“And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?” Isa 8:19
There were a couple of interesting things coming together in the last few weeks that seem to have a common thread. The thread is that some people find an idea so compelling that they become blind to any facts which undermine their position.
One is the ongoing Pro-Life opposition to the Obama election. The second is a report regarding the death penalty. The third is the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a suit challenging President-Elect Obama’s citizenship.
One of the dominant themes of Senator McCain’s campaign was that you can’t trust President-Elect Obama. That point of view appealed to Pro-Lifers, Racists, Libertarians, Liberal-haters, Gay-haters, Free-Marketers, Isolationists, and many who legitimately questioned Senator Obama’s experience. McCain may have succeeded in sowing seeds of doubt regarding Obama, but he failed to convince a majority of voters that he was a better choice.
Of the whole spectrum of Obama opponents, the Pro-Lifers seemed most shocked by outcome. Many refuse to accept the election. Some predict the God will swiftly and decisively punish our country and all those who voted for Obama.
What is fascinating about this position is that, in practical terms, the past eight years of Pro-Life governance did not substantially restrict abortion rights in this country. It is also highly likely given the financial crisis that we are facing, that the next four to eight years won’t see substantial relaxation of abortion restrictions either. So the operative question is what motivates this reaction?
A group advocating changes in our death penalty laws released a report indicating that it now costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to incarcerate them for life. The rest of the report documents that far fewer capital cases are being brought in the courts because states recognize that it is both expensive to prosecute these cases and many convictions end up getting overturned as new evidence becomes available. So the operative question is why do we still have a death penalty?
The Supreme Court recently refused to take up a case claiming that Obama didn’t meet the constitutional citizenship requirements to be President. There is a second case of a similar nature also making its way to the Supreme Court. It will also likely also be rejected. The mainstream media including nonpartisan fact finding organizations have repudiated all of the claims surrounding this controversy. So the operative question is why does this controversy continue to flourish on the Internet even though it has no substance in fact?
The answer to all of the questions appears to be a conspiracy culture described in a Salon article on the citizenship controversy.
“There’s no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody’s mind,” says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master’s degree in psychology. “The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it … Once you’re committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind.”
Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory “develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence,” Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. “As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy.”
Let’s examine each of these in the light of this evaluation.
The citizen conspirators are a classic example that requires little additional explanation. When confronted with Obama’s birth announcement in a HI newspaper, the citizen conspirators respond that the announcement doesn’t say where Obama was born, and even if it did, Obama’s parents could have lied, or Obama’s grandparents could have lied, to cover up the fact that he was born somewhere else. I’ve also read some who have suggested that Obama’s real purpose of returning to HI late in his campaign was to tie up the loose ends around this birth certificate cover-up rather than visit his dying grandmother. The reality is that a mountain of simple evidence supports the same simple conclusion that the Supreme Court action reflected. Obama was born in Hawaii and as a result, is a US citizen qualified to be elected President.
Those who support the death penalty have a similar myopia. They are fixated on punishment rather than practicality. As a result, they are willing to spend more money to kill someone rather than imprison them for life. And they are willing to run the fairly high risk that they may be killing an innocent man in order to make sure that they kill the guilty. At the end of the day it makes no difference that the death penalty may no longer be pursued by states attorneys. All that is important is that it is on the books and available for use when the public outrage demands it.
Finally, there is an aspect of this that is even reflected in the Pro-Life movement. That aspect is revealed when you talk with Pro-Lifers about the issue of reducing abortions. You would think on the surface, that this is something Pro-Lifers would welcome regardless of where it comes from. Even if I don’t agree with the premise that life begins at conception, if I’m willing to agree that abortion is bad social policy, shouldn’t that represent common ground?
What I’ve discovered is that, at least for some, the Pro-Life position has nothing to do with the number of abortions that are performed in this country and everything to do with eliminating abortion as choice. It is all about imposing a particular morality rather than addressing a social need. In the case of Barak Obama, this is manifested in the view that it doesn’t matter what Barak Obama does or doesn’t do to reduce the number of abortions in this country. As long as he persists in his view that a woman should have a right to choose an abortion, he is supporting a sinful act, is unqualified for the office, and those who support him are unqualified to call themselves Christians.
So just like the citizenship conspirators and the death penalty advocates, there is an aspect of irrationality in some Pro-lifers. It doesn’t matter that the number abortions in this country is going down at a fairly constant rate regardless of administration. It doesn’t matter that the best years of abortion reduction have occurred during the years when income for the poor rose. It doesn’t matter that good education and easy access to contraception have a direct affect on the birthrate among teenagers. All that matters is morality.
This is very similar to the conversations with the citizenship conspirators. They claim that they don’t oppose Obama politically. All that matters is the constitution. Or the death penalty advocates. For them all that matters is justice.
For all three groups, the world easily divides into believers and non believers and what’s worse, they don’t listen to anything a non-believer has to say. That’s because they prefer the peep and mutter of familiar spirits to any truth that may upset their world view.
I don’t know how a democracy effectively handles sections of the electorate who refuse to engage in a rational discussion. The last election proved that these groups are in the minority. Hopefully this minority will recognize that the issues which affect our suvival affect them too, and are far more serious and in need of their attention than those issues which seem to have them mesmerized.
Fascinating that someone who would accuse right leaning Christians of myopia would have such a myopic view of them himself.
Go back to your rat hole, douchebag.
Candy,
Your reaction pretty much proves the point of the post.
If you think that I’ve missed something in my description of your views, please post something specific about what you DO believe in and how that differs from what I’ve written.
