Here is an excellent article by Johann Hari in the Independent today; it concerns the recent furore about the US and its health-care reforms but he attempts to broaden the discussion to talk about the general trend in the political right to run counter to reality and to argue against demonic creatures of their own invention. I particularly like this paragraph which I think sums up my feelings on this phenomenon nicely.
"How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" that Australia exists, or that fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational."
I can only hope that Obama sticks to his guns, it's not possible to use reason to defeat these people, he can only use democracy.
2 comments:
Problem is the only evidence I have that Australia exists is hearsay - I've never been there.
The problem with Hari is his predisposition towards assumption and taking short-cuts. He's more interested in consensus-building through force of rhetoric than making completely logical arguments.
He may make logical conclusions, but that appears to be more by chance than by design (probability suggests this paradox is inevitable).
If I may say, isn't your final line a bit contrary? Is there a logical defence of democracy, or is it supported out of irrational belief?
If democracy is rational then logic would suggest Obama will only be able to win the argument by resisting appeals to emotion and putting the debate on a wholly factual basis.
Don't worry OP, I saw it in a dream once, just "donate" a tenner and believe me instead :)
I agree about Hari, but I also think a bit of "force of rhetoric" is a useful talent to have. I wonder if he's one of those people who has the gift of the gab but is actually quite shallow, or not maybe, hard to tell?
Interesting point re. democracy; I hadn't thought about that.
I think there is a strong logical defence if we agree on the goal of "government" in the first place, if it's something like "the well-being of the majority" (which also has biological advantages) then democracy has been successful so there is strong rationale to using it. Of course if that isn't your goal (which perhaps isn't in the case for a lot of health-care deniers in the USA) then the argument is weak.
On the topic of Obama, I guess I could try an line that goes, Obama wins more easily by convincing the fence sitters to come over to his side, all those moderate Catholics and sophisticated Anglicans for example, i.e. he's wasting his time trying to charm the right with logic, they don't speak that language.
Post a Comment