Over the past few days, people posting on the `Blogging of the President' web site have criticized the actions of the United States' Democratic Party political campaign:
On 2004 September 20, in the The Myth of the McGuffin Stirling Newberry argued that
Newberry goes on to say, It won't happen.... Orwell had it right a long time ago....
As for playing by the rules, in a comment on 2004 September 20, Andrew Greenberg asked,
Greenberg went on to say
And then added, liberals don't,
In the US, the belief in a `second chance' is part of the culture. People want to live in a world where they can make fundamental mistakes, learn from the experience, and do better.
Consequently, they figure that if a person recognizes his or her mistake and takes steps to change, that person should be praised and helped.
Those who are `born again' disown the mistakes and accidents of their pasts. (In addtion, by this action they tell others and themselves they have done so.) Thus, President Bush is seen as a man who drank too much when he was young — a major mistake — but who overcome this weakness and is therefore deserving of help.
The more President Bush is criticized for actions from 30 years ago, the more he is seen as being unfairly attacked.
On 2004 September 20, Matt Stoller said,
On the other hand
Much of this discussion has been coached in terms of `modernism' and `post-modernism',
Democrats, with a few exceptions, have been excessively `modern'; Republicans, excessively `post-modern'.
Thus, enough Democrats have believed that large, profit-seeking organizations will seek and expound on the truth; that foreign politics are like grade school sports, in which people should follow the rules; that people who go for a `second chance' still carry with them the characters of their youth; and, that with sufficient knowledge, everyone will take on a burdensome responsibility.
However, as far as I can see, this discussion fails to grasp the question of truth. The post-modernists argue that there is no such thing as reality; they have not been convinced by the arguments of the modernists. And, in many ways, they are right.
After all, you cannot depend on reports from authority, because the authority may lie to you. As one commentator implied, for many authorities, it is a matter of `public relations'.
In addition, the post-modernists are right in pointing out that you cannot depend on an internal experience whose interpretation comes from only one culture, since that culture's understand of the world may be wrong.
But the modernists are right is saying there is some kind of external reality. You cannot live in a dreamworld forever. Eventually, debts must be paid, one way or the other.
Neither the modernists nor the post-modernists have taken the next step, even though a few people took the step hundreds of years ago and our `modern', technological world depends on it.
That is the understanding that truth is indeed a social construct, as the post-modernists say, but that it must match `something out there' to a degree, a modernist view. Without this understanding, too many people die by acting on false beliefs.
For example, two hundred years ago, blood letting was a false belief in medicine that killed a good number of people. (But it did not kill so many that it wiped out societies.)
As a practical matter, you can only develop a truth — never an absolute truth, but a strong hint towards a truth — through a mechanism whereby people in different cultures check on the internal experiences of others.
People can do this in only three ways: by repeating the reasoning of others, by reproducing an observation of others, and by duplicating an experiment of others.
Reasoning is significant: we think with metaphors and they may be misleading. When another uses different metaphors, communication fails, unless the two understand the basic metaphors of each other.
In his book 1, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, George Lakoff argues that American liberals are losing because they are not presenting themselves in a coherent metaphorical manner. This insight can only come, and only makes sense, if you figure that some representations of reality are better than others and, in addition, you have a mechanism that you believe helps you find that representation.
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page