Truthophobia

I find it interesting that the two things John McCain has said recently that have drawn the most criticism are this:

"My friends, some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back."

And this:

[Questioner]: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years.

MCCAIN: Make it a hundred. How long—We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.

Whatever you think of McCain's positions, the first of these is just stating the obvious.  And as for the second, it's a virtual certainty that either party will maintain an ongoing US military presence in Iraq; if you want a precedent, look at how Bill Clinton kept US forces in Saudi Arabia throughout his presidency and continued to say they were needed even after 9/11, when the full cost was made apparent.

So McCain's sin here is that he's telling the truth.  And in these days of vague promises of "change" and "hope" that show no evidence of being anything but the same policies we've seen for years, that's not what people want to hear.  Ok, let's be serious—it's something they never want to hear.  But there seems to be a manic pitch to the "think happy thoughts" contingent in these waning days of the Bush presidency; eight years of exposure to harsh reality has left them bruised and battered, and now they just want to curl up in mommy's lap for a while and feel loved.

Personally, I'd be much happier if one of the major party candidates would just come out and say that they're going to sell out to corporations on every issue and treat the world as their own personal Risk game board.  I can respect that kind of honesty, even if I bitterly oppose the thinking behind it.  It's better to be aware of reality, no matter how unpleasant it may be, than to live in a world of comforting self-delusion.

Comments

[SteveB]

Well, call me crazy, but I think people have been giving McCain shit about his "hundred years in Iraq" statement because they don't actually want us to spend a hundred years in Iraq. If you're opposed to us staying in Iraq, whether it's for one year or a hundred years, you really should say something to people who propose to keep us there for the next century, and that "something" shouldn't be, "Gee, thanks for your honesty!"

Also:
... it's a virtual certainty that either party will maintain an ongoing US military presence in Iraq...

No doubt that's the intention of both parties, but the Iraqi people might have something to say about this, don't you think? After all, Hitler had some pretty clear intentions to rule over Europe for a thousand years, but, in the end, his intentions were less important than the willingness of other people to resist him.

And did I just compare both of our major parties to Hitler? Golly, I think I did.

[John Caruso]

My point is that the reason he's getting blowback about the Iraq comment is because he had the bad sense to say it out loud. If he'd just lied about it and then gone ahead with those policies anyway, as all of them would likely do, he'd be fine. And I don't doubt that many of the people sounding off on it wouldn't (won't) have any problem at all with a continued US military presence in Iraq along the lines of Korea or Bosnia or Japan (especially the latter), just as he said. They're a lot angrier at the words than they will be at the actions.

Of course we should say something besides "thanks for your honesty," and that's why I talked about bitterly opposing it. But having a hissy fit that someone would have the gall to say what all of them plan to do is just being dangerously naive.

By the way, my point here wasn't to laud McCain's truthfulness. I just find it interesting that telling the truth gets him attacked, while lulling people to sleep with disingenuous bromides brings exultant praise for Obama. Whatever they may say to the contrary, human beings generally aren't big fans of the truth.

[SteveB]

Whatever they may say to the contrary, human beings generally aren't big fans of the truth.

OK, so imagine we have two bank robbers: one who stands outside the bank in broad daylight, loudly proclaiming his intention to rob it, and one who does his bank-robbing stealthily, in the middle of the night. Which one is more likely to be punished? The truth-teller, you say? And why is that? Because we "aren't big fans of the truth", or because we don't like bank robbers, and it's easier to catch the ones who brag about it?

I'm not voting for Obama myself, but I think you're being too hard on the people who are. People want the war to end, and they don't see any good options for doing that (Go to another march? Write your congressman?), and then they see a candidate who promises to withdraw "combat" troops in the first 16 months of his term. They get excited about this, because it seems to be the best thing going. So they say, "Sure, maybe he's lying, but maybe he's telling the truth - let's give the guy a chance and hope for the best." It's not that they want to be lied to, but that they want to end the war, and that desire, along with a feeling that there are no good options, overcomes their natural skepticism.

If there's any lesson to be learned about human nature from all this, it's probably the same one you could learn by observing that people suffering from terminal cancer sometimes fall for a quack remedies. When Steve McQueen died in Mexico after undergoing laetrile treatments for his lung cancer, I hope your first first thought wasn't "Gee, people sure are gullible, aren't they?"

[John Caruso]

I'd really appreciate it if you could ratchet down the scorn a bit.

...it's easier to catch the ones who brag about it

That was exactly my point.

Regarding people not being big fans of the truth, consider these two statements:

1) The United States behaves just like all other major powers have throughout history, without regard for justice, rights, truth, human life, or any genuine ethical concern that would interfere with the perceived self-interest of its leadership class.

