, will be able to appeal to them, against a candidate sullied by the miasmic corruption of Enron. Nobody wants to go where the game’s crooked; town’s got to have a sheriff.
The boss will have to be clearly on the run before the people who figure what is good for the boss is good for them will re-think their allegiances, and so the thing will have to be done without regard for them. Similarly, the adherents to traditional mores, politicized to the enforcement of convention, must continue in hostile relation toward the transgressions of convention characteristic of some elements of the left, even though these contribute little to the changes which upset the traditionalists so. The great preponderance of that is due to the ordinary workings of free markets.
"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."
"Political action is the art of getting people to think your thoughts, and think them their own as they do. It succeeds when the beholder’s response is, that’s just what I think! In electoral politics, the group whose political lines evoke the most such responses among the people wins."
TahitiNut (7058 posts) Mar-24-02, 07:32 PM (ET)
Reply to post #34
36. Yes, there's value in this discussion ...
... if only because it leads back to "first principles" and, additionally, may stimulate some introspection.
"
Projecting an authoritarian personality type is reminiscent of a common division of humans into those who place greatest value on upholding convention, and those who place greatest value on transgressing it."
This is, I believe, mostly an issue of faith vs. fear. We either believe that truth will prevail and people are innately good, and learn from mistakes, or we believe that truth is weak and needs our help and that people are innately bad and must be kept from behaving harmfully. Such presumptions are not exclusively conservative vs. liberal. Many are those who call themselves "liberal" who would impose authoritarian dogma over the behavior of others, both prescribing and proscribing behavior, rather than relying upon first principles of justice and recourse to courts of law. (There's a fundamental difference between "laws" that regulate behavior and "laws" that offer an opportunity for dispute resolution and compensation for harm.)
"
Patriotism, the civil religion of identity with one’s country, offers many a solace in their sorrows, by the feeling they are part of a great land; above, and envied, by all."
We often choose to affiliate ourselves with some label that confers upon us an enhanced prestige, as a shortcut to earning that prestige for ourselves ... often forgetting that the prestige in that label is derived from the contributions and investments made by others. This is a form of parasitology ... one that's encouraged by commercialism. Indeed, we've even become so socially codependent on such labels that we engage in hype and marketing to propagandistically create an illusion of prestige when the reality is insufficient to achieve it legitimately. How many people actually contribute to making Harvard a prestige school? How many merely feed upon that prestige? How many people actually contributed to making America a prestigious country? How many merely feed upon that prestige? The prototypical examples are plentiful, and include the Marines, Nike, Porsche, and various professional organizations. Most recently we've seen "FDNY" caps on every wannabe head ... feeding on the prestige of death.
Furthermore, we've even adopted an authoritarian approach to prestige parasitology. Who has not seen "leaders" enhance their own autocratic power by acting as the conferrer of "honors" and "recognitions"? The executive who confers "Employee of the Month" awards is elevated by every employee wishing to "earn" such recognition. Hitler reveled in making such awards. Gandhi never did. See the difference?
"
Religiosity, the politicization of traditional mores, offers many a panacea against the continual change afflicting their lives"
Faith organizations have largely become a corruption of faith itself. Rather than nurture the development of spiritual growth in its members/students, religions are serving more to impose dogmatic behavioral templates over others. Evangelism has more in common with Imperialism than education. Most of those who think "Christ is the answer" (or "Allah is the answer") have evaded asking better questions (and avoid learning), and punish the heretics who have the temerity to do so. When an organization is populated with those who seek the paternalism and authoritarianism of autocrats, the autocrats will rise to positions of control. The only faith tradition I know of that has succumbed the least to this is Buddhism.
The secular religions of nationalism, commercialism, and politics have succumbed to the authoritarian/autocracy twinning as well. Even in these fora we hear the confusion of ends and means ... with the purported means of the Democratic Party's ascendancy being the articulated ends rather than the underlying socio-political principles.
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." — Robert F. Kennedy (1964)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(285 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
