[RC] True-Believer Politics / revised / previous version superceded

[Avesland at aol.com]

 True-Believer Politics
 
Everyone  is familiar with the concept of "false positives,"  test results 
that
show a problem where none exists. There also are "false absolutes,"
principles that usually are quite true or good, but that cannot be  applied
to ALL cases because doing so results in absurdities. For example,
just about all Americans , if asked, would reply in the affirmative  to
a question about the worth of tolerance toward "all religions."   But
clearly just about all Americans make mental reservations when it  comes
to Satanism, suicide cults like the People's Temple, or  any number  of
other religious groups which one finds dubious or reprehensible. In  actual
fact the high ideal of religious tolerance, which is almost  universally
presented to the public as an Absolute is , in reality, a False  Absolute.
 
It seems that there is another "false" category worth looking into  :
False Choices, or, to be more clinical about it at the risk of  confusion
with theology, "false beliefs." Some explanation is in order...
 
Clearly a good percentage of people on both the Left and Right are
political "true believers." For the sake of illustration let us assume  that
about 25 % of Democrats are doctrinaire , and about 25 % of  Republicans.
Among members of minor parties the percentage of  True Believers  would
seem to be in excess of 50 %, and possibly may be in the vicinity of 90 %  ,
and this may hold for the whole spectrum of such parties, whether  Green,
Libertarian, Anarchist, "Christian," Socialist, or you-name-it.
 
What is also the case, at lest apparently, is that political Independents  
overwhelmingly are "True Disbelievers." They tend to be political  skeptics
who have little or no use for propaganda disseminated by the major  parties
to the public, and are equally distrustful of the pronouncements of  the
minor parties. Yet among activist Independents there also seems to  be
another 25 % or so who "believe in" principles that underlay a  politically
Independent stance. They take being an Independent seriously and  regard
their position as based on the best possible "reading" of the facts  of
political life in the real world.
 
The point to make is that no movement  -and no religion-  can  exist without 
some number of  True Believers in its ranks. And everyone who  belongs to
a political party, or at least identifies with one, finds themselves now  and 
then
in the role of True Believer. The same thing can be said about  members of
religious groups, or of social movements, even about popular  philosophies.
 
"True Believer," has various definitions. As used here it follows,  
more-or-less
the usage by Eric Hoffer in his classic book of this title. A True  Believer 
has
an unquestioning attitude about his (or her) political membership or  
identification,
even if, at the outset, when first joining, there was a great deal of  
questioning.
There might have been a continuation of at least limited questioning  for
several years, but eventually he or she has gotten to the pace where, at  
most,
there only are very occasional questions. True Belief in "the cause" is a  95 
%
or even 99 % matter. For some it comes within .00000000001  of 100  %.
 
The other side  ( or "others" more generally ) is always wrong, if  not about
everything, about so much that it makes no practical difference. The  other 
side
is totally unwise, totally in error, and totally wrong about everything  that 
matters.
A True Believer demonizes the other side. There is no possible way to  
perceive
the least good on the other side and the other side is, in effect,  inspired 
by 
the Devil.
 
Oddly , actually not oddly at all, almost any True Believer can point  out
numerous faults, shortcomings, mistakes, sins, crimes, etc, on the  part
of the other side. But a True Believer can see no problems ( at least  none
of any major consequence ) on the "good side."  THIS is genuinely  odd
inasmuch as   -which we all know very well indeed-  there  is no such thing
as a perfect human being or perfect political cause. Objectively all  anyone
can hope for is some optimal result in which shortcomings are minimized  and
good things maximized. We need to live with human imperfections
no matter how much we ordinarily favor "our side."
 
The NECESSARY correlate is that the other side, while it may mostly
be walking in darkness, at least sometimes walks in the light. That is,  any
success the other side has in politics, you would think, must be  partly or
even largely explained by its objective virtues.
 
This leaves out successes which we can legitimately attribute to  serious
psychological problems, such as are at the roots of Nazism,  Communism,
malignant forms of Anarchism, Islamo-Fascism, and so forth. Some 
political movements appeal to psychopaths or help create  psychopaths
and a psychopathological current in society. What is being discussed  here
is American politics in its most usual manifestations, which is true  with
respect to the vast majority of Americans. 
 
