House of Eratosthenes

Neo-Neocon notices some things about some of her friends who are Obama supporters, and they’re very much the same thing I’ve been noticing about my own Obama supporter friends (presuming they’re still talking to me) —

The basic idea is this: they feel a sense of blessed relief that Obama is President.

This not only contrasts sharply with my own feelings on the subject, but it is puzzling because in some cases they simultaneously confess to being disturbed by some of his actual policies, particularly on the economy. In general, they admit they’re not paying attention to the details (understandable; most people are very busy). But although some of the details of which they are aware make them quite uneasy, they paradoxically retain a tremendous faith and trust in the man. Lest you think my friends unusual, this coincides with the results of many recent polls that place Obama’s favorability very high at the same time respondents disagree with many specifics of his proposals.

What’s going on here? When I question my friends more closely, or just listen to them speak amongst themselves, two things seem especially important in shaping their positive feelings about Obama: they are drawn to his personal style (especially in contrast to predecessor Bush, whom they uniformly detest), and they are happy that the world now likes us better.

I’ve long harbored a deep suspicion, since at least 2004 when John Kerry was droning on about it at length, inspired by the realization that these nations that are supposed to like-us-better are seldom to ever listed. If an idea is worth having, it’s worth crediting to the mind that carries it around; how come there are so few names associated with this one? There seems to be a tacit, unspoken agreement that these are historical allies from sometime after the Cold War era…so the list would include Germany, Russia and Japan, along with France, Spain and England. And perhaps some other places not so Euro-centric.

My issue with the identity is that without it, we can’t discuss the motivation behind this liking-or-not-liking. And the motivation is plenty worthy of deliberation. I see it in our gun laws: Other nations are not quite so enamored of the concept of personal defense as is the United States. I see it in this “goodwill” we were supposed to have “squandered after 9/11” — it got “squandered” after the United States did something active about the assault we suffered, besides sit around & cry about it…right?

I wonder how popular this idea would be, if those who promote it were forced to admit: Our love is reserved for the weak and injured…for those who are put into a crippled state of some kind, and never do anything about it.

But they cravenly sidestep the issue. Because, like I said: If we don’t discuss who’s carrying around this love-and-hate, we can’t discuss what exactly is the motivation.

Neo-Neocon continues:

It’s interesting to observe, as I did when I looked up that Sally Field quote, that what she really said was [emphasis mine], “You like me; right now, you like me!” The temporal and transitory nature of popularity that even Ms. Field managed to place in her sentence in the midst of her euphoria at winning an Oscar is a realistic and sobering note. This is at least as true in the world of geopolitics as in Oscar competitions.

How much does such a thing as popularity actually matter in the course of world affairs? And what does it really mean to be liked in such a way? What does it mean to be liked in countries that have their own interests in mind, when those interests conflict with ours? Could “optimism about the US” sometimes mean “optimism that we will now be able to control/exploit people instead of them?” And does the opinion of the average person have anything whatsoever to do with what the leaders of his/her country are likely to do, or with the power struggles of those leaders and countries on the world stage?

There follows a fascinating exchange, for her readers and commenters are interested, and plunge headlong into a multi-logue about why exactly we’re so impassioned about getting these nameless faceless busybodies to like us, and whether or not that’s a good idea. Machiavelli is quoted. It’s a healthy discussion, one we’ve not too often had up until now…about whether this word “like” has to do with the kind of liking that a hungry wolf has for a tasty, tasty sheep.

We’re thinking. Right now, we’re really, really thinking.

High correlation between liberal philosophy and a persecution complex. Expand on that thought at will; I am knee deep in taxes to have even read what you wrote here.
- wch | 04/09/2009 @ 12:10
Linked this from Facebook. Hey man, you need some sort of site description for shares like Facebook. What it shows right now is this text, along with Palin’s picture:

“And I like this from “The Blog That Nobody Reads”, because it is — mostly — about me. What can I say? I’m on an ego trip today. It won’t last.”

Wasn’t that something somebody said about you, and not your words?
- sanskara | 04/09/2009 @ 17:42
I think the reason why liberals seem to believe in form over substance is because they actually do not believe in substance. Liberals do not believe in objective truth, so for them everything is only a matter of perception. And then there’s this weird rationalization that because conservatives “choose” to perceive liberal policies as wrong, conservatives are actually responsible for causing liberal policies to fail. Liberals know that they have good intentions, and because objective reality does not exist, good intentions are all that matter. By pointing out the negative results of liberal policies, conservatives are actually causing those policies to fail by creating that perception. Therefore conservatives are evil because we create suffering.
- JohnJ | 04/09/2009 @ 18:25
There is this “scene” in Atlas Shrugged that goes on for a nearly-unforgivable number of pages (well, they all do, really)…in which the Rearden Metal that all the ekspurts say isn’t going to work, has been used to construct a section of metal track and some of the central heroes of the story are riding a locomotive on the maiden run over that section of track.