2) The United States is a fundamentally good and upstanding nation dedicated to the liberty and freedom of all people throughout the world—though it sometimes falters from these noble goals (especially when it's under the thrall of evil people like those who've run it for the past eight years).

Set aside which of these things most Americans actually do believe; which one do you think they want to believe? I don't have any doubt about the answer. I've known many people who've said that they don't want to know what's going on, because they don't want to feel responsible or depressed or (more) powerless. One friend said, "I have to believe in the United States, just like I have to believe in God."

It's always easiest to deceive someone when they want to be deceived, and one of the main reasons the Democrats (and the Republicans, but I'm staying on this side of the aisle for now) are able to snow so many otherwise intelligent and well-informed people is because they're telling them the lies they want to hear. Your comments so far imply that you think that's a complete crock, and that's fine, but in that case I guess we're just going to disagree on this.

[SteveB]

OK, ratcheting it down....

I'm trying to figure out why I'm reacting so so strongly to this idea. Partly, it's that I perceive a "blame the victim" element in it, but I also object because the idea that "human nature" is deterministic is generally a conservative theme ("People are naturally selfish, therefore capitalism is the only possible economic system"). For that, substitute "people prefer pleasing falsehoods to difficult reality, so we live in a political environment of pleasing falsehoods."

I disagree with this because human nature is complicated and malleable, and certain systems bring out certain aspects of human nature and suppress others. So, in a political environment saturated in propaganda where there are no rewards for correctly perceiving reality (because what can you do with this information?) we should expect to see lots of people believing false things. The "human nature" argument misses the systemic problems, and leads to fatalism.

Believing in Obama is a perfectly rational response to a political system which offers you these choices: 1) Vote for Obama, 2) Vote for the Republican, who is worse, or 3) Vote for the Green candidate who can't win. Change that calculus, and people might finally have a reason to see past the propaganda.

I also don't see how "people want to be deceived" explains the behavior of people like you and me (we are people, aren't we?). In fact, with most leftists I know, the "people want to believe pleasing falsehoods" tendency seems to be exactly reversed. I know more than a few good liberals who are absolutely convinced that we're all just sleepwalking towards fascism, that nobody cares, and nobody is doing a damn thing about it. I'll show them examples of successful resistance and setbacks for the ruling class that I find inspiring, but there's just no budging them from this bleak view.

I'm uncomfortable with any theory that sets me off as part of some enlightened class, immune to the deceptions that most people are prey to. A more likely explanation (and one less flattering to us) is that all people choose a political tendency, and then reject any information that suggests they've made a bad choice.

[John Caruso]

I disagree. Human nature is simple and fixed, and is completely determined by the unified theory of human behavior I've outlined here. You and I are part of an enlightened class, immune to the deceptions that most people are prey to. And Steve McQueen deserved to die for his gullibility, and I mocked him for it just as I mock every last Obama voter.

Yucks aside, I've had a hard time responding (throughout) because I can't reconcile what I've written with how you're reading it. Apparently I've been unclear, because you've read things into what I've written that I didn't begin to intend and have then taken them far beyond anywhere I meant to go. Instead of going through point by point I've just tried to refocus on (and hopefully clarify) what I'm actually saying, but that doesn't appear to be helping much.

I think we could work out the miscommunication with more discussion in a less restrictive forum—though it's pretty clear that there are areas where we'd just disagree—but at this point it'd take way too many words here. So I'll leave it at what I've said and hope that someone out there found it more worthwhile (and less offensive) than you did.

[Save the Oocytes]

This is where I volunteer, I guess.

[Jonathan Versen]

If Lincoln had not been shot in 1865 and lived a normal span of years, I sometimes wonder what he would've thought of the infants, psychology and sociology and (modern)advertising, all playing together in the same nursery, as they were by the time he would've been in his 70s or 80s. Would he have amended his 3 part dictum about fooling the people, maybe making it less optimistic?

One of the things that so frustrates and annoys me about Obama and his oratorical gifts is he is uniquely positioned to help ease people into facing the truth, but I guess he wouldn't have a lot of his new powerful friends if he tried something like that. (Oprah for one would probably be really peeved by her new tax bracket.)

[SteveB]

Yeah, it's the Steve McQueen-mocking that really pisses me off. Say what you want about Obama, but lay off the King of Cool.

I don't know, maybe I've just been reading too much Dennis Perrin. Dennis doesn't allow comments on his blog, so I have to respond to him on yours. You hear me, Dennis?