We can argue that psychopathological trends can be seen inside of
various otherwise normative political causes, but maybe we can leave  
discussion of this phenomenon for another time. I do see incipient 
Fascism in some forms of the Right;  as well, there  is incipient Communism
(of a hybrid variety) in some forms of Leftism. I also think that there  is 
about
the same amount of such illness on both the Left and Right, even if this  
could
be in error. Maybe there are more loonies on the Right, maybe there are  more
on the Left. But I really don't know, and at least for now this is a  problem
that can be set aside. The point concerns "average Americans" who all  of
us would recognize as fellow employees, neighbors, fellow members  of
a religion, customers at businesses you frequent, other parents at the  local 
PTA, fellow sports enthusiasts, and so forth.
 
You don't need to be a Fascist or Commie or anything of the kind to  be
a True Believer. All that is required is having a closed mind. Plus  
unwillingness
to acknowledge ( or even see ) that you have a closed mind.
 
But this condition should not invariably be cast as a negative  phenomenon.
Belief serves an essential function in people's lives. Among other things  it
simplifies a complex world and allows us to concentrate on what we 
consider to be most important in life   Belief provides moral  clarity as 
well,
and, with it, a sense of having solid ground under one's feet. Belief is  also
a string motivator for many kinds of useful action. Or for useful  choices.
 
Moreover, belief is powerful medicine against pedantry. Sincere  belief
almost by definition mitigates against stuffed shirts, against  academic
digressions, and against snobbery.
 
We all need SOME belief in our lives. The problem concerns the  extent
of belief in one's character. That is, there is such a thing as too much  
belief,
hence the problem of  True Believers and their strong tendency  toward
political extremism. But there is a counterpart, not enough belief,  hence
political apathy, looking the other way even when political crimes are  
committed, lack of desire to become informed, and a whole slew of
other bad behaviors.
 
That is, the kind of True Believer that a viable political cause  needs is,
we might say, a "qualified True Believer," someone who is  sufficiently
self-critical that he or she is not an unthinking zealot, not closed  minded,
and not extremist. Nor does such a person demonize the other side  even
if there may be a good deal of criticism . Unfortunately, however,  this
-so far-  is to define a rara avis , a creature that  scarcely exists.
 
Here is the crux of the issue :
 
We have been conditioned to make a decision for one of two  False Choices
Either we should believe  -can be almost anything-  or we  should NOT.
 
But life is not that simple. What can be maintained is that what we  NEED  
-and this is not a luxury but altogether essential-  is a "golden  mean" of 
belief in our lives, just the right amount, neither too much nor too  little.
 
Alas, this is easier said than done. What is crucial to recognize is  that
most of the institutions we respect and owe allegiance to   promote
excessive belief , by default. This is as true for the Right as it is for  
the Left.
Hence the problem of False Choices.
 
Take Evangelical Christianity. The whole point in BEING a Christian
revolves around belief. And, no doubt about it, the Bible  repeatedly
tells people that they ought to Believe. And, needless to say, leaders  of
churches and denominations have a stake in promoting belief,  otherwise
the institutions they belong to would wither and die.
 
The situation is similar on the Left. This is approximately as true  with
respect to Marxists, "hard core" environmentalists, gender  feminists,
and many others, but let's take Marxism as symptomatic.
 
The whole point in most forms of Marxism, especially Marxist-Leninism,  
is to believe in the system and act accordingly. It is no accident that  
Marxism has been compared to theology and Communism to a religion.
And there is no doubt, either, that belief is the organizing  principle of
this form of politics. After all, it certainly is NOT organized, like  almost
any reputable philosophy, around questioning, nor is it organized like  a
science, since the sciences are organized around testing of  hypotheses.
 
What is also true in both of these examples is that "believers" are  given
as much instruction as they can absorb in how to read core texts. A  good
Christian reads the Bible with real care. Every word is important, and  some
words are crucial since the interpretation of major parts of the book  may
hinge on one verse or even some one  word.
 
