MAGAt Fear

While it’s true that some MAGAmericans are simply stupid, I have a different perspective regarding the most of them: 

They're scared. 

Humans are not infinitely adaptable, and the pace at which society and technology have changed since WWII is mind-boggling, with no indication that it's going to slow down any time soon. Liberals tend to be curious stimulus-junkies, hence our strong support of Diversity. Conservatives are more Tribal and have difficulty dealing with world 'cultures in collision,' particularly when it challenges the traditional understanding of their privileged social-order and the myths that support it. They need to deny and suppress changes, even though it's them against the zeitgeist.  

Yoda got it right:" Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."  

This does not in any way excuse their actions, but I think it serves as a useful perspective as to why they act out their outrage and worship a false prophet who validates their fear and urges them to push back, push them back into the closet, expel them, whitewash our history, reestablish the traditional pecking-order, and put their trust in the predators 'who have made it' to the top of the heap and "promise" to bring back the mythological "glory days." It's entirely emotional, which is a far older, powerfully reactive, evolutionary heritage than the rational intellect. In addition, they aren’t entirely wrong in that the economy and availability of public supports has short-changed them and their families. Unfortunately their fear prevents them from joining together with liberals who have been broadcasting that same message. 

I would feel sorry for them if they didn’t enable such dangerous politics. 

I think we need to understand that that's what we're up against, and adjust our strategies accordingly. Facts won’t change their minds, even if they have sufficient education to recognize them; and Insults will only cause them to double-down triumphantly, because they will have made the Resistance sink to their level. We need to utilize an emotional strategy that challenges them in a way that causes them to question their own positions. 

I think we need to persistently ask them “What are you afraid of?” Do you actually know any “illegals” who took someone’s job away? Do you actually know any “illegals” who are fraudulently receiving public benefits, or who have voted? If not, what makes you think those things are true? Why is a murder by an “illegal” worse than a massacre by an angry white boy? Do you think that Fox News is any more truthful than CNN or MSNBC? 

Do you really believe that having a story read to your children by a drag queen will turn your straight child gay? Are you worried about them watching comedies like “Mrs. Doubtfire” or “Tootsie?” How does a married gay couple who love their parents, are good co-workers, pay their taxes, take good care of their property, and volunteer for charitable events affect your life? Why are you so interested in their sex lives? What makes you think that your “God” has deputized you to be His enforcer? 

Why are you afraid to raise taxes on billionaires to pay for your and my health care and education? What do you think they are going to do to you if they have to pay another 2%? Do you think the Wealthy treat everyone else fairly? Do you ever expect to be “rich?” 

Politely: “What are you afraid of?” They won’t like the questions. They’ll deny that they’re afraid. Some of them will definitely become angry. None of them are going to cry “Hallelujah, I have seen the Light!” But perhaps civil questions will set a burr under their saddle, and they’ll spread the word, “Hey, you know what some fool Libtard asked me today?!” Maybe questions will beget more questioning. Maybe they may start some uncomfortable exchanges. 

Let’s turn down our own outrage, stop with the all-caps rants, turn the volume down from 11. It’s not good for our blood pressure, and screaming “Did you hear the latest Lie?!?” is wasted bandwidth, preaching to the choir. It doesn’t advance our Cause. Correct the lie with blunt information, then move on to calling our representatives, attending Town Hall meetings, writing to the Editors, and simply, bluntly, and without heat stating “You’re wrong, and I disagree; What are you afraid of?” 

Let’s see if they might tap into some hidden empathy. Kindness costs us nothing.

RELIGIOUS LITERALISTS :
Fueled by Fear or Ignorance?

Newsweek magazine has just published an excerpt from evolutionary biologist and ethologist Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth : the Evidence for Evolution, The piece begins thus:

Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.

The excerpt caused me to once again consider the Culture Wars that convulse so many societies as the perspectives of religion and science clash. Of course, not all adherents of those points of view are active combatants. Most atheists recognize that there is something bigger than they, something mysterious and awe-inspiring that includes and connects everything that we know. You might as well consider that a spiritual perspective, although a supernatural Personality is not part of that outlook. Likewise, many practitioners of traditional religions find no terrible conflict between their beliefs and science; they just consider the "Big Bang" and evolution the tools that their Deity uses in the work of Creation.

I can understand the impulse to subscribe to a religious set of beliefs, with Rules as to how to investigate that Spirit in a like-minded community. It strikes me as excessively limiting to cleave to only one perspective out of a spectrum of possibilities - but I do understand it. We are each raised in traditions, and develop our own comfort zones.

But, I do not understand Religious Literalists of any faith, those who insist that the blunt, everyday meaning of words, not metaphor or analogy, are the actual words and intentions of a Conscious Deity, despite being filtered through human hands, humans who were products of their times and cultures. Their contortions to justify their literal reading and reject evidence bemuse me especially when contending with cosmological questions such as evolution.

They seem to accept the science of geology when it locates petroleum deposits, or precious ores, or as it studies volcanoes and earthquakes; but they reject it when it demonstrates the long epochs that the Earth has existed. They accept astronomy and its mathematical calculations that allow us to throw a tiny machine hundreds of thousands of miles into space, arriving at a precise time and location, but deny its validity when its calculations disagree with their beliefs as to the Universe's age.

They accept the physical laws that govern matter, determining how large a yield a nuclear bomb will produce, or calculating the half-life of a radioisotope as doctors use it to illuminate the body in search of disease. But these techniques are invalidated when they analyze material samples and determine that they are millions of years old, not mere thousands. They accept biological sciences and molecular chemistry when there are crops and livestock to be improved, pathogens to be tracked, or medicines developed targeting specific genetic strains of disease; but they dismiss the application of the scientific method when they sum up evolutionary principles.

What effort must be expended in compartmentalizing these perspectives, to maintain that intellectual firewall! Unless their Deity is deliberately trying to confuse us, these intellectual contortions serve no sensible purpose other than perhaps serving some deep-seated emotional need.

Fear, or ingrained Ignorance are the only explanations that readily come to mind as to their often fanatic opposition of scientific analysis.

What do you think?