dlmCommentary
Another place for talk about culture, religion and politics.October 29, 2004
Lost In, and Hidden By, the Election
What will be the deciding factor in the neck 'n neck presidential election of 2004? So many people have been spending so much energy saying so many of the same old slogans to so many habitual "undecideds” that a lot of really important stuff has got to be getting lost in the rhetorical shuffle.
Possibility #1. The election will be decided on issues and substance (if "our" guy wins)
Possibility #2. The election will be decided on charming deception (if "their" guy wins)
Those are the two main schools of thought. Here's another, one that gets virtually no attention at all in the world of public policy hype. This election, as well as several if not all previous ones, might just be decided by - please! I beg for your brief indulgence - spirits.
That word usually hides more han it shows because, like the words flu and religion, it has too many possible definitions. It appears in front of liquor stores, as in "Wine and Spirits." It is heard at high school pep rallies, which are now called "spirit rallies." Or we hear that someone has a lot of "spirit," as in spunk or energy. Then of course, there are the TV preachers with their Holy and various unholy spirits. But what possible place do spirits have in presidential politics?
There are some provocative common threads in the examples just offered. The boozer becomes, in various combinations, looser, sillier, angrier, less bothered, more confident and eventually, sleepy. Significantly, the condition is not simply physical, emotional or intellectual. The effect of drinking alcohol is what we might call a wholistic one. Alcohol gets to your essence, wherever that is. We might say that alcohol changes one's "spirit" - one’s indefinable center of gravity. That is why it is called a spirit. To drink it is to, let us say, invite in a new spirit, perhaps along with a new year.
Likewise with a pep rally; what is going on there? Through various chants, called cheers, mildly ritualistic bodily movements, and inspirational speeches, students drum up a sort of group identity and group focus which motivates them to action, which often has something to do with defeating the other team (!). Much of the affect is conscious and planned, but as with alcohol, there is a great deal going on beneath the surface as well. Though pep rallies are usually harmless, it is worth noting that, down through history, similar behaviors have sometimes created volatile mobs.
In short , the affect is not unlike that produced by alcohol, except that the energies or forces are of a different kind. Still, the general tone of the psyche is changed: thoughts are gathered and focused in a certain direction, strong feelings are stirred, and certain inhibitions are dispensed with.
With all that in mind, here is a possible contemporary definition for the word spirit, one that accounts for the whole range of nuanced meaning, whether referring to alcohol, pep rallies, energetic children, TV preachers or psychologists.
Spirits are any of various powerful, largely subconscious attitudes or impulses within people that, crossing ordinary physical, psychological or social boundaries, express themselves inevitably in one’s behavior.
What will decide the election? The answer might just have something to do with spirits. The election of a president does not seem to be all that rational or conscious a process - for anyone. If it is so rational, why do most people say they hate negative campaigning when the professionals know negative campaigning “works”? Why would it be so important, as it clearly is, for media types to repeat the same talking points over and over again long after we can repeat them in our sleep? How could there be so many undecided voters when the two candidates seem so diametrically opposed? What makes otherwise normal people stand in the rain on freeway overpasses, waving and holding up signs, when all of us, no matter who we vote for, always end up disillusioned a year later? How can we get so excited about lawyers, who we despise and ridicule on a daily basis, just because they want to run for office and become even more unaccountable?
Without our conscious participation, we are imbibing some mysterious booze; we are surrounding ourselves with some covert pep rally. Is there a better way to explain the most disturbing fact of every election season - that with almost no thought at all, most of us are automatically certain that our own point of view is best, yet all we know of the other side are the usual over-simplifications, half-truths and bogeymen. Would we allow ourselves such blatant stupidity in any other area of our lives (not including sex)?
It's not a conspiracy, not in the usual sense of the term, because everyone - everyone - is being fooled by it. Through our choice of television shows, films, magazines, websites, books, music, school and church, through our chosen friends and social environments and workplaces - we are each spirited in some relentless direction.
Everything else is just the necessary habitual distraction we call our daily lives.
Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved
Possibility #1. The election will be decided on issues and substance (if "our" guy wins)
Possibility #2. The election will be decided on charming deception (if "their" guy wins)
Those are the two main schools of thought. Here's another, one that gets virtually no attention at all in the world of public policy hype. This election, as well as several if not all previous ones, might just be decided by - please! I beg for your brief indulgence - spirits.
That word usually hides more han it shows because, like the words flu and religion, it has too many possible definitions. It appears in front of liquor stores, as in "Wine and Spirits." It is heard at high school pep rallies, which are now called "spirit rallies." Or we hear that someone has a lot of "spirit," as in spunk or energy. Then of course, there are the TV preachers with their Holy and various unholy spirits. But what possible place do spirits have in presidential politics?
There are some provocative common threads in the examples just offered. The boozer becomes, in various combinations, looser, sillier, angrier, less bothered, more confident and eventually, sleepy. Significantly, the condition is not simply physical, emotional or intellectual. The effect of drinking alcohol is what we might call a wholistic one. Alcohol gets to your essence, wherever that is. We might say that alcohol changes one's "spirit" - one’s indefinable center of gravity. That is why it is called a spirit. To drink it is to, let us say, invite in a new spirit, perhaps along with a new year.
