Vol. 3 No. 1 (May 2004)

Uncommon Denominator


The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org

"I more than suspect already that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong - that he feels the blood of this war....That originally having some strong motive....he plunged into it and has swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where."
-- Abraham Lincoln, on President James Polk and the Mexican-American war

 

CONTENTS

Talking Points: America's fascination with personality
Wit and Wisdom: Bangers and mash in Iraq
Check It Out: David Brock, webmaster
Featured Article: The Cato Institute goes Democratic?
Quoted! Hermann Goering on how to sell a war
Happenings "Votergate," and more
Endorsements: Carolyn Doggett
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor


TALKING POINTS

In its April issue, the Uncommon Denominator lamented our society's increasing dependence on images and the rise of domestic fundamentalism, and, as a response to these anti-democratic trends, called for a renewed emphasis on critical thinking in the public educational system: "The qualities of thought we wish to promote should be promoted among younger students . . . such that they enter their adult years already better equipped to make good decisions for their lives, and to understand the forces and processes that shape their world."

There's much more to say on this issue, and that last phrase, in particular, deserves more attention. Americans too often are not oriented toward the "forces and processes that shape their world," and this aspect of our national character results not only from a broad decline in critical thinking skills but from a pervasive cultural fascination with personality. Not a fascination, precisely, but a habit of mind, an inclination to think in terms of individuals -- their backgrounds, characters, doings, looks, relationships, accomplishments, failings, and so forth -- rather than in terms of a complex array of impersonal "forces and processes." This may be a universal human inclination (most people would rather read fiction, after all, than sociology), but American culture seems to have greatly accentuated it.

Examples are legion. Most obvious are the supermarket tabloids, with their addiction to "celebrity," their escapist appeal, and their implicit message that the lives of "ordinary" people are somehow less important than those of the famous. Witness also, however, the popularity of full-length biographies; the success of "reality T.V." with the "real" lives it purports to represent; the preeminence of first-person journalism and fiction; the confessions and confrontations that make up so much of our national media diet; the focus on political candidates' personalities rather than their policies; the lust for scandal, which thrives on conflicts among easily recognized characters; the near-obsession with various categories of identity (race, sex, age, religion, etc.), which feeds all manner of prejudice.

Clearly, much of this is driven by the mass media, which cater to our national A.D.D. by trafficking in surfaces and episodes and bold-color feelings. But there are deeper causes at work. Intellectual laziness -- one aspect, undoubtedly, of a general cultural complacency -- must rank near the top of the list. Include, next, the way in which political leaders tend to simplify reality (and the people who inhabit it) by appealing to an "us-versus-them" mentality. Perhaps even the Left's "identity politics" and its commitment to demographic diversity have elevated personal above impersonal considerations. Most profoundly, and poignantly, the interest in personality might be seen as a reaction to the loss of intimacy endemic to a society where an increase in economic and geographic mobility has frayed traditional social bonds and heightened many people's sense of atomization and anonymity. Feeling isolated? Watch "Oprah" or "The Real World," or even someone's "private" on-line webcam.

Some of this is relatively innocuous, some not so innocuous. The personalizing of reality becomes dangerous to the degree that it limits understanding of how the world actually works.

Take the "war on terror" and the current war in
Iraq. From the start, there has been a fixation on individual "evildoers" -- Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Moqtada al-Sadr -- rather than on the deeper sociological problems on which such figures base their popular appeal. The personalizing of an enemy helps to mobilize a populace, but it also implies that the problem will disappear once we capture or kill certain individuals. That's like cutting off the tops of dandelions while leaving the roots undisturbed. Killing Osama bin Laden, or any of his lieutenants or protegés, may be both productive and justified, but it won't really address the underlying conditions on which Al Qaeda's recruitment thrives: poverty, constraint, humiliation, and a general sense that the West has allied itself to undemocratic or ungodly regimes in order to keep the oil supply flowing.

The same dynamic has informed the administration's handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal. The emerging strategy is to maximize (with the help of Fox News) the focus on low-level grunts such as Lynndie England and Jeremy Sivits, and to minimize the institutional problems and laissez-faire climate that higher-ups are necessarily responsible for -- indeed, that their job descriptions make them responsible for. In this case, the dots that have to be connected are the administration's long-standing denigration of international standards of conduct and -- lo and behold -- the violation of international standards of conduct at Abu Ghraib.

The point is that regarding people narrowly as pure autonomous agents, as self-initiating moral actors, rather than as participants in larger social systems and expressions of broader, impersonal forces, can blind us to the elaborate patterns of cause-and-effect that have much more to do with our collective destiny than do the lives of, say, Vladimir Putin or Britney Spears.

Whatever the particular scandal, conflict, or triumph may be, we need to balance our human desire for "the good story" with more contemplative analysis of its conditions, causes, and potential consequences. We need, in other words, to be better critical thinkers.

Strangely enough, but tellingly, the impulse toward critical thinking in our society seems to express itself most fiercely in the form of conspiracy theories. Misguided though they usually are, such theories nonetheless reflect a healthy desire to fathom the workings of society behind the personalized façades that form our collective Main Street. Such theories are like the bastard cousins of critical thinking, thriving in soil where some but not all of the right nutrients are present. Conspiracy theorists connect the dots, but not necessarily the right dots.

