Foggy Bottom Line

Politics, Economics, and Other Silly Things

Archive for category Cognitive Dissonance

Investigating Torture

Sep 4

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in American Apologists, Cognitive Dissonance, Globalization, History, IR Theory, Neoconservative, Terrorism, Torture, US Hegemony, al Qaeda

Someone recently asked me for my thoughts on the Justice Department investigation into allegations that American soldiers, intelligence agents, and other agents of the state have tortured detainees since the terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  This has him quite worried, mainly that such an investigation might chill efforts on the part of state agents to deter, prevent, or investigate future attacks.  Our troops and operatives, he frets,  would refuse to do the necessary hard work of forcing information from prisoners if they worried about later prosecution.

This is for me a feature, not a bug–agents of the United States Government have no business torturing information out of prisoners.  Moreover, the state should have very little authority to categorize human beings as threatening to society outside the court system.  Citizens should hold agents of the state accountable for violation of national and international law.  Agents acting in secret, especially, must know that their actions will be scrutinized and evaluated for effectiveness and conformity with law and policy.  This is really a very straightforward principle-agent problem between the citizen and the State.

But what if this scrutiny really does have a chilling effect on operatives in their attempts to gather useful intelligence on terrorist and other enemy activity?  I say, so what? Read the rest of this entry »

Tags:

No Comments

School Daze

Sep 4

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Cognitive Dissonance, Conservatism, Culture Wars, President Obama, Reactionaries, US Politics

It is hard to imagine a more conservative message for kids than “your education is your responsibility–work hard.”  So the right-wing-nutjob reaction to President Obama’s plan for an inspirational online chat with school kids must have another explanation.

Conservative leaders have figured out that their base, as well as non-trivial numbers of independents, are susceptible to propaganda about liberal leaders and policies.  They know they can lie about what a particular bill contains, or about the policy preferences of Democratic politicians and other leaders.  This is partly a cognitive dissonance problem–whack-jobs simply disregard facts if they don’t support their beliefs.  It also depends on a general failure to pay attention, leaving the field to the loudest most obnoxious voices, whether or not they truthfully describe events.

Conservatives also understand that given their performance over the last few years, anything that resembles successful liberal leadership or policy could leave them in the political wilderness for decades.  It could also degrade the utility of their strongest argument: that government cannot competently solve social problems.

So Republican leaders and conservative activists have to stop any policy change contemplated by the Democrats or President Obama.  Anything the liberals implement might work, and indeed simply making necessary changes makes them look effective, whether or not the policies themselves improve the lives of Americans.  This explains the GOP recalcitrance on health care reform.  They cannot allow anything at all to pass, since this will look like a political victory just because something got through, and whatever passes will likely improve the system we have now.

It also explains the conservative attack on the President as a “socialist,” and their comparison of him to Hitler and Stalin.  They have to mischaracterize his policies, and one way to do that is to paint them with a broad brush–they know the base will fear the worst, and many others will accept the signal as sent without investigating its veracity.  This is the only way they can build opposition to policies that most Americans have said they support in the past.

To win in a political, social, and demographic climate that increasingly favors liberals, the Republicans must mischaracterize both their own leaders and policies and that of their opponents.  Nothing else explains their rejection of the most conservative message possible: take responsibility for yourself.  Further proof that Democrats are the real conservatives.  Conservatives are simply reactionaries (more on that later).

No Comments

Queen v. Queen: Why Conservatism is Slipping

Apr 27

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in American Apologists, Cognitive Dissonance, Culture Wars, Family, Free Market, Gay Marriage, Globalization, Marriage, Religious Conservatives, Wingnuts, Wingnuttia

The anti-gay marriage crowd went bonkers once again last week when Perez Hilton, an openly gay B-list celebrity and social commentator asked a Miss America contestant whether or not other states should follow Vermont by leagalizing same-sex marriaige.  The contestant, Carrie Prejean, answered,

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.”

Mr. Hilton voted against her, she came in second to Miss North Carolina, and the right went ballistic once more about the homosexual agenda, political correctness, “gay totalitarians,” and attacks on traditional values, whatever those are.

It should surprise no one that this answer, which favored a reactionary religious stance without regard to the nuances of the issue or any discusson of the idea that this debate really does have two sides, cost this woman competition points.  The purpose of questions like this in beauty pageants is to uphold the pretense that the woman’s brain is at least as important as her appearance in skimpy outfits, the size of her boobs, or the silkiness of her hair.  The fact that Miss Prejean could offer no informed opinion on why she thought states should not legalize homosexual marriage beyond her own family tradition is what cost her the crown, not the actual opinion she expressed.