The reason Ayn Rand drones on for thousands and thousands of words on this, is that the locomotive is traveling extremely fast, and if the new metal is as flaky as the ekspurts are trying to imply it might be, it would be a suicide run. You wouldn’t even know what hit you. The point she’s trying to make, I think, is that taking your life in your own hands and making your life absolutely, completely dependent on the verity of your perceptions and the validity of your cognitive processes, has a fortifying and sterilizing effect on the way one does one’s thinking. A man who takes his life in his hands this way, simply isn’t going to perceive the world the same way as a man who does not — and vice-versa.

I seem to recall there is a lengthy passage in The Fountainhead about this as well. Building a building, and then walking from one end to the other, on the fifth floor, yourself.

That’s an important part of being a liberal. If nothing important to you has ever depended on your complex thoughts, it is quite a simple matter to take orders from others about what those thoughts are supposed to be.
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2009 @ 18:35
Coincidentally, I just found this video from TED where a liberal explains how she justifies and rationalizes her hatred and intolerance of conservatives. Very educational: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grtGI7QpPdw
- JohnJ | 04/09/2009 @ 19:42
[…] HAPPY PERSONS: “The basic idea is this: they feel a sense of blessed relief that Obama is President” […]
- Steynian 344 « Free Canuckistan! | 04/09/2009 @ 21:08
I think the reason why liberals seem to believe in form over substance is because they actually do not believe in substance. Liberals do not believe in objective truth, so for them everything is only a matter of perception.

Perfect. Absofreakinglutely perfect. Liberals just jumped up and landed all over the idea that “perception equals reality” back in the ’90s (remember that?) When you add this to Morgan’s insight that trusting your own perceptions enough to put your ass on the line changes everything forever, I think we’re getting to the unbridgeable divide between liberals and normal people.

It is a mental disease, a form of Borderline Personality Disorder. And by the way, that chick in the video is horrifying. They’re all zombies, and they don’t know it and they don’t care. Brrr.
- rob | 04/10/2009 @ 02:22
Except for that I don’t think the divide is unbridgeable. The vast, vast majority of people are inconsistent, that’s why they fall “in the middle” (which seems to be how we refer to being inconsistent). Justice Scalia wrote a book recently about The Art of Persuading Judges. His point seems to be that judges need to know what position is best and then after being persuaded, they want a legal justification as cover for adopting said position. I think this applies to most people. Unfortunately, most people have already adopted liberal positions and justifications on most issues already, so the battle will be uphill. It seems that the most surefire way to get people to drop delusional positions is to let them suffer under their delusions until they’re ready to listen. Unlike Freeberg, I don’t think there’s any way to alter the course this nation is on. I think people need to start preparing for the inevitable. But I also think that the truth should continue to be spoken for those who are ready to listen. Eventually things will change, but I don’t think very many people realize just how bad things are going to get first.
- JohnJ | 04/10/2009 @ 12:43
Also, that’s why liberals tell praise “moderateness”. They’re really only trying to reward inconsistency, because one does have to be irrational to adopt liberal positions. But to be a hardcore liberal, one must be completely anti-rational.

But in a democracy, encouraging enough people to be merely irrational is enough for liberals to win.
- JohnJ | 04/10/2009 @ 12:49
JohnJ,

Sadly, we essentially agree. When I refer to “unbridgeable divides” I am of course alluding to this lifetime, wherein I’ve met ‘way too many zombies in the last 35 years or so.

Lefties increasingly fall into two main categories: those who have never encountered reality (or what old black men called “a case of got-to” when I was young), and those who practice a form of denial whose muscularity is little short of jaw-dropping. When I first came to California in the ’70s I’d already encountered plenty of necessity, and was naive enough to think I could handle anything, as long as I faced things for what they were. I was simply unprepared for a culture based on the way things should be. Even after all this time close to the ground, the current level of “This is how I’d portray myself on TV” in this culture leaves me speechless.

Everything I believe is based on directly observed experience because I was raised by people who couldn’t be trusted. Every liberal I’ve ever known, including a guy who’s been like my brother for 45 years, believes things based on second-hand knowledge and “ought-to.” The irrationality you cite surfaces when these folks are introduced to contrary facts, and is characterized by anger, accusal, projection and disbelief (“I can’t believe you said that. I’ve never heard anybody say that before.”)

God bless Morgan for his optimism. I can’t believe the current crop will ever be able to abandon their investment in shucking themselves. As a wise man (me, as it happens) pronounced to his Project Management students, “Ignorance is Curable; Idiocy is Chronic.”

Or as the younger-and-hipper than me put it, “You can’t fix stupid.”
- rob | 04/10/2009 @ 14:57
Pain fixes stupid.

If it doesn’t, it’s because creativity has been leveraged in some way to blame the pain on some boogeyman. On this point, I admit, my optimism has absorbed some bitter blows. I’ve seen people confronted by massive doses of pain resulting from nothing but their own repeated stupidity, and it seems large quantities of them manage to blame the pain on an imaginary phantom. Anything to avoid that most acute of pains, the Learning Experience.

