White evangelicals spent decades warning Americans about the coming of the antichrist.
When he finally showed up, they voted for him. Bishop Talbert Swan
I met some of these “christian” wackadoodles years ago and called them out then for their rank hypocrisy. And that’s why I’m not on their Christmas card list. Boo Hoo. Screw them!
Please share widely!
Still, millions of people voted for Trump. That suggests a serious problem for people to think seriously about, not an occasion for clowns to perform clownishly.
I agree.
A crucial aspect of that serious thinking is to remind ourselves of the role that ignorance and rank superstition (even if dressed up in the finery of religion or patriotism) plays in this problem.
We should not forget the long and infamous history of bible-thumping “evangelists” scamming people and selling snake-oil — especially in the deep south.
Donald Trump joins Jim Bakker, Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, and a long list of similar shysters. The fertile soil that Mr. Trump and his followers harvest was plowed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and has been regularly fertilized and turned by the GOP since then.
“Serious thinking” is not a synonym for excusing and rationalizing.
I’d like to know why that soil is so fertile. I submit that especially in the information age Americans have access to much the same information across the board. Are there scientifically identifiable psychological distinctions that make some of us more susceptible than others?
I have, in fact, seen some references to research into that question. There is evidence for variants (combinations of individual variations in DNA in multiple places) that create a pre-disposition for susceptibility to superstition, religion, and similar “magical beliefs”.
I strongly suspect that the toxic influence of right-wing media — exemplified by Fox News (and now its even more extreme competitors) is many times stronger than any genetic predisposition.
Access to information is a tiny part of a much larger picture. Many people — especially uneducated or under-educated people — pay attention only to information that reinforces existing prejudices and beliefs. Exposing those people to facts will have little impact — facts will roll off them like water off a duck. Providing access to information, with no interpretation, is of little value in addressing the consequences of generations of learned prejudices.
I therefore think that the short answer to your question is “yes”. Of even more importance is whether society can afford to interpret “freedom of speech” to mean that anyone can broadcast anything without regard to truth, bias, impact, and motive.
Ironically, I actually agree with Mr. Trump and the GOP that the Section 230 regulations that exempt social media operators from liability for content that they publish ought to be eliminated or significantly restricted. I believe that the owner of a site should be liable for knowingly and intentionally publishing content that is demonstrably false and/or fraudulent.
The Trumpist GOP has, in the last four years, has administered a potent IV of toxic stew targeting immigrants and especially immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America. It will take much more than simply providing access to truth to rid our culture of the hate, cruelty, and brutality that results from that inoculation.
So I feel like this is a bit of a catch-22. You say that uneducated and undereducated people only pay attention to information that reinforces their beliefs. My first inclination on hearing that is to think fine, then let’s fix that by making them more educated. However, that would involve introducing them to new information which you then say rolls off like water on a duck. For me wanting to constantly learn more is such an intrinsic part of the human experience that I find it difficult to fathom that others would not want to. I guess it comes back to why are some of us more inclined to learn than others (leaving aside of course those who may have an actual disability in this regard). After all, none of us was born educated.
Christopher, you are a professionally trained educator. Surely you are aware of the countless studies that have shown, for decades, the pervasive influences of culture, family, and peers on the ability of children to learn.
Children who grow up in environments where the influencers around them do not read — or worse, who attack or insult them for reading — are far less likely to learn to read themselves. Children who arrive at school hungry and sleep-depraved day after day do not learn as well their counterparts who arrive well-fed and well-rested. And so on.
While none of us was born educated, I suggest that America of 2021, like Europe of the Dark Ages, shows us that a desire for education is itself learned — it is certainly not intrinsic.
When you write “I find it difficult to fathom that others would not want to. I guess it comes back to why are some of us more inclined to learn than others”, I fear you come perilously close to blaming the victims.
The GOP has been attacking and dismantling federal education programs for decades. The GOP has been pandering to religious bigots who push superstitious nonsense like Creationism for the same period. Well over half of Americans get their “news” from Fox — literally the bought-and-paid-for propaganda organ of the Trumpist GOP.
I suggest that we need to restore the federal role in education that it had in the 1960s, we need to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine and “Equal time” provisions for broadcasters, we need to make social media operators more liable for damages when they knowingly publish dangerous lies such as that there was “massive voter fraud” in the 2020 election or that COVID-19 is a “hoax”.
Simply exposing this population to information will be approximately as effective at solving this problem as attempting to unclog a stopped-up toilet by directing a hose at it.
The only result of the latter is a flooded bathroom.
I confess I find it a bit hard not to blame the “victims” at least to some extent in this context. You are preaching to the choir when it comes to greater commitment to education, but at least as adults and voters there are plenty of ways to take initiative in this regard.
To jump off your Creationism example as I think you know I am a lifelong active and churchgoing Christian. As such I have known the stories told in the first two chapters of Genesis myself for as long as I can remember. Yet somehow I’ve managed to distinguish between the mythology of my faith and the evidence-supported theory of evolution as espoused by Darwin. I just don’t think it is that difficult to make such a distinction.
I guess what I’m wondering is are our brains really wired differently. If you were to scan my brain and the brain of one less inclined to go with the evidence would you (or at least someone who is expert in this) be able to tell which brain is which by looking at the scans?