Likewise with a pep rally; what is going on there? Through various chants, called cheers, mildly ritualistic bodily movements, and inspirational speeches, students drum up a sort of group identity and group focus which motivates them to action, which often has something to do with defeating the other team (!). Much of the affect is conscious and planned, but as with alcohol, there is a great deal going on beneath the surface as well. Though pep rallies are usually harmless, it is worth noting that, down through history, similar behaviors have sometimes created volatile mobs.
In short , the affect is not unlike that produced by alcohol, except that the energies or forces are of a different kind. Still, the general tone of the psyche is changed: thoughts are gathered and focused in a certain direction, strong feelings are stirred, and certain inhibitions are dispensed with.
With all that in mind, here is a possible contemporary definition for the word spirit, one that accounts for the whole range of nuanced meaning, whether referring to alcohol, pep rallies, energetic children, TV preachers or psychologists.
Spirits are any of various powerful, largely subconscious attitudes or impulses within people that, crossing ordinary physical, psychological or social boundaries, express themselves inevitably in one’s behavior.
What will decide the election? The answer might just have something to do with spirits. The election of a president does not seem to be all that rational or conscious a process - for anyone. If it is so rational, why do most people say they hate negative campaigning when the professionals know negative campaigning “works”? Why would it be so important, as it clearly is, for media types to repeat the same talking points over and over again long after we can repeat them in our sleep? How could there be so many undecided voters when the two candidates seem so diametrically opposed? What makes otherwise normal people stand in the rain on freeway overpasses, waving and holding up signs, when all of us, no matter who we vote for, always end up disillusioned a year later? How can we get so excited about lawyers, who we despise and ridicule on a daily basis, just because they want to run for office and become even more unaccountable?
Without our conscious participation, we are imbibing some mysterious booze; we are surrounding ourselves with some covert pep rally. Is there a better way to explain the most disturbing fact of every election season - that with almost no thought at all, most of us are automatically certain that our own point of view is best, yet all we know of the other side are the usual over-simplifications, half-truths and bogeymen. Would we allow ourselves such blatant stupidity in any other area of our lives (not including sex)?
It's not a conspiracy, not in the usual sense of the term, because everyone - everyone - is being fooled by it. Through our choice of television shows, films, magazines, websites, books, music, school and church, through our chosen friends and social environments and workplaces - we are each spirited in some relentless direction.
Everything else is just the necessary habitual distraction we call our daily lives.
Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved
posted by dlm # 3:13 PM 
October 13, 2004
Making Hostility and Intolerance Look Like Compassion and Tolerance
Ahh, what games we play with ourselves in our minds. And they get so complicated. No wonder we usually walk around in a state of being fooled. Here's an example.
I am "tolerant" and "compassionate" - let us say - because I believe that the church should give official blessing to gay marriage, and because I believe that women should be "empowered" (only, of course, as that word is defined by the NOW, the NEA and at Evergreen State College), and because I am "against war," and because I want all races and ethnicities to live together in harmony and celebrate diversity.
Gosh! How tolerant I am! How compassionate! How I love peace and justice!
Here's the problem: What is usually going on underneath the rhetoric is that what I *really* treasure - above everything else - is my own pseudo-religious left-of-center ("liberal") viewpoint. And who I *really* tolerate (that is, easily like, with no effort) are all those people who agree with me and therefore affirm my sense of myself. And, hey! Look! The people who seem to agree with me most are usually gay, lesbian, non-white, feminist and poor.
Why, it works out perfectly! I get to feel superior and good and righteous and compassionate without ever having to consider those people who I would truly find *INTOLERABLE*, namely:
Gay Republicans
Black Conservatives
Men Who are not Ashamed of their John Wayne side
Females who feel completely fulfilled as wives and mothers
Those damned fundamentalists
SUV Owners
Anyone with a job in "big business"
Anyone with a job at an oil company
When I hate such people, it is not because I'm hateful or intolerant or lacking compassion or wish injustices upon them, it is because they alone - a very small and very dangerous minority - are keeping the rest of us from replanting the Garden of Eden.
I don't "hate" such people. I just don't need to take them into account while I am patting myself on the back for being so compassionate.
I am "tolerant" and "compassionate" - let us say - because I believe that the church should give official blessing to gay marriage, and because I believe that women should be "empowered" (only, of course, as that word is defined by the NOW, the NEA and at Evergreen State College), and because I am "against war," and because I want all races and ethnicities to live together in harmony and celebrate diversity.
Gosh! How tolerant I am! How compassionate! How I love peace and justice!
Here's the problem: What is usually going on underneath the rhetoric is that what I *really* treasure - above everything else - is my own pseudo-religious left-of-center ("liberal") viewpoint. And who I *really* tolerate (that is, easily like, with no effort) are all those people who agree with me and therefore affirm my sense of myself. And, hey! Look! The people who seem to agree with me most are usually gay, lesbian, non-white, feminist and poor.
