July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by TypePad

« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

Survival of the Sexiest: Another Reason Why the Right Succeeded...

...and Why the Left Can't Return to Old Tactics

Generally speaking, cultural and political movements succeed one another based on which has the more potent form of symbolic sexual power. "Symbolic sexual power" is any kind of vital force or energy that might improve or advance one's population. It need not imply sex per se; promiscuity, etc. -- even conservative religious movements are a kind of sexual power, because they can represent order, solidarity, strength in numbers -- all ways to advance one's population. To summarize:

- Id represents our unconscious drives; our irrational "gut feelings" rooted in ancient primal instincts. We often tend to be directed or motivated by what our gut feelings tell us.
- Remove the Id force, and your side will fall out of favor.
- Rebellion against a repressive power is sexy.
- Whatever reminds you of your parent's generation isn't as sexy as the newer generation.

The success of the Left in the 60's, as a cultural force, succeeded in its day because of the climate that preceded it.

The cultural zeitgeist of the prior era was to repress the sexuality of both men and women -- but especially women. The "American Dream" of moving into a box-like house in a bland suburb created a homogenous, overly-domesticated atmosphere devoid of sensuality or individual expression. The "ideal role" promoted for women at the time was to be a wife and mother, and media imagery everywhere portraying women as little more than cheerful, brainless housemaids.

At the time, the Republican Party was represented by fogeys and neurotics, whereas JFK represented a fresh, youthful direction for the Democrats and the country.

Baby Boomers rebelled against what they perceived as a stultifying conformity and embraced a culture that celebrated sexuality and rebellion. Feminism became a political force to be reckoned with after books such as Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" -- which described women's frustration with being confined to narrow social roles -- became best-sellers. The Left became the dominant political force from the late 60's onward.

However, one of the many mistakes the Left made in the 1970s was to embrace the philosophy of certain feminists that there were no differences between men and women; that traditional roles should be downplayed. The effect of trying to make everything more "equal" resulted in a desexualization of both men and women. This time around, it was the feminists who tried to repress men's sexuality, and so men predictably ended up rebelling.

After the failure of the Carter Administration to secure the hostages in Iran, the right wing shifted back into power by identifying with the masculine Id. The United States, as represented by the Democratic Party, as represented by Carter this time was seen as ineffectual and impotent, unable to stand up against a much smaller country. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was suggestive of the "cowboy" archetype -- in American mythos, an image symbolizing a rugged, potent masculinity.

Because the Democrats/left wing have been more concerned with "civil rights" and other protectionist policies, the Democrats have been defined as the "Mommy Party" while the Republicans are the "Daddy Party". Metaphorically speaking, a "Daddy" is always going to be viewed as more potent than a "Mommy", and a masculine Id is always going to be viewed as a more potent force than a feminine Id. Because of this, the Left cannot return to old slogans and strategies that might have worked in a previous era. The right-wingers have even tried to caricature left-wingers as little more than children, further symbolically emasculating them.

The cultural climate of the GWB era identifies with a very primitive, alpha-male type Id: "Might makes right, and we will stomp on you in order to secure resources and be King of the Hill." Not surprisingly, this is also the reason the ultra right's favorite targets are those which symbolically undermine the country's metaphorical virility (e.g. gays and abortion). The female cheerleaders of the Ultra Right have tapped into a similarly primitive female Id. These "new" right-wing women aren't passive June Cleaver-like housemaids happily pushing the vacuum around. These women have embraced their inner She-Wolf: "we will attack and kill anything that dares trespass onto our territories, threatens our security or attempts to harm our children." It's a primitive Truth that strikes a primal cord in many.

A tribe at war will return to its more primal behaviors because it can't afford not to. When an enemy doesn't want to follow more civilized rules, then there is often no other recourse but to fall back on the "Might is Right" principle. The New Right almost gets the formula right, were it not for their often transparent and ham-handed approach (see: Bill O'Reilly, etc.)

I digress on the idea that the current crop of right-wingers have been the "Daddy Party" -- more like the "school bully party" with their dishonest tactics, bullying, blame-shifting and inability to owe up to accountability. A man of real maturity and character would be more concerned with solving problems along a far more rational and objective course.

Rx Revolt

The Next Topic Du Jour?

Rising health care and prescription drug costs have become an issue of increased concern for many Americans, and are increasingly falling under scrutiny by a skeptical public. This is the subject of at least two documentaries set to be released this year.

