YouTube – SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING – Interviews with Supporters.
I would love to put this side by side with footage of other indoctrinated crowds, especially those that gave raise to