Remember 10 years ago when the response to the 9/11 attacks resulted in tremendous national unity? Suddenly everyone was proud to be American. There were flags everywhere, even on the lapels of liberal politicians. Our national leaders gathered to sing patriotic and religious songs on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building. I’m told they even prayed together. George Bush’s approval rating was at 90%. We were committed to tracking down—and killing—those who had hurt us so badly. Military action was approved by both parties. There was a swelling in church attendance and military enlistment across the nation. It became socially acceptable to use the word “God” as something other than profanity. James Carvel cancelled his coordinated news media attack on the Bush presidency, and the “blame America first” crowd went into hiding.
In short, everyone was suddenly behaving like … Republicans.
Why is that? Why did this single horrific event change so dramatically the behavior of liberals?
The answer is that for the first time in a long time, the liberal belief system had been penetrated by … reality. They had experienced a head-on collision with the way things actually are, with the unbridled evil of which people are capable, and it was so terrible and so dramatic that even those who rationalize cutting up babies and who promote sodomy to schoolchildren couldn’t deny the reality of it. And in a single day, it turned them into Republicans. It would obviously not last, for America’s TV generations have lost the capacity to remember anything for very long, but I had hoped it would last longer than it did. Eventually liberals were able to push 9/11 from their minds and return to spewing venom and hatred at the people—like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, and the entire U.S. Military—who sacrifice and die to keep them safe.
There’s been a lot of talk about national unity in the past week, as if it evaporated while we weren’t looking and no one can figure out where it went. But the reality is this: Republicans haven’t changed. America became unified when Democrats, for a time, gave up the rage, lying, and name calling that are the only tactics available to people who cannot win arguments based on facts and results. We returned to division when liberals forgot their unpleasant encounter with reality and went back to a belief system that is invincibly grounded on the way things aren’t.
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
If People Are Evil
Now imagine a world where people are depraved from birth, where badness is an embedded desire in each of us. People would have to be trained to be honest, generous, and not to harm each other. Goodness, if it is known at all, would have to be handed down from outside of humanity. When mobs gathered, they would riot and loot, killing each other over things as trivial as soccer games. Our charities would have to work overtime to bring in donations. Heroes would be exceptional. And there would be other traits:
Big government would be bad because power would be likely to corrupt our leaders, and we would want them to have as little power over us as possible when that happened. Our leaders would have to be monitored through a system of checks and balances.
Our leaders should be chosen by their wisdom and how well they have overcome their own bad impulses, but they still may not get elected because the voters are foolish.
Wealth should not be redistributed without the consent of the donors. The recipients would have to be closely monitored to ensure they didn’t spend the money foolishly.
The military would be crucial for keeping the population safe from foreign aggression, which could come at any time, for no particular reason.
The police would be necessary. The more densely populated an area became, the more it would need police.
Whatever people want to do should be measured against standards of right and wrong, and prevented when wrong.
Government programs would need to be strictly measured by their stated goals. To fail to do so would invite abuse.
Children would need lengthy training in standards of right and wrong.
Christianity would be good because such people would need a savior.
Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?
If all of the above were true, the full half of the population who disagree with those positions would be easily explained, because people are naturally foolish and wrong. People believing in these positions would have a difficult time persuading others because no one likes to think of humanity as basically evil.
Of course, if people are not inherently evil, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling, instead of analyzing issues for hours on talk radio.
Big government would be bad because power would be likely to corrupt our leaders, and we would want them to have as little power over us as possible when that happened. Our leaders would have to be monitored through a system of checks and balances.
Our leaders should be chosen by their wisdom and how well they have overcome their own bad impulses, but they still may not get elected because the voters are foolish.
Wealth should not be redistributed without the consent of the donors. The recipients would have to be closely monitored to ensure they didn’t spend the money foolishly.
The military would be crucial for keeping the population safe from foreign aggression, which could come at any time, for no particular reason.
The police would be necessary. The more densely populated an area became, the more it would need police.
Whatever people want to do should be measured against standards of right and wrong, and prevented when wrong.
Government programs would need to be strictly measured by their stated goals. To fail to do so would invite abuse.
Children would need lengthy training in standards of right and wrong.
Christianity would be good because such people would need a savior.
Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?
If all of the above were true, the full half of the population who disagree with those positions would be easily explained, because people are naturally foolish and wrong. People believing in these positions would have a difficult time persuading others because no one likes to think of humanity as basically evil.
Of course, if people are not inherently evil, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling, instead of analyzing issues for hours on talk radio.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
If People Are Good
Try to imagine a world where people actually are good from the cradle, where badness had to be learned from a source outside of humanity. Imagine a world where people would have to be trained to fight, abuse, and cheat each other, where the prisons were empty and the churches were unneeded. When mobs gathered, they would suddenly burst into acts of goodness, cleaning up neighborhoods and caring for the poor and the orphan. Heroes would not be celebrated because it would be normal and expected for people to achieve great goodness. And there would be other advantages:
The government could grow to any size—even to socialistic proportions—because power would not corrupt and our leaders could be trusted to do what’s right.
Our leaders would not be chosen by their virtue or character, but by their I.Q. We would want the smartest people in charge so they could solve the hard problems for the rest of us.
Wealth could be redistributed and not meticulously tracked afterward because the recipients could be trusted to use it responsibly. The “donors,” of course, should not mind this because they would all be onboard with helping those less fortunate.
The military would be viewed unfavorably because it crosses into other nations and kills the inherently good people living there without their consent. In fact, the entire military would be largely unnecessary because other nations could be trusted to do the right thing.
We would barely need the police.
Whatever people want to do should be allowed and facilitated by the rest of us because whatever makes us feel good would actually be good.
Government programs would be measured not by their actual success at meeting any stated goals, but by the degree to which they give people what they want.