Why, it works out perfectly! I get to feel superior and good and righteous and compassionate without ever having to consider those people who I would truly find *INTOLERABLE*, namely:
Gay Republicans
Black Conservatives
Men Who are not Ashamed of their John Wayne side
Females who feel completely fulfilled as wives and mothers
Those damned fundamentalists
SUV Owners
Anyone with a job in "big business"
Anyone with a job at an oil company
When I hate such people, it is not because I'm hateful or intolerant or lacking compassion or wish injustices upon them, it is because they alone - a very small and very dangerous minority - are keeping the rest of us from replanting the Garden of Eden.
I don't "hate" such people. I just don't need to take them into account while I am patting myself on the back for being so compassionate.
posted by dlm # 4:22 PM
October 02, 2004
Regarding David Brame
Background:
January 17, 2002 News Item: David Brame Becomes Tacoma’s New Police Chief
April 27, 2004: David Brame Fatally Shoots His Wife and Himself, in a Public Parking Lot; the Investigation Begins
***
Long after the tragedy, do you ever catch yourself thinking again about David Brame? Back in September, a local opinion writer wrote, “...there must never be another police chief like David Brame.” Pretty obvious, but one question should not go away: why do conspicuous red flags like those in the Brame case go unrecognized or ignored?
The aforementioned writer responded with reference to Brame’s “various masks.” True again, but the haunting realization is this: everyone wears various masks. Every person you come in contact with today will keep uncomfortable aspects about him- or herself hidden from you. The fact should not produce paranoia, but neither should it be taken lightly.
Masks are unavoidable; a functioning society depends on citizens who do not act out their darkest impulses. The problem is that, in some ways, we are more dependent on falsehood than we care to admit. A police chief kills his wife and himself in a public parking lot, happy marriages suddenly end in divorce, well-adjusted teens suddenly commit crimes, the neighbor down the street suddenly commits suicide, riots break out in peace-loving Seattle.
Why do such events shock us? Because the unspoken agreement of virtually all our social interactions is: at all costs, avoid uncomfortable conversations. “I didn’t want to hurt their feelings... It’s none of my business... Don’t rock the boat... Who am I to judge?” Our everyday language is filled with the habitual slogans of willful ignorance.
Thus, those who are truly evil - “The People of the Lie,” in Scott Peck’s insightful phrase - do their deeds under the radar until some shocking event forces the blindfold from our faces.
Why does the Brame tragedy still haunt the most thoughtful among us? The same question can be asked about Sept. 11, O.J. Simpson, or dozens of other events that “shocked” us, then quickly became yesterday’s news. We know that it is only a matter of time before the next surprise eruption of violence. If we have the courage to look into our own habits, we know something else: we know that we avoid speaking up or acting against smaller evils when we notice them, when they can still be corrected with relatively conventional resources. Therefore, to one degree or another, we are complicit in the next shocking headline. That is an extremely uncomfortable idea. Who among us has the courage to chew on it for a while?
Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved
January 17, 2002 News Item: David Brame Becomes Tacoma’s New Police Chief
April 27, 2004: David Brame Fatally Shoots His Wife and Himself, in a Public Parking Lot; the Investigation Begins
***
Long after the tragedy, do you ever catch yourself thinking again about David Brame? Back in September, a local opinion writer wrote, “...there must never be another police chief like David Brame.” Pretty obvious, but one question should not go away: why do conspicuous red flags like those in the Brame case go unrecognized or ignored?
The aforementioned writer responded with reference to Brame’s “various masks.” True again, but the haunting realization is this: everyone wears various masks. Every person you come in contact with today will keep uncomfortable aspects about him- or herself hidden from you. The fact should not produce paranoia, but neither should it be taken lightly.
Masks are unavoidable; a functioning society depends on citizens who do not act out their darkest impulses. The problem is that, in some ways, we are more dependent on falsehood than we care to admit. A police chief kills his wife and himself in a public parking lot, happy marriages suddenly end in divorce, well-adjusted teens suddenly commit crimes, the neighbor down the street suddenly commits suicide, riots break out in peace-loving Seattle.
Why do such events shock us? Because the unspoken agreement of virtually all our social interactions is: at all costs, avoid uncomfortable conversations. “I didn’t want to hurt their feelings... It’s none of my business... Don’t rock the boat... Who am I to judge?” Our everyday language is filled with the habitual slogans of willful ignorance.
Thus, those who are truly evil - “The People of the Lie,” in Scott Peck’s insightful phrase - do their deeds under the radar until some shocking event forces the blindfold from our faces.
Why does the Brame tragedy still haunt the most thoughtful among us? The same question can be asked about Sept. 11, O.J. Simpson, or dozens of other events that “shocked” us, then quickly became yesterday’s news. We know that it is only a matter of time before the next surprise eruption of violence. If we have the courage to look into our own habits, we know something else: we know that we avoid speaking up or acting against smaller evils when we notice them, when they can still be corrected with relatively conventional resources. Therefore, to one degree or another, we are complicit in the next shocking headline. That is an extremely uncomfortable idea. Who among us has the courage to chew on it for a while?
Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved
posted by dlm # 1:22 PM
Archives
September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 April 2006 December 2006
