Republican Mind Games, Racists, Fundamentalists, and the Nature of Propaganda

This entry is about PROPAGANDA. It can be said that any persuasive speech is propaganda. We usually associate the word with bias and even deceit. All political campaigns are propaganda campaigns.

To be clear about my own biases, I don’t like the Republican Party. I’ve never voted for a Republican candidate. From what I understand, my ancestors have long been Tennessee Republicans, even before The War. Bunch of contrarians if you ask me. They probably got pissed at Andrew Jackson and never veered off to the Democrats like the rest of the south. Anyway, if I don’t like the Democrat I’ll abstain before I vote for a Republican.

I have my personal values which are more in line with the typical Democratic Party agenda than with the Republican’s, but I am frequently disappointed with Democrats. The nature of politics is hard for me to stomach. I’ve heard politics compared with making sausage - nasty and disgusting business.

So if all politics is sausage, why are my negative feelings for Republicans so much stronger than for Democrats? It’s because for all my adult life Republican sausage hasn’t been made from by-products and entrails. Republican sausage has been made of almost 100% bull feces for at least 30 years.

I see the Republican Party as a particular kind of evil dressed up to appear to be righteousness. I see them as opposite of what they purport themselves to be. I’ve written about this before on this blog. The Republican Party is the party of self-righteous hypocrites, racists and race-baiters. They break one of my cardinal values routinely without compunction: they violate boundaries of individuals, groups and other countries. They ignore the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. They are judgmental, deceitful know-it-alls. I don’t want to be associated with values that are so far removed from my own.

My opinions developed over the years. My opinions are based on my interpretation of the ordinary news available to everyone. My interpretation as an ordinary citizen. I’ll also say that I was very busy during the 1980’s with my personal life, so pardon me if I’m a little lean with information during these years. I mentioned in a previous entry that the neoconservatives were rooted in Trotskyism - Marxist “Menshaviks” rather than “Boleshiviks”. I learned this from Pat Buchanan, a self described paleoconservative. I asked several smart people I know if they knew this fact. They didn’t. Hmmmm..... This is interesting. I have to wonder what other information is hiding in plain sight.

The Republicans are supposed to be the party of rich, well-educated east coast elitists. The Democrats are the party of populism - ordinary people. In the left/right political paradigm, the Second Estate (regular people) should be the Democrats on the left, and the Third Estate (nobility) should be the Republicans on the right. This is America: we don’t have a meaningful nobility. The differences in upper and lower classes are fluid. Indeed one of the defining strengths of our culture is that we believe that no matter how low we start, the potential exists that we will succeed to a higher status. Like “Joe the Plumber”. Ha-ha! Status increases and decreases between generations and even within single lifetimes. The Haves v. The Have Nots. This division makes sense: those who struggle to keep what they have from those who want a bigger piece of the total pie - not because they want to steal from the Haves (redistribute wealth), but because they want their fair share from those Haves who would keep it for themselves if they could get away with it.

Mostly it went this way in the USA, the Haves v. Have Nots. Whether out of conscience or self-interest, sometimes the Haves sided with the Have-Nots ( Noblesse oblige ), rarely vise versa. The Have Nots can’t afford to side with the Haves. Then something strange happened. It happened as a response to the civil rights movement. The white Have-Nots, against their own best interests, crossed over to the side of the Haves. While the usual political divisions are economic, this anomaly made race the major divider.

Of course, there are black Republicans. Not many. The 2008 Republican convention was a sea of white faces. Overt racism isn’t accepted in 2008, so the GOP can’t be direct about it. (The self-righteous deniability that allows them to reap the benefits of racism without having to pay the political price.) I wonder sometimes if every black Republican has a high profile appointment (a la Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas) or a mouthpiece job speaking for the GOP on TV. If Obama wins, I will be happily proven wrong. I though our first black or female president would be a non-threatening Republican.

In the south especially, Have-Not white people have become Republicans. They have been voting against their own interest for many years now. They have no health care, a ridiculously low minimum wage and working wages and little job security because of so-called “right-to-work” laws. The working and middle class bear an unfair and disproportionate tax burden. The little wealth the ordinary people do control is stolen from them by unfair business practices that allow greedy Haves access through predatory lending practices and deregulation which amounts to putting their money into a vault with no locks. The Republicans have deceived the fundamentalists and racists to get their votes without actually caring about their interests. How’d they do this?

Tangent #1

I’m not an expert, but expertise isn’t needed. Fundamentalists and racists (there is considerable overlap) are easy marks because they don’t think. That’s right. Fundamentalists forfeit their God-given rational thinking for a feeling of reassurance that they are safe and worthwhile-SUPERIOR even! Better than those with other beliefs. Better than the dreaded “Secular Humanists”. Like the cargo cultists, fundamentalists believe that they are the elect and that their beliefs are THE Truth!

I’m not sure why fundamentalists don’t think. Other people don’t think, too. I think it has to do with the “M”’s and “W”’s. I think I wrote about this before. Didn’t I? Some people reject fundamentalism, but still stop thinking anyway. I’m pretty sure that the more first person bias an individual has (narcissism) the less likely that person is to consider novel data and the less open that person will be to The Truth, “the true truth at all times.” Ha-ha! At the core narcissistic individuals and groups are AFRAID. Afraid of losing control of their familiar world. I think, that for some people, giving up ideas they have been taught are sacred triggers guilt feelings. Others have just never been taught how to question and think critically and rationally. Like most human phenomena, critical thinking (or lack thereof) is probably a combination of “nature” and “nurture”.