There is some evidence of biological/physiological differences, yes.
The key point, though, is that those influences are absolutely dwarfed by the influence of media, peer-pressure, and culture.
I suspect that you, like nearly all observant Christians, have your own areas where you are less able to distinguish mythology from science. Bishop John Spong wrote about this at some length. Most “liberal” Episcopalians generally embrace certain dogma — the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, the physical ascension, etc — even while loudly condemning the “superstition” of the Creationists.
Are you sure you’d be comfortable with a home or business located at 666 Main Street?
Various anthropologists have shown to my satisfaction that various religious beliefs are widely embraced because they reinforce prior beliefs and prejudices, rather than vice-versa. “Morality” generally guides the choice of faith tradition rather than being formed by religion.
I suggest that the extremist right-wing Christian beliefs of the Red states reflect the generations of racism, sexism, and superstition of those regions.
I don’t think that biology or physiology has very much to do with it — I think it’s very firmly cultural.
My basic point is that people can choose. They can choose which sources to rely on. They can choose to turn on or off Fox News. They can choose how critically to study the Bible. Virgin births and physical Resurrections to me are articles of faith, but not of knowledge. Those stories are told to make a larger point about the ultimate incomprehensibility of God, but my intellectual side does not take them literally. In fact, both Gospels which trace Jesus’s ancestry do so through Joseph and the word for virgin can just as easily be translated as simply young woman. Both Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives were added later and I don’t know any scholar who thinks either is very historical. For example there is no evidence of either a slaughter of the innocents or a census that required a journey to one’s ancestral community. I’m confident the historical Jesus (and yes, I do believe He existed) was conceived and born in the usual way, lived a number of years in which He preached before dying (very possibly by crucifixion for sedition) and at least corporeally stayed dead. For me the essence of Christianity is doing my best to adhere to the teachings and examples of Jesus. That being said Easter is theologically my favorite holiday because it gives me hope that if God could perform that ultimate miracle things will turn out alright. I have no problem whatsoever with 666; that to me really is a superstition in every sense of the word. I guess I still find it hard to understand how cultures can be so different at least in terms of information consumption when I can go to any community in the country and have access to the same media.
I remind you of the question that B.F. Skinner asked decades ago in “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” — what does “freedom of choice” mean when I have the technology to control and manipulate what you want?
People who choose to rely on Fox News tend to associate with other people who do the same. Those groups of people attend churches and other social gatherings where they join others who feel the same.
A commonly-held belief among those people is that other sources are lying to them. Dr. Fauci is lying. Climate scientists are lying.Etc.
It’s all well and good to affirm people’s right to choose. When we collectively do that in the context of today’s technology for manipulating what people believe, we should not be surprised that huge swaths of the country are mired in lunacy.
This exchange began when you wrote “I’d like to know why that soil is so fertile.”
I’m attempting to answer your implied question.
There’s plenty of evidence your assessment is valid, but there’s still the asymmetry I’m trying to figure out. For example, both Biden and Trump have their fervent supporters (and the left certainly is not immune to bubbles), yet somehow I don’t think Biden’s supporters would put up with Biden engaging in the shenanigans that Trump has and his cultists cheer on. If the 2020 results were reversed there would be protests to be sure, but not schemes to overturn clear results.
The asymmetry is the “fertile soil” argument I began with.
The GOP has based its entire political ideology on lies and pandering. The free market has never been a miracle cure for every social issue. Large deficits are not harmful for a nation the size of the US. Immigrants are not a threat to Americans already here. Prosperity does not mean that some deity loves the recipient more than those who are poor. And so on.
The two major parties faced a stark choice in 1968, in the aftermath of the 1968 Democratic Nation Convention in Chicago. Racism and bigotry were rampant in the southern states, and Democrats had an iron grip on those states. The Democrats explicitly expelled racist segregationists from the party, knowing full well that they were alienating enormous numbers of voters in the southern states.
The GOP welcomed those racist segregationists with open arms — and thus began the GOP “Southern Strategy”.
Racism and bigotry are products of ignorance. The GOP immediately recognized and enthusiastically embraced the resulting political calculus — the best way to assure the continued rock-solid support of southern racists was to simultaneously pander to their ignorance and reinforce that ignorance.
They recognized that by echoing the lies of the “Lost Cause” narrative about the civil war — that it represented a noble fight to preserve states rights, for example — they could expand their support and dominate the political landscape of the entire south.
They slashed federal education funding, claiming it was “big government out of control”. They pandered to the prejudices that resulted from the religious traditions of the region.
The strategy was wildly successful and their popularity blossomed all of the nation.
Democrats have resisted this all along, but to paraphrase Mark Twain, the lies had spread around the world before the truth got its boots on.
Discipline, critical thinking, and patience is hard. Forcing biases, prejudices, and beliefs to yield to facts, analysis, and reason is difficult and requires real effort.
The raging mob carrying torches and pitchforks has never been motivated by truth and justice.
Funny, I actually generally find it intellectually easier to be a liberal – too many contradictions to dance around on the right.
Exactly who do you mean is “performing clownishly”?