I certainly don’t feel that all Pro-Life supporters suffer from this particular perseverance. Those who continue to feel that abortion is the most important single issue facing the country, however, have proven hard to reason with.
Jeff
“……for some, the Pro-Life position has nothing to do with the number of abortions that are performed in this country and everything to do with eliminating abortion as choice. It is all about imposing a particular morality rather than addressing a social need.”
This is so true! I cannot tell you how many high-minded, church-going people I know who have turned to abortion, or encouraged their own children to turn to abortion when faced with an “unwanted (inconvenient) pregnancy”. The same people who accused me in 2004 of voting for a “Baby Killer” (Kerry) were quick to take advantage of the opportunities for choice we have when there young daughter became pg. Is abortion immoral? Possibly. But, so is hypocrisy.
I’ll leave the abortion thing alone since we simply do not agree.
I will say this: I will NEVER vote for a president who is pro-life,
and my mother taught me to never say never. However now that
he IS president he has my full support. I hope he can lead us out of
the mess we currently fnd ourselves in. If he can I will be on my way
to MT. RUshmore with a drill and chisle and add him to the mountian side.
Trust me, I will.
I will speak to your last paragraph however. You should be certain to include yourself to the section f the electorate you are referring to. As recently as a few months ago you were still complaining aobut how GW “stole” the election and that the supreme court “slected him.” I think after 34 posts or so I finally got you to say “losing that election was hard.” There are no facts to support either claim and your side continues to make these outragous claim. SO understand how you think about that issue and you can understand how the pro-life people think about theirs.
A side note the dems are 0-4 in elections since the 11-4 ones. So much for a center left country…we are center right who simply were not motivated by McCain and were by Obama…..
Again I am 100% supporting Obama now….
Keith,
Your support for the sitting President for all of the right reasons is why I enjoy our conversation.
You got some of this article on Pro-Lifers started, but you were definately NOT the poster child (pun intended).
My concern with Pro-Lifers in this post is only tangentially connected to the election. It’s the challenge I’ve had attempting to engage in a rational discussion. It’s the same reaction I’ve had attempting to engage the citizen conspirators and death penalty advocates in conversation. Maybe it’s just me.
As far as the election of 2004, my recollection is that we agreed to disagree because of the intepretation of “selected”. The difference though, is that I don’t recall that there were any democrats who filed suit attempted to prolong the agony of the recount.
Not sure that you can count republican victories in four postponed elections as representative of the national philosophy. Just getting a sitting republican senator to a run off election in a southern state has to count for something.
As long as we are counting coup, though, I think you owe me one. As I recall we had a dispute early in the year about whether or not we were in a recession. I believe that those who make that decision have said that the recession started late last year.
Jeff
On your last point yes, we all would agree that ACTIVITY was in a recession. However, due to the swing in currency and our new ability to export GDP at that time did NOT indicate we were in a recession. (recession is defined as two concective quarters with negitive growth in GDP) I will grant you we were in a recession, though not in a recession as historically measured, how’s that for a semi “you were right Jeff?
I’d be curious to hear your comments on the Gay and heavy libral leaning groups over the top opposition to Rev Warren saying the prayer at the swearing in. Jeff the position they are taking is radical.
We have our differences on this issue and you have argued with my biblical presentation of what the bible says about the gay life. BUT, in their opposition to Pastor Warren I am left to conclude that in their opinion NO ONE should be allowed to speak that opposes their view. Here’s how thats radical; 99.999% of all Pastors, Rabbi’s and Muslium Teachers, Budists and Hindu’s…(all organized religion) agree with Pastor Warren, you’d grant me that. I know you share a differnet view but you’d have to agree that all those I just mentioned would share Pastor Warrens veiw. I am left to conclude that NO RELIGIOUS person should ever be allowed to speak, any where or at any time, in the veiw of those who oppose Pastor Warrens participation in the inugaration. In fact they simple lump him in which Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as a hate mongerer. Now say what you will with all three but if the left can’t sort out the difference between those three they simply don’t want to…..
Jeff this is radical to have such opposition to, in particular Christianity, religous persons. Where’s the tolarance? Where’s the Love? Where is the “meeting place of ideas? I applaude the pres-elect for this!!!
Have a Great New Year Jeff and God Bless you and your family…
I support President-Elect Obama’s position to bring everyone into the dialog regarding gay rights. Mr. Obama has a stated position on the issue which differs from Rev. Warren, but Rev. Warren invited Mr. Obama to his church during the campaign. Inviting Rev. Warren to the inaugural is a wonderful example of Mr. Obama’s intent to engage in respectful discussion and embrace rather than demonize diversity.
I’ve posted my respect for Rev. Warren in the past. He is one of the new leaders of the evangelical movement who have rejected the narrow political agenda of James Dobson. So he can also be viewed as a change agent on the religious right.
I believe that Mr. Obama is going to embrace and empower those leaders who are willing to look for common ground. In my opinion, this is the best way to develop a new social paradigm that we can all share as a first priority, while still allowing ourselves the right to disagree on issues of lesser importance. For example, I believe that we can all agree that our first priority as a country right now is to revive our economy. That includes getting everyone who is able and willing back to work and minimizing the impact of job loss and the associated collapse of the housing market. In this endeavor, gays and straights, pro-choice and pro-life, believers and non-believers, everyone can agree that we simply don’t have the luxury of we-they politics.
There was an opportunity for the gay rights lobby to reflect this new politics in their response to Rev. Warren. They missed it.
Thank you.