True to his anti-corporate leanings, Michael Moore is set to release a new film entitled "Sicko", which is sure to draw attention if only due to the controversial nature of its producer.

Another documentary, newly released, is Big Bucks, Big Pharma, which "pulls back the curtain on the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry to expose the insidious ways that illness is used, manipulated, and in some instances created, for capital gain..."

another clip from the same video

It's interesting to note that in the advertising clips show in the first segment, the actors are being vexed and worried about various modern-day dilemmas such as remembering phone numbers, the many appointments they have to keep, etc.

Let's put two and two together. Could many of these "maladies" really be the result of living in a stressful, information-overloaded society that is now quite different from the way people used to live? Or, could it be that the label of "malady" is given to any failure to conform to the expectations of the modern day lifestyle, and then pushed as a reason to sell (often addicting) prescription drugs?

"Attention Deficit Disorder" is a classic example. How many children have been misdiagnosed with this "disorder" when they're really behaving the way kids naturally behave -- active, curious, and prone to get bored if the teacher doesn't know how to make the lessons more interesting?

Furthermore, the effects of a mismatched environment on the mental health of other species has been well-documented. Stress, isolation, boredom and confinement may cause zoo animals to develop neurotic behaviors. Could similar situations create similar conditions for the most intelligent species of all?

Dr. John Abramson talks about how doctors tend to overprescribe medications for their patients.

Big Pharma, Bad Science -- (The Nation article)

Big Pharma Snared By Net (Guardian UK article)

Pharmaceutical Industry -- Sourcewatch

Why "Purple Koolaid?"

Followup to the previous entry

One of the main themes of this blog is examining our more irrational motives and how those in power manipulate our irrational sides.

Purple Koolaid, of course, refers to the fate of the followers of cult leader Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple. In this video clip, a follower underscores what made Jones so attractive to his flock. He offered to fill the role of their "friend... father... God..."

Such promises appeal to people on several levels by offering comfort, guidance and protection. Humans being tribal by nature, we instinctively seek an "alpha leader" to direct us -- most usually someone with an exceptional level of outward confidence and vision. A charismatic "alpha" leader will appeal to a population even if they're complete psychopaths underneath the surface, because their outward display of confidence and chutzpah suggests they would maintain a certain strength and stability in times of crisis.

Fortunately, most charismatic leaders aren't psychopaths, but it's worthy to examine the reasons behind why large numbers of people might be drawn to certain kind of individuals, even if that person might otherwise be diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders on the couch. Politicians, preachers, actors, and anyone trained to address crowds of people learn to exude a certain kind of power and energy that automatically draws attention.

Some articles on charisma:
The X-Factors of Success

The Science of Savoir Fair

Charisma, Crowd Psychology and Altered States of Consciousness

Faith and Reason

In the two-part series The Root of all Evil?, science luminary Richard Dawkins -- author of "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and other books -- takes religion to task as a backwards, irrational belief system. The full-length version can be found on Google Video:

Part 1
Part 2

Comment: While Dawkins is a brilliant man, and may be absolutely correct about his conclusions, this video demonstrates all too well why religion has always remained more popular than intellectual, secular humanism, and why academic intellectualism has always been a harder sell.

Dawkins' narration comes off as supercilious; even abrasive at times, and could potentially offend some viewers who feel their beliefs are being insulted.

I would also suggest that all rationalists take a course in emotional intelligence and public speaking before attempting to debate any politician, preacher, lawyer, or anyone other experienced public speaker.

Religion provides a source of emotional comfort people are often looking for, and it is no surprise that people often turn to religion in times of hardship. Preachers and politicians have learned to hone their charisma to create a perception of leadership and guidance that their followers are seeking out. Dawkins observes that large numbers of followers help to validate an otherwise irrational belief system, but perhaps that's a major part of the appeal: humans are a tribal species, and the instinctual need to congregate and indulge some sort of emotional bonding ritual is what helped maintain the "strength in numbers" that became a driving force in human evolution. He would do well to read more Joseph Campbell.

Two videos about the Middle East conflict:

Relentless: The Struggle For Peace In the Middle East

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

A Christian film about "End Times" prophecies:

Israel, Islam, and Armaggedon

A Brief History of Disbelief: Jonathan Miller's BBC documentary on atheism:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Bill Moyers On Faith and Reason: thought-provoking interviews with various authors and intellectuals.

More videos will be added in these sections as I come across them.