Among Marxists the same phenomenon exists and is just about as  pronounced.
Every word counts, and close reading of Marx's writings, and those of  Lenin 
and maybe a few others, is treated as vital.
 
This is pointed out because, again oddly,  or not so oddly, as soon  as a 
Christian reads something else, or a Marxist reads something else, such  care
in reading a text may vanish without a trace. Its OK to be a sloppy  reader 
when
you aren't reading the Bible , or Das Kapital.
 
I don't know about you, but long after ceasing to be a Baptist one  profound
lesson from my Baptist years came back with force. It came in the form  of
a question that, thinking about it, also had a great deal to do with the  
time when
I was a philosophy student at Roosevelt University in Chicago.And  philosophy
also demands close reading of texts. 
 
What if I tried to read everything  -just about everything,  literally-  as 
closely
as I read the Bible ? Not only serious stuff, but people's letters,  
advertising
and political material, newspaper stories, the whole schmeer ? Well, it  can 
be 
reported that doing so makes a huge difference. Indeed, it is impossible  to 
as
much as contemplate reading anything at all (with a few exceptions )  unless
I do so with care. Of course, there are slip ups.  And sometimes you  become
tired, or might be rushed, but the rules still applies. Thus every  letter, 
at least
as much as it can be done, is a letter from the Apostle Paul. Every news  
story.
Every Web page that I turn to while searching the Internet.
 
But anyone can cultivate this attitude. There is Jewish precedent,  Buddhist
precedent, as well as Marxist and other political precedent.
 
What this does for political consciousness is that the "other side" is  given
a voice. You may still disagree , but at least you understand what the  
other  side really has to say. After all, to use the example of  Paul, 
what "this document"  is, in effect, is Paul on a bad day, but still  Paul,
and I need to actually understand what he is saying. 
 
As a very independent religious thinker my view is that Paul is not  always 
right, 
I find no usefulness in accepting each and everything the Apostle said.  But 
all of it 
is important to know. And so, again and again, while continuing to find  new 
strengths from political views that are most congenial to me naturally,  
there are 
new ideas to learn from the other side, or from "others."
 
This is one antidote to the problem of too much or too little  belief.
 
Another is a question of values..What do I really value ? Do I  value
community ? If so, then the other side consists of people, too, and
it is axiomatic that there must be something worthwhile to learn  from
them. Therefore it is my obligation to look for that something even  if,
when all is said, there isn't nearly as much as one finds on the "good  side."
But surely there is some, and maybe a lot more than I now realize.
 
This does not apply to some categories of people, to be sure. This  is
to discuss political groups, and, by implication, most religions. It  is
NOT to discuss child molesters, the mafia, serial killers, and so  forth.
 
Among political groups in America that are reasonably within our  political
system, there is good to be found across the spectrum. This Good is
unevenly distributed but there is a lot to be found, added up, which  comes
from some other source besides the party of your choice.
 
And there is the question of fairness and truth. Do I really value  truth ?
If so it is vital to give the other side some benefit of the doubt and at  
least
hear out its spokesmen - spokeswomen. Simple fairness demands it.
 
But how many people actually give truth anything like a high priority  in
their lives ? Damned few. Most people, at least this is my experience,  
give the highest priority to ideas that reinforce what they already  believe.
 
This is unavoidable to some extent. No-one can question everything,  all
the time. But if you actually value truth the ONLY thing to do is  to
periodically re-examine your beliefs. 
 
What does this result in politically ?
 
Radical,Centrist political philosophy and politically Independent  voting.
 
In the past, now well over a generation ago, it might have resulted  in
some form of partisan voting, since both the major parties as well  as
some of the minor ones, shared a large set of common social values,
and valued open and relatively honest political debate. But those days  
are long gone and it is debatable whether we shall ever see them  again.
Thus, for now and the indefinite future, what is being said here should  be
interpreted as a statement strongly in favor of Independent voting.
 
Billy Rojas
September  2006






 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20060911/a3fbb53e/attachment-0001.html