Of course, conservatives want to generate outrage over this, since they have no real answer to the discrimiation argument in support of gay marriage.  So they blame phantom agendas and totalitarians for Miss Prejean’s loss, and scream bloody murder about this newest example of how Hollywood liberals and gays are destroying the American way of life.  This probablygives them some satisfaction, but if they want to know why their popularity continues to slip they should look in the mirror at the angry people they have become.

Most of what you see on the blogs linked above–not only on this subject–is anger, rage, and reactive foot stomping over percieved criticism of or insults to America or Christianity.  They offer very little policy discussion except assertions that traditional ways are better because they are so…traditional.  Very little discussion of how to adapt conservative principles to modern society can be found here.  Instead, they want to stop time and preserve traditional gender roles, traditional market rules, and traditional goverment power without defending any of these policies on social utility grounds.  “We’ve always done it this way” is all they have.

This is a losing strategy because no one listens to the angry guy.  People dismiss angry ranting, however righteous its basis, because it offers no solutions.  Americans instinctively understand that the most outraged guy in the room usually has the least justification for his rage. 

The gay marriage debate is the perfect example: homosexuals face real discrimination with regard to inheritance, power of attorney, the right to contract, and protection of partnership assets–the State treats them differently than it treats straight people.  This is a simple fact that cannot be dismissed with “but gay men have the same right to marry women as straight men do.”  But instead of seeking or proposing sensible ways of ending this discrimination, such as separating the religious consecration of sexual unions from state sanction, conservatives rant about the meaning of “marriage” and loudly make the ridiculous claim that the “marriage” of two gay men somehow affects the rights or privilege of heterosexuals to marry.  For most people, this only sets them up for ridicule.

A lot of Americans, from the faithful to environmentalists to anti-globalists would like to see a managed social progress that protects those who want to hold on to traditional ways of life while allowing others to move forward and establish new traditions.  Wingnuts don’t help their cause with strident rage over non-insults.  “You kids get off my lawn” isn’t working.

Tags: , , , , ,

1 Comment

If You Think…

Apr 12

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Cognitive Dissonance, Globalization, IR Theory, Neoconservative, US Hegemony, Whack Jobs

…that the United States is no longer the global hegemon, you might be a whack job.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Divine Intervention?

Mar 26

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Abortion, Choice, Cognitive Dissonance, Divine Intervention, Religious Conservatives, Wingnuts

I don’t usually pay much attention to the various reports of plane crashes and other tragic accidents and incidents that often dominate cable news.  So I usually just change the channel when CNN goes to another update about the rich guy’s private plane that crashed in the Montana cemetery.  Things are tough all over, I figure, and just as bad for the folks CNN pays no attention to. 

But I check the blogs listed at right almost every day, either for edification or comic relief, and this morning Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money pointed me to Jill at Feministe, who introduced me to Jill Stanek and Gingi Edmonds.

Scott and Jill both focus on the apparent contradiction in the beliefs of many people who oppose abortion: they fight tooth-and-nail for the rights of the fetus, but can’t typically be bothered to worry themselves over children after they enter the world.  So they oppose reproductive choice on the grounds that it harms a human being–effectively taking control of the woman’s body and confiscating the baby–but oppose policies that save innocent children from all manner of abusive or dangerous situations once they are born.

This is important, but what struck me in Edmonds’ essay was the implication that God himself brought the plane down to punish an alleged abortion provider:

“We warned him, for his children’s sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if “you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you”. (Ezekiel 35:6)”

and

“I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation.”

 This woman apparently thinks that God punishes people who kill children by…killing children.  Many of her commenters apparently agree.

 

Is it just me, or is there something seriously twisted about someone who would include this concept in a supposed philosophy of peace and love?  To me this shows the contradictory nature of the Christian message and the sick beliefs of many believers: how do they reconcile the message of love and tolerance delivered by Jesus with the notion that God would punish sinners by taking innocent life?  This version of Christian philosophy apparently considers human beings the tools of the divinity, not His children who He watches over and loves.  That is, instead of bringing Feldkamp’s grandchildren to Heaven to punish Grandpa, why not send Grandpa to Hell, if it exists, a bit early?  Is grief for lost loved ones more painful than eternal torment?

 

Just asking.

Tags: , ,

1 Comment

I Love the Internet #1

Mar 25

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Abortion, Cognitive Dissonance, Economy, Going John Galt, Wingnuttia

I was reading this Roy Edroso post at the Village Voice about Jake DeSantis, the AIG Financial Products wiz who suddenly had an urge to cry publicly about his persecution by elected officials.  I don’t know enough about this guy’s tenure there to say anything about his grounds for doing so, but it seems to me that he either deserves the approbation of his fellow Americans or he has neither the stomach for making his case or the patriotism to stay around and help fix the problem in his Country’s time of need.