 

If we don't want to raise a generation of dupes or tools or conspiracy theorists, our society must make certain educational commitments. We need to incorporate critical thinking systematically into the curricula of our public school systems. We need to teach students in the younger grades that the faces they see, the words they hear, the personae they encounter, are only that -- faces, words, personae -- and are not fundamentally responsible for how society operates. Helping young minds penetrate the mist of personality to the underlying "forces and process that shape their world" is a necessary part of equipping them to shape their world as well.


WIT AND WISDOM

"Over the weekend British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. Apparently some of the prisoners were accidentally given British food." -- Conan O'Brien




CHECK IT OUT

Ever since his renunciation of conservative politics, David Brock has lived out a kind of protracted mea culpa by exposing and illuminating the nasty inner workings of the right-wing messaging machine.


The break came in 2002, with the publication of Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. In March of this year, Brock deepened the breach with The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. (Visit
Salon magazine to read an excerpt of the latter.)

His most recent project is a website, launched May 17, for his new organization Media Matters for America, which he bills as "a new Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

What that amounts to in practice is a running tabulation of erroneous or just plain offensive statements made by a variety of conservative pundits, writers, and radio personalities. Some of the recurring "targets" are Fox News anchor Sean Hannity, radio host Michael Savage, author and talking-head Ann Coulter, and less rabid conservatives such as Bill Kristol and George Will.

We read, for instance, that on the May 11 and May 12 broadcasts of his radio program "Savage Nation," Michael Savage called Arabs "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots"; and argued that they "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity" in order to "turn them into human beings."

In the category of factual transgression fall such assertions as that of Sean Hannity, who claimed on the May 12 broadcast of "Hannity & Colmes" that John Kerry's tax plan "doesn't go to dividends, only income." and that "Kerry says raise the taxes on the rich but not themselves." In fact, the Media Matters website tells us, "Kerry's tax plan would raise taxes on dividends for families that earn over $200,000."

Currently, such tidbits drawn from the daily news cycle predominate, along with links to media analysis pieces and some self-referential non-stories such as "Limbaugh Station Refuses Media Matters for America Ad That Uses Limbaugh's Own Words." The Brock team does, however, plan to produce longer, more analytical research reports as Media Matters for America becomes more established. Those will be quite welcome.

In the meantime, the website is a good place to find evidence of hard-right truth-twisting, and the sort of "I-can't-believe-they-said-that" quotes that every progressive should have at his or her disposal.

Check it out.


FEATURED ARTICLE

The following is an excerpt from "A Conservative Case for Voting Democratic," by Doug Bandow, which appeared in the May 3, 2004, edition of Fortune magazine. Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. (The Commonweal Institute does not support any specific political party or candidate; this article is offered for its analytical value only.)

"Republicans have long claimed to be fiscal tightwads and railed against deficit spending. But this year big-spending George W. Bush and the GOP Congress turned a budget surplus into a $477 billion deficit. There are few programs at which they have not thrown money: massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork-barrel projects, dubious homeland-security grants, expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, even new foreign-aid programs. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 'government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II.'

"Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?

"Vote Democratic."

Click here to read the whole article.


QUOTED!

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-- Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, during the Nuremberg trials.


(For a discussion of the quote's context, see
www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm).


HAPPENINGS

Helping bring "Votergate" to the big screen -- CI co-founder Katherine Forrest has been chosen as a producer for a full-length exposé of the problems with electronic voting machines in the U.S. Since early this year, the Commonweal Institute has been working with two British film-makers and their American executive producer on the film, which will highlight the efforts of ordinary people fighting to protect our democracy against the incompetence and malfeasance of certain corporate interests and public officials. If you would like to give a boost to the "Votergate" project, to make sure it's completed by the end of this summer, please make a special "Votergate" donation to Commonweal Institute. After you click the "Donate Now" button on our homepage, indicate on the donation form that your donation is for "Votergate."

Presentation -- On May 6, Dr. Forrest and CI Fellow Dave Johnson gave a presentation to the Stanford Democrats on "The Attack on Liberal Professors." Johnson's earlier commentary, "Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors?", appeared on the History News Network website on February 10, 2003.

Outreach activities -- On May 22, Dr. Forrest will speak in San Jose, CA, at a 100-person Call to Action meeting of the Santa Clara County Democrats, on how to talk politics with people of differing opinions. That afternoon, she'll be one of the trainers at an environmentalist workshop sponsored by the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club in Palo Alto. The workshop will focus on forest issues and on the local and personal impacts of toxic materials, and is designed to teach activists how to link these to current political issues and actions.


ENDORSEMENTS

"What you are proposing is critical to the well-being of our state and nation. Thanks for taking on this incredible task." -- Carolyn Doggett, Executive Director, California Teachers Association


GET INVOLVED

If you agree with Carolyn Doggett (see above), there are a number of ways you can help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.

Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.

You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many moderates and progressives.
Click here to contribute online. Or call 650-854-9796. Your support is essential.

 


 

© 2004 The Commonweal Institute

 



To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send an email to: subscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.

If you no longer wish to receive the Uncommon Denominator, send an email to: unsubscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.

Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber email addresses with any other organization or individuals.