The ethic of Wall Street is the ethic of celebrity. It is fused into one bizarre, perverted belief system and it has banished the possibility of the country returning to a reality-based world or avoiding internal collapse. A society that cannot distinguish reality from illusion dies.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
Politics isn't about who you love. It's about who you fear.
That's the upshot of a draft paper by political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster that attempts to untangle a mystery about modern American politics: how can there be record levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting at the same time that fewer Americans than ever before are identifying as Republicans and Democrats?
To answer the question, Abramowitz and Webster test a host of political characteristics to see what best predicts party loyalty. The real key, they found, was fear of the other party: "Regardless of the strength of their attachment to their own party, the more voters dislike the opposing party, the greater the probability that they will vote consistently for their own party’s candidates."
It's worth saying that a bit more clearly: you're more likely to vote Democratic if you hate Republicans than if you love Democrats, and vice versa. What parties need to do to keep you loyal isn't make you inspired. Rather, they need to make you scared.
Partisans like their own party less, but they like the other party a lot less
You don't actually need a regression analysis to see that hate, not love, is driving the changes in American politics. Abramowitz and Webster include this graph of people's attitudes toward their party, and toward the opposing party, and it gets more disturbing the longer you look at it:
What's changed isn't how much we like our own party. It's how much we hate the other party. (Chart: Abramowitz/Webster)
The thick line atop the chart shows people's attitudes toward their own party since 1980. The change there isn't dramatic, but it's noticeable: on net, people like their own party a bit less than they did in '80s and '90s.
Consider that for a minute: even as people have become more loyal to their political party, they actually like their party less. That's a very strange finding. But it's more than explained by the line at the bottom of the chart. That line shows people's attitudes toward the other party — and there, you see a sharp, sustained drop in favorability.
This, then, is the last 30 years of American party politics in a sentence: we like the party we belong to a bit less, but we hate the other party much more.
Parties thrive on their members' fears
This chart from Pew's massive survey around partisan polarization is a powerful companion to Abramowitz and Webster's work:
People often compare politics to sports. Both have teams, and winners and losers, and the different sides often hate each other. But here's where the analogy falls apart: in politics, many believe — often correctly — that if the wrong side wins, the consequences will be grievous. The other side isn't just disliked. It's feared.
What's more, politicians from both parties have an incentive to keep it that way. This chart also comes from Pew, and it's powerful: it shows that the more you hate the other party, the likelier you are to vote, and the likelier you are to donate money to candidates from your party:
The question all this raises is why voters are coming to fear the other party more with each passing decade. The answer Abramowitz and Webster offer is that it comes down to changing composition: the two parties are becoming more demographically dissimilar from each other, and that's making it easier for them to hate each other.
Abramowitz and Webster note, for instance, "In 2012, according to the national exit poll, nonwhites made up 45 percent of Democratic congressional and presidential voters but only 11 percent of Republican congressional and presidential voters." Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become much more religious: in 1980, 48 percent of observant white voters were Republicans; by 2012, that had risen to 78 percent.
This is leading to sharper polarization on major cultural issues like abortion. "Between 1980 and 2012 the proportion of Democratic voters taking a strongly pro-choice position on abortion rose from 38 percent to 61 percent," write Abramowitz and Webster, while the proportion of Republicans "favoring a ban or stricter limits on abortion rose from 42 percent to 51 percent."
In other words, as the parties become more distant demographically and culturally, they become more distant on policy, too. And so voters of each party are being at least somewhat rational in their increased fear of the other party: a liberal Democrat actually has more to fear from the Republican Party of 2012 than she did from the Republican Party of 1980, and vice versa.
Why Republicans will dominate Congress and Democrats will turn out for Hillary
This theory leads to at least a few major conclusions about American politics. The one Abramowitz and Webster emphasize is that it gives Republicans an enduring advantage in congressional elections. Republicans have long had a geographical advantage in both House and Senate elections because their voters are more spread out than Democratic voters. In the past, Democratic candidate could compete by distancing themselves from the national party and making the election about local issues. But as the country grows more partisan, that's becoming harder, and the result is that Republicans are likely to be dominant at the congressional level for some time.