What restores my optimism? You just have to see people as individuals. Just in the “conservative” blogosphere alone, some of my best blogger friends, have ‘fessed up to being September 10 liberals. I mean that literally. On 9/10/11 they were as hardcore left-wing as anyone you’d ever meet.

Fast forward past those tragic hours, and they’ve seen the light…and are not looking back. I’ll not name names. They know who they are.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2009 @ 15:17
Morgan,

You’re right, of course, and for God’s sake hang in there. I myself admit that the current state of my weltanschauung is largely due to being stuck in/around Santa Rosa for the last 6 years, where I’ve met actual hippies for the first time in 30 years. Living among people whose peak experience was “Stopping The War” (and are still wearing the same clothes, in some cases) has been sobering, to say the least. There’s no question that this county is an anomaly; still, “seeing people as individuals” is difficult in an environment that’s over 80 per cent Democrat. Testing behavior is constant, and casual conversation is virtually impossible. “Boy, it’s cold today.” “Like Alaska, right? Right? SarahPalinSarahPalinSarahPalin. Smirk.”

FWIW, I’ve also recently been threatened by a guy 6 inches taller and 100 pounds heavier than me because I asked him to stop yelling at me about bushbushbush and leave my apartment. This is in an old-folks housing situation where I’m trying to be a good neighbor despite my experience that this is better accomplished by good fences. So I may be just a tweak cynical…

Nonetheless, the current disinterest in adulthood displayed by the ever-more-extended “younger generation” is profoundly discouraging to me. You’re a tonic.
- rob | 04/10/2009 @ 16:07
Don’t laugh…

I’m watching “Star Trek” while reading this comment. The first one. Movie. The one that was three hours long and didn’t need to be. Lordy, there are few things for which I have greater rancor than three hour long movies that didn’t need to be three hours long.

Take a tonic from this…you can really, really tell Jimmy Carter was President when this movie was made. All this emphasis on being non-threatening. In April of 2009, one is hypersensitive to that which, in 1979, was just kinda the way all things were done.

I am optimistic because of how incredibly quickly this got to be stale, gentlemen. The story never changes…in all of human history. Christ, even the movie itself is unbelievably unpopular.

YES you’re right, here and there it looks like a swell idea to be a popular guy by taking the Obama creampuff approach. But that’s a sprint and not a marathon. Generation after generation, that remains the case.

But time will tell if I win that steak dinner from John. I really do think I will.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2009 @ 22:35
So… I watched the Levine vid (Thanks, JohnJ). Interesting, to say the least. I agree with her on one point, though… one HAS to have masochistic tendencies to read Rand. It takes more tolerance for pain than I possess to wade through all that pointless and turgid prose to get to the nuggets of wisdom contained therein. Objectivism’s Cliff Notes will do ME fine, thank you very much.
- bpenni | 04/11/2009 @ 13:56
I can’t agree with that. Or rather I *can*, but it depends on the context in which one finds oneself.

I strongly recommend Fountainhead and Atlas right after one’s household has been purged of one or several moochers. Roommate who drinks all the suds and never buys any…son who keeps borrowing the car and returning it on “E” with two hundred mystery-miles on the odometer…wife or girlfriend who is now an ex, because of disagreements about whether men are beasts-of-burden or not.

As the last carload is driving off, and you’re watching that middle finger extended out the driver’s side window especially for your enjoyment — fire up the browser and go here. Even better, have it already shipped to you as you’ve mutually agreed to part ways. Even better yet (this is what I did), clear out an empty spot in your cooler for it, between the bottle of wine and the corkscrew and the headband/reading-lamp…and make a point of carrying that to the hot tub with you each and every single night.

In that setting it is not masochistic. It is therapeutic.
- mkfreeberg | 04/11/2009 @ 14:10
Ah… I’ve tried, really I have. The last time was about a couple of years ago (Atlas), checked out from the Cannon AFB base library. Put me right to sleep, every time. Perhaps I should try reading ONLY in a vertical position.

As for the proper frame of mind… I don’t EVER see myself in any of those circumstances where Rand-therapy would be required. It just won’t happen… period, full-stop. 😉
- bpenni | 04/11/2009 @ 18:14
I found Atlas Shrugged to be riveting. Maybe that’s because I wanted to read it. Most books which I’ve read out of some sense of obligation I haven’t enjoyed at all.
- JohnJ | 04/12/2009 @ 10:38
Another suggestion: Make a casual research project out of her biography first. She led a fascinating life before she wrote Fountainhead.

I read AS first and Fountainhead afterward. I recommend the opposite.

Her characters seem to speak in two dialects: Snappy exchanges between heroes-and-villains, which I find most enjoyable, and long, plodding monologues which are almost self-parody. This is what makes people give up. Just skim on through, it’ll be over within five pages.

Neither one even approaches a characterization of the way real people talk.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2009 @ 12:33

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Sally Field DoctrineThursday, April 9th, 2009

Sally Field Doctrine
Thursday, April 9th, 2009