At any rate, Roy linked to a few sympathetic wingnut bloggers and their cries of injustice and “going Galt.”  That last, a self-described “Right-Wing Web Aggregator” that at least has the virtue of a cool name, also has a link to Strange Maps.

This is one of those blogs I never would have found without help, and I should thank the never melted guy for leading me there.  Only on the web–or an old library–could I have stumbled across thing like this and this.

I love the internet.

Tags:

No Comments

Jason Corley Misses the Points

Mar 19

Posted by R. Stanton Scott in Abortion, Choice, Cognitive Dissonance, Culture Wars, Family, Marriage, Wingnuts

I don’t know very much about Jason Corley, so I will resist the urge to evaluate whether he really understands the meaning of the terms “relativist” and “nihilist” when he uses them to describe my approach to marriage and abortion.  If by relativist he means that I dispute the idea that some truths are absolute, then I confess to the charge.  Indeed, I embrace the characterization, and do not find it insulting.  I am, however, no nihilist: I believe that values exist, that human society requires norms, rules, and laws, and that existence has meaning.  I just don’t believe that God defines them.

At any rate, I think he misses both of the points I tried to make.  With respect to marriage, he argues that because that institution regulates so much of our social interaction–by stabilizing relationships within family units–any challenge to it threatens traditional American society.  In making his case, Mr. Corley asserts that marriage has not evolved–that it remains the same institution across time.  I simply pointed out the demonstrable falsehood of this claim.  Since marriage has changed, defending what we call marriage today has nothing to do with protecting traditional values.  It is important to note here that Mr. Corley does not attempt to actually defend his assertion; instead he suggests that variation in marriage across societies makes no difference.  This is, of course, difficult to reconcile with this statement: “Marriage is not a evolving paradigm. It is the source of the historical role of the family as the basic unit of every civilized society.”  If marriage does indeed vary over time, and across societies, and yet still forms the foundation of “traditional society” it is not clear how simply adding a new variation (gay marriage) threatens the institution.  Mr. Corley could make this case by describing the mechanism of destruction that gay marriage would introduce to the institution, but he does not.  This suggests that he in fact prefers a particular ordering of society that requires a particular form of marriage and family.  Such an argument would not be wrong in its face, nor would it be trivial.  So I wonder why he does not make it.

Mr. Corley also seems to miss my point with regard to abortion.  I find the abortion question a simple one: when does life begin?  The State has no reason to interfere with a woman’s choice to terminate gestation unless the fetus has achieved personhood.  If this happens at conception, then abortion of any kind is murder, and murderers should be punished.  This is true without regard to the circumstances of conception.  Further, since both the mother and the doctor are complicit in this hypothetical crime, the state should sanction both equally.

Few abortion opponenents support this view, however.  Most would exempt the mother from punishment, and instead sanction the doctors performing the procedure.  Most also exempt mothers who became pregnant through rape.  This suggests that they don’t really believe that a fetus is a person–innocent, and deserving of state protection.

This is no circular argument: a fetus is either a person or it isn’t.  It makes no sense to argue that it is without supporting criminal sanctions for mothers who have them killed.  If you don’t support such sanctions, then you have created a different category of person, not quite deserving of full state protection from all agents that might do it harm.

Jason Corley has his own ideas about social order, traditional society, and how humans should interact.  This is, of course, how it should be.  I object only to his effort to use the State to force his world view on others, by priveleging heterosexuals over gays with regard to marriage (and therefore tax, inheritance, family structure), and by placing women in the sexual and reproductive roles he prefers.  He should make his case that this would improve society, but he will get more traction if he coherently addresses the actual arguments made by the other side.

1 Comment

Cognitive Dissonance

Jan 22

Posted by rstanton in Abortion, Choice, Cognitive Dissonance, Religious Conservatives, Wingnuts

Via PZ Myers, check out this video from Daniel Florien at Unreasonable Faith.

The simple questions: If you favor abortion bans, how should the State punish women who violate these bans?  And if you do not favor punishment for women who break abortion prohibitions, why prohibit them in the first place?

Mr. Florien bluntly points out that someone who believes that abortion is murder cannot at the same time believe that women who have abortions are not murderers.  If you do not believe that women who decide to kill their unborn children do not deserve long prison sentences or even dates with the hangman, you do not really believe that abortion is murder.

A commenter disagrees, arguing that anti-choice protesters worry that a “pronouncement of judgment” would show their lack of compassion.  But should we not judge murderers?

Simply put, if a fetus is a human being, then the mothers who kill them should face the death penalty themselves, just as she might if her child was a year old.

8 Comments