Jonathan Chait, meanwhile, pulls some good news for Democrats out of the data. Just as Republicans have a natural advantage at the congressional level, Chait believes Democrats have a natural advantage at the presidential level, where the voters skew younger and less white. And if fear of a Republican president means the Obama coalition persists after Obama, then it's going to be a long time before Republicans win back the White House.
Both of these lessons speak to the same underlying reality: as American politics becomes more partisan, and more based on fear of the opposing party, individual candidates matter less. So for all the talk of how much less enthusiastic Democrats are for Hillary Clinton than they were for Barack Obama, it's not likely to matter all that much because Democrats are going to be extremely enthusiastic about beating the Republicans, and vice versa.
In Cockney rhyming slang, the word ‘believe' is represented by ‘Adam
and Eve'. When faced with something baffling, shocking or plain
peculiar, you might use the rhetorical expression, ‘Would you Adam and
Eve it?' It's ironic, then, that one of the great debates of the day is
about the literal truth of the bible story; or in other words, the
extent to which we should Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve.
It's a question not just of belief but of denial. The phrase ‘in
denial' has become so commonplace it's hard to still hear its power. In
common with the ostrich which, as danger approaches, buries its head in
the sand, those who are ‘in denial' prefer a false but subjective sense
of security to a true but objectively scary reality. Denial brings short
term, if illusory, comfort.
Hence creationism, the theory/superstition
that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly
as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions
of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed,
like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of
course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological
purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which
allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are
in a state of denial.
Along with denial, two other factors connect creationism with mental
illness. The first is psychosis, which is an extension of denial. If
psychosis is marked by the discrepancy between one's personal view of
the world and the consensual view, creationism holds onto the personal
view at all costs, refusing to accept what is abundantly clear. True, if
creationism became the majority view, its psychotic character might be
mitigated. Except that this majority view would have no more valence
than the belief so widely held about the relationship between the sun
and the earth before Copernicus proved how the latter orbits the former,
and not vice versa.
Finally, creationism shares with autism
an alleged lack of ability for irony. Creationists take the bible story
as literally true, unable to recognise that it might be working on
those other, mythic levels.
If tests for madness include talking to yourself and looking for
hairs on the palm of your hand, then here's another: do you Adam and Eve
in Adam and Eve?
Robert Rowland Smith is the author of 'Breakfast with Socrates: an
Extraordinary (Philosophical) Journey Through your Ordinary Day' (Free
Press).
In Creationism as a Mental Illness, Robert
Rowland Smith argues that creationists exhibit several signs of mental
illness including denial, psychosis, and inability to grasp irony.
The specter of mental illness does indeed loom large over
creationists, but they are not alone. Signs of psychopathology can also
be seen among their political bedfellows, conservative politicians,
especially when you consider a wide range of illness indicators. In his
award-winning 2005 book, Dr. James Whitney Hicks discusses 50 signs of mental illness (link is external) including denial, delusion, hallucination, disordered thinking, anger, anti-social behavior, sexual preoccupation, grandiosity, general oddness, and paranoia. Now I'm no clinician, but in my (admittedly biased
brown) eyes it seems that prominent Republicans have evidenced each of
these ten telltale signs of mental illness over the past year:
Regrettably, the Republican who least exhibits anti-science stances
is the only one who (tongue-in-cheek) acknowledges his mental illness:
Until Jon Huntsman becomes the sane voice of his insane party, maybe "Republican Syndrome" should be added to the DSM-V (link is external) so that crazy conservative pols can receive the mental health treatment they need. I bet "Obamacare" would even cover it.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3637026/Screen_Shot_2015-04-23_at_6.32.55_PM.0.png)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4604397/partisan_animosity.jpg)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4606207/donations_linked_to_negative_views.jpg)