Children could decide how to raise themselves. In fact, since children are virtuous from the womb, the less parental involvement the better. In fact, we’d better just get those really smart people from the government to raise the kids.
Christianity would be bad because it puts restraints on people.
Science would be something of a savior because it appears to marginalize God and free people from any external moral code. It also increases our power as we make scientific progress.
Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?
But if all of the above were true, there would be no way to explain the full half of the population who disagree with those positions. Maybe they’re all aberrant.
Of course, if people are not inherently good, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling.
The government could grow to any size—even to socialistic proportions—because power would not corrupt and our leaders could be trusted to do what’s right.
Our leaders would not be chosen by their virtue or character, but by their I.Q. We would want the smartest people in charge so they could solve the hard problems for the rest of us.
Wealth could be redistributed and not meticulously tracked afterward because the recipients could be trusted to use it responsibly. The “donors,” of course, should not mind this because they would all be onboard with helping those less fortunate.
The military would be viewed unfavorably because it crosses into other nations and kills the inherently good people living there without their consent. In fact, the entire military would be largely unnecessary because other nations could be trusted to do the right thing.
We would barely need the police.
Whatever people want to do should be allowed and facilitated by the rest of us because whatever makes us feel good would actually be good.
Government programs would be measured not by their actual success at meeting any stated goals, but by the degree to which they give people what they want.
Children could decide how to raise themselves. In fact, since children are virtuous from the womb, the less parental involvement the better. In fact, we’d better just get those really smart people from the government to raise the kids.
Christianity would be bad because it puts restraints on people.
Science would be something of a savior because it appears to marginalize God and free people from any external moral code. It also increases our power as we make scientific progress.
Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?
But if all of the above were true, there would be no way to explain the full half of the population who disagree with those positions. Maybe they’re all aberrant.
Of course, if people are not inherently good, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Telling Ourselves the Truth
But first we must tell ourselves the truth.
Francis Schaffer said most people would rather defend their prejudices than seek what is really true. Many of us don’t have self-concept enough to give the other side an even shake. People with a small or damaged self-concept are more likely to define themselves by their political party, and less likely to consider the possibility that the other side might be right. As Stephen Covey put it, “They don’t own enough of themselves.” We fear being proved wrong. We no longer discuss issues; we no longer debate policy. Now we conduct verbal combat as though our lives depend on it, slashing our opponents as they slash at us, neither one even hearing what the other is saying. Being proved wrong would damage our fragile psyches like a physical wound. So we block out the possibility that we could be wrong. And we hate our opponents. As Glenn Beck has said, “We’re eating each other.” We’ve become a nation of political cannibals, blaming the other party for every problem from the national debt to peanut allergies.
Our success or failure as a nation will be a reflection of how closely our decisions and behaviors are aligned with reality. We will not accurately discern reality if we are knotted up in our own biases and prejudgments. We must figure out what reality actually is, what we’re up against, what facts we must accommodate, what rules we must heed and operate inside of. Then we must admit the truth about what we find, no matter what that truth turns out to be.
“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” — Jesus
Francis Schaffer said most people would rather defend their prejudices than seek what is really true. Many of us don’t have self-concept enough to give the other side an even shake. People with a small or damaged self-concept are more likely to define themselves by their political party, and less likely to consider the possibility that the other side might be right. As Stephen Covey put it, “They don’t own enough of themselves.” We fear being proved wrong. We no longer discuss issues; we no longer debate policy. Now we conduct verbal combat as though our lives depend on it, slashing our opponents as they slash at us, neither one even hearing what the other is saying. Being proved wrong would damage our fragile psyches like a physical wound. So we block out the possibility that we could be wrong. And we hate our opponents. As Glenn Beck has said, “We’re eating each other.” We’ve become a nation of political cannibals, blaming the other party for every problem from the national debt to peanut allergies.
Our success or failure as a nation will be a reflection of how closely our decisions and behaviors are aligned with reality. We will not accurately discern reality if we are knotted up in our own biases and prejudgments. We must figure out what reality actually is, what we’re up against, what facts we must accommodate, what rules we must heed and operate inside of. Then we must admit the truth about what we find, no matter what that truth turns out to be.
“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” — Jesus
Friday, November 27, 2009
Will the Real Reality Please Stand Up?
Postmodern philosophy became popular a few years ago. Postmodernism is basically a denial that objective reality exists or can be known. It teaches that each of us has our own reality, because we cannot know objective reality through our senses. This is merely an excuse for people to behave as they wish, and is foolish in the extreme.
Objective reality really exists. This is why science works. If we each defined our own reality, then we could not find out how things work through experimentation. A given experiment would turn out differently for different people, depending on the “reality” of each. But this isn’t the case. The sun rises and sets for everyone, nuclear bombs really can destroy entire cities, and you really do exist. These things, like the science that has given us our unprecedented technology, are objectively true. I prove objective reality every time I push the play button on my DVD player; it works no matter what the button-pusher happens to believe about the machine.
Here’s the point: Our success or failure depends on how closely our values, decisions, and actions are aligned with reality. If we fail to correctly discern and identify objective reality, we will also fail to reach our goals.
Objective reality really exists. This is why science works. If we each defined our own reality, then we could not find out how things work through experimentation. A given experiment would turn out differently for different people, depending on the “reality” of each. But this isn’t the case. The sun rises and sets for everyone, nuclear bombs really can destroy entire cities, and you really do exist. These things, like the science that has given us our unprecedented technology, are objectively true. I prove objective reality every time I push the play button on my DVD player; it works no matter what the button-pusher happens to believe about the machine.
Here’s the point: Our success or failure depends on how closely our values, decisions, and actions are aligned with reality. If we fail to correctly discern and identify objective reality, we will also fail to reach our goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)