The other day, I used an idea, but didn't fully attribute its source. Chauncy Devega, writing for Salon, suggested my use of the Dunning-Kruger effect to help explain why some gravitate toward simplistic solutions to complex problems or the pseudo-sophistication of the conspiracy theory. Those proposing or advocating simplistic ideas just don't see (and perhaps don't have the capacity to see) the full-blown complexity of some problems. Conspiracy theories build on a form of simplistic thinking. Physics provide a cautionary metaphor. Newtonian physics work well in the work a day world we all inhabit, but as Einstein demonstrated, they don't work well at the macro-scale where the gravity of planets and stars tub at light itself. What works well at one scale, does not necessarily work well at the macro scale. The moon landing conspiracy provides a quick case in point. Hollywood of course does have the capacity to "fake" a moon landing. One can imagine a president Kennedy being motivated to "fake" a moon landing, if for no other reason than propaganda and "bragging rights" over the soviet union. Capacity plus motivation, however, does not equal "fact," because it forgets the problem of scale. How many people would need to be involved in such a "fake" moon landing (in Hollywood alone, the people who built the set, the costumes, the actors, the photographers, the film developers and editors, the directors and producers, et cetera) and could all those people keep quiet all this time? As almost any "scandal" illustrates, even the most highly guarded secret will make its way public, particularly when there are any number of people highly motivated to "get the dirt." Of course, this lends a sense of crusading victimization and the moral high ground to conspiracy theorists who believe they DO have the dirt, but the "rigged" system run by corrupt politicians and the main-stream media that toady to the politicians are ALL conspiring to "cover up" and deny their reality. Again, a problem of scale.
Then too there's a sort of magical thinking, one that ascribes to the "great man" or the "great woman" an ability that no man or woman could possess. Let me explain. On November 15th, the day after the election, we will wake up with a new president. Regardless who that president might be, he or she will be confronted with several intractable and contentious issues. To list just a few: (1) deteriorating race relations, (2) immigration reform and war refuges, (3) the middle east and US foreign policy, to include our military interventions, (4) trade policy, (5) escalating Russian adventurism, (6) the environment, (7) the distribution of wealth and its economic effects, (8) health care, and (9) whatever else comes up. Though some of the rhetoric surrounding these problems might dissipate, none of the problems themselves will just go away after the election. No democrat that I've heard or read really believes that Clinton will come into office and the problems will simply yield to her greatness. They enumerate policy proposals that will, in one way or another, "address" the "issues." One can have, quite legitimately, different takes on each of these issues, and because they all have been with us for some time, I will venture the assumption that there are no quick and easy (no magical) solutions. No matter who takes office, there is a prevailing assumption among democrats that she will "inherit," lock stock and barrel, all of the intractable and contentious issues. No matter what one might think of her personally, she has the temperament and the policy experience to address them.
Trump supporters, however, continue to see him as the "great man," and for those of us who see nothing particularly great about him, who just don't get it, find that puzzling and disturbing. Part of it, perhaps, can be attributed to Trump himself. He sees himself as the "great man" -- I alone can solve -- and invests himself with "powers" that exceed those of normal human beings. He presents himself almost exclusively as a Charismatic Leader. George Will touches on his in his editorial the other day. “'Charismatic authority,' wrote Max Weber in 1915, seven years before Mussolini’s march on Rome, causes the governed to submit “because of their belief in the extraordinary quality of the specific person . . . . Charismatic rule thus rests upon the belief in magical powers, revelations and hero worship.' A demagogue’s success requires a receptive demos." Will, a conservative writer, blames the receptivity of his supporters on the prep work by democrats -- that is to say, "progressivism’s success in changing America’s social norms and national character by de-stigmatizing dependency." Perhaps, to some degree, but I think a bigger culprit is the religious milieu his supporters inhabit -- one that already requires belief in magical powers, revelations, and worship of a specific person. They were rendered receptive to the incarnation of the "charismatic authority," less by the economic dependency created by medicaid and social security, more by the emotional dependency created by evangelical religion. While most evangelicals would be offended by this remark, and some continue to see Trump as something of a "false profit," one does not support Trump because he will make incremental progress on the issues plaguing the US, but because he will abolish the issues, once and for all, with ... what? There the thinking stops, because that is where it always stops with the imprecations hurled at the contesting incarnation of evil to be avoided, whether Obama or Clinton, and the imperative "have faith!"