[Dan Coyle]

I admit to a similar frustration that SteveB has. While I can't say John C, Jon Schwarz, Dennis Perrion, Who is IOZ et al are WRONG, or that their attitude isn't baseless, they're older and wiser than I, but at the same time, aside from armed resistance and serious violence, which doesn't seem to be an option, and simply abstaining from the process, which make take forever to make a dent, what can one do? I don't think running down the people who still want to try to change things is worth it, even if I understand where you're coming from. It just sounds bullying, even if it's deserved.

I kind of blame Chomsky for this, but that's another argument.

In any case, I'm voting for Oboptimus Prime not because I think things will change, but because I want to give David Horowitz, Evan Sayet, Rocco DiPippo, Laura Ingraham, Burt Prelutsky, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller (though he's recently pro-O because Billy Da C is his real white whale), Jamie Glazov, Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, the Podhoretzes, and all of the rest a really bad fucking four years. I may not be able to help anyone, but I sure as hell can hurt THEM.

[SteveB]

I can't say John C, Jon Schwarz, Dennis Perrion, Who is IOZ et al are WRONG,

Seems we're reading all the same people and reacting the same way. Maybe it's because I live in a college town, and am surrounded by young, starry-eyed Obamidealists, and I don't have the heart (or is it the nerve?) to burst their bubbles. Partly it's because I'm not so sure I'm right. I don't know if you caught this result amid Tuesday's primary reporting, but the MoveOn-Daily Kos crowd took out an eight-term Dem congressman in the Maryland primary, replacing him with Donna Edwards, who is now on track to be the first African-American congresswoman ever elected in Maryland.

They're so easy to mock, these progressive Dems. with all their illusions, but every once in a while they actually succeed in moving the Dem party a half an inch to the left. Not much, I know, but still..

Anyway, they're in the game and fighting, and good for them. If illusions help keep them at it, then there's something to be said for illusions. God knows "reforming" the Dem party is a task I wouldn't take on at gunpoint, so I'm glad there are others who approach the task with enthusiasm. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as Mao once said.

[John Caruso]

Dan: The thing is, this posting had little to nothing to do with Obama or his supporters. And I don't understand where you'd get the impression that I don't believe it's worthwhile or possible to change things (which would seem to be the corollary of "running down the people who still want to try to change things," but please correct me if I've misunderstood). Maybe you're just conflating my stuff with Dennis/Jon/et al? Or maybe by "change things" you were thinking something more like "change things by voting for a Democrat"? If that's the case then yes, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that Democrats=change or change=Democrats...but that's worlds different from rejecting the notion or possibility of change generally.

Steve: I get the impression that when I refer to Democrats or liberals you think I'm only talking about starry-eyed young progressives, but I'm not. In this posting in particular, I was also talking about jaded middle-aged latte-sipping account executives who vote Democratic and think Republicans are the only problem. My admittedly snarky "curl up in mommy's lap" comment, which is the closest thing I can find to mockery here at all, applied to all the liberals out there—progressive or otherwise—who think of the Republicans as the sole source of evil, and who'll be going to sleep (again) as soon as a nice responsible Democrat is back at the helm...even though that Democrat will almost certainly be doing just what McCain was saying.

[SteveB]

Well, if they're jaded middle-aged latte-sipping account executives, then fuck 'em.

Look, the fundamental question here is "Why do people vote for the Dems?" Of course, any answer you provide to that question is going to be true of someone, and is probably true of millions people, in a country of 300 million people.

For example, the Dems attract a large number of votes from the working poor. What illusions do these folks have? Most working poor in this country understand quite well their role in the economy, that they're well and truly fucked, and that that's not going to change any time soon, no matter who is elected. But maybe they're "hoping" for a government that might not actually try to drown them in the fetid waters of New Orleans. Doesn't seem like too much to ask, does it?

I've become less dogmatic on the question of the Dems in the past year, as I've seen Dem/Repub politics play out in my own state of Wisconsin. Last November, we passed a voter initiative calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Fortunately, at the same time, the Dems took the state senate, so the bill that would make this wish a reality is stuck in a committee chaired by Lena Taylor, an African-American woman from Milwaukee who is an ardent opponent of the death penalty. Yippee! Our government isn't going to try to kill us! And that's about it. But it's not nothing, is it?

What's the real problem here? That most people have too many illusions about the Dems, or that they have such low expectations of them? I think it's the latter, and so I wonder how to raise people's expectations. I want people to expect a withdrawal from Iraq, first of all because we have a right to expect that, but also because, if we don't leave Iraq, I hope they'll actually be pissed enough to do something about it.