A lot of smart educated people don’t habitually think critically. Critical thinking is even rarer among the uneducated and unintelligent. I stopped writing the other day (Critical Thinking entry) after I read that 65% of adolescents and adults never develop the capacity for formal reasoning. When I thought about this, I had to admit that my personal experience confirms this distressing datum. Irrational thinking is everywhere. I’ve been listening to cable news as I write this. Maybe 35% is rational? Maybe I’m optimistic.

The questions I asked myself when I read that disturbing stat were, what was meant by “formal reasoning” and did “never develop capacity” mean “unable to develop capacity” or “unwillingness to develop capacity” or “never taught to develop capacity”? I also wondered if there was an adaptive advantage to being unable to reason formally. I did a bit of research that didn’t take me anywhere. I had reached my own limits of reason so I developed a working theory (or belief). Except for primitive people (who have an excuse) and certain low intelligence individuals (who also have an excuse), people are either not being required to develop rational thinking (educated) or are refusing to think for emotional reasons (denial and inability to handle The Truth, “the true truth at all times”).

Sub - Tangent A

I’m writing this with two types of readers (friends and family) in mind, fundamentalist Christians and those people who are vexed by the fundamentalists in their lives (often loved ones). Why do the fundamentalists reject their God-given ability to think rationally (and therefore vote for Republicans against their own best interest - ha-ha!)? How should the rest of us approach our interactions with the fundamentalists in our lives?

I believe that fundamentalists are capable of rational thinking, but are afraid of what they might have to face about both themselves and the world they live in. I also believe that those who eschew rational thinking are easy prey for the wolves in sheep’s clothing who will use them to advance personal and political agendas. I also believe that those who interact with fundamentalists can learn to interact differently and stop being frustrated and wasting time in circular arguments. I have sooo much faith!

Sub -Tangent B

It’s taking me longer than I anticipated to write the possible reasons (fundamentalists in particular) people are vulnerable to propaganda. I won’t be able to get to the meat of the matter in this entry. I discovered a couple of interesting articles about the issue of fundamentalism and thinking. Neither article is hostile to fundamentalists at all. Both are respectful, but both articles contain serious truths that fundamentalists won’t find flattering. I hope this doesn’t keep anyone from considering the merit in the writings.

A description of fundamentalism that is as good as any I know of:

“It is therefore better to say that fundamentalism is a strong defense or opposition by people who feel their identity threatened by the dominant modern culture. Their defense, reaction, or opposition consists of returning to the premodern readings of the Bible. Their reaction is foremost one of restoring the past rather than participating in the progress and change of modern times.” - Quote from the link below


This is a good article about the nature of fundamentalism. Not just fundamental Christianity, but Islam and other religions as well.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3783/is_200104/ai_n8945567

From the next link at zimbo.com:

“...critical questions are silenced and critical thinking is minimized (Rose 1991, 463) at least in relation to matters of religious faith.8 Ammerman (1988) concludes that "[E]ven in the high school, there is no attempt to move toward creative, critical, or integrative thinking....”

“The teaching of critical thinking is probably the most profound difference between fundamentalist education and orthodox education, at least in the conception of orthodox education that Thiessen (1993) offers. Normal critical openness is a legitimate educational ideal, he argues. Critically open people are tolerant of others who hold viewpoints different from their own, listen to people who express differing viewpoints and consider objections to their own viewpoints. Christianity is according to him the advocate of normal critical openness. Therefore, in his view Christian nurture can and should foster normal critical openness (165-168).(emphasis mine-JG ;-)

“...One of our main missions [non-fundamentalist, church-related, liberal arts college.], if not the main mission, is to create critical thinkers. With critical thinking, the truth is open to question. To question sacred positions held by many in our society requires courage-- especially if one's questioning results in novel answers. In short, critical thinking can be painful and cause distress. [a phrase I find personally amusing ha-ha, Big O! - JG] From this perspective, fundamentalists are seeking a world that makes sense, and they cannot bear living with ambiguity. Therefore, they opt for unquestioning certainty. It is those people, those who cannot bear to live a life of ambiguity and would rather believe than investigate, who ultimately become attracted to fundamentalism.”

http://www.zimbio.com/Fundamentalism/articles/45/The+Road+to+Fundamentalism



Narcissistic people are like children. They are easy to manipulate with flattery. They are the easiest people in the world to manipulate. Then there are all kinds of narcissistic groups. Fundamentalists are a narcissistic group therefore easy to manipulate. To follow Jesus’ main teaching, The Golden Rule, an individual must transcend his or her own ego to connect with others through love. Love requires respect for the other and strong ego boundaries. Fundamentalists, being narcissists (at least in regards to their religion) are emotionally immature. They, in a childlike way, maintain their belief in the superiority of their beliefs by means of magical thinking. This prevents them from respecting those who hold different beliefs. Yes, it does. This lack of respect prevents fundamentalists from treating others with the same regard they themselves want from other people. Therefore, fundamentalists (like my relatives in the previous entry) are unable to follow Christ’s main teaching - to love one another and treat others the same way that they themselves want to be treated.

I assert that an individual can’t be a fundamentalist and a TRUE Christian. That’s right. “Fundamentalist Christian” is an oxymoron. I’m prepared to defend that statement with all kinds of data both scriptural and scientific. And circle back to the topic of Propaganda, too.



Next: Fundamentalists are peculiarly sensitive to the manipulative effects of propaganda.