A subtle, but telling example has come up recently. The Washington Post ran a story about a rally Trump has held with a Veterans group. The full quote, as they transcribe it runs like this:
"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over. And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it," the Republican presidential nominee told an audience of military veterans at an event in Northern Virginia on Monday morning. "And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn’t see in a movie — nobody would believe it."
The Post ran the headline, "Trump suggests military members with mental health issues aren’t ‘strong’ and ‘can’t handle it.'" At least one veteran in the group objected to their interpretation of the statement. "Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux," the post reports, "whose question Trump was answering in his remarks, issued a statement after the event calling it "sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments." Robichaux, who suffered from PTSD, added: 'I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have.'" Whether Trump's comments are "thoughtful and understanding" I will leave to the interpretation of others, but I would suggest they reveal one characteristic -- they are ambiguous. To play the English teacher for a moment, Trump speaks with very broad nouns (e.g. "people" and "folks") and a plethora of pronouns. The first pronoun "they" as in in "they see things" -- refers to the "people [coming] back from war and combat." The second pronoun "you" -- as in "you're strong" -- seems to refer to "a lot of the folks in this room," his immediate audience, and he compliments them saying "you can handle it." He then shifts the reference to "a lot of people can't handle it." Who are these people? Are we still speaking of people who "come back from war and combat?" Are we still characterizing his immediate audience, or another "group of people?" Is he expressing sympathy for those in the audience that "couldn't handle it" or is he vilifying, present company excluded, those who "can't handle it?" Hard to tell, and so one can interpret it more or less as the Post interpreted it, or as Staff Sgt. Robichaux interpreted it, and it probably depends upon one's predisposition to Trump just how it gets interpreted. For those of us who see nothing particularly great about Trump, who see his remark as mostly cliche ridden and inarticulate babble, we find it puzzling and disturbing. For those who have invested their faith in Trump, however, the remark tells them precisely what they want to hear.
What Trump doesn't say, of course, is what, if anything, he would do for veterans, particularly those who aren't strong and who couldn't handle it. According to Wikipedia, for example, "in 2013, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs released a study that covered suicides from 1999 to 2010, which showed that roughly 22 veterans were committing suicide per day, or one every 65 minutes. Some sources suggest that this rate may be undercounting suicides. A recent analysis found a suicide rate among veterans of about 30 per 100,000 population per year, compared with the civilian rate of 14 per 100,000." Additionally, "a study published in the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine found that, 'combat veterans are not only more likely to have suicidal ideation, often associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, but they are more likely to act on a suicidal plan. Especially since veterans may be less likely to seek help from a mental health professional.'" Indeed, it does seem like a "a lot of people," and all of this, of course, is merely (merely!) a subset of the larger problem of our military interventions, their economic and human cost, and the failures of our health care systems to fully accommodate returning veterans. Despite any sympathy that Trump might extend to veterans who have seen "horror stories" or "events you couldn't see in a movie," it is unlikely the problem will simply dissipate with the election under the sheer magnificent awesomeness of Trump's aura. Whoever takes office must create policy to actually address the problem, such as it is, and Clinton, for all her bureaucratic wonkishness, seems predisposed to do just that. Trump, on the other hand, seem predisposed to do ... what? There the thinking stops, because that is where it always stops with the imprecations hurled at the contesting evil to be avoided, whether Obama or Clinton, and the imperative "have faith!" Of course, once in power, Trump will no longer have need of the conspiracies, and they will dissipate, but the REAL problems that affect REAL people? Probably not, but it is also irrelevant to those who have invested their faith in Trump. He has extended a "call to worship," and the object of veneration is Trump himself. He holds "magical powers," and will make "revelations" at the appropriate time, and for those who believe, who truly believe, he will make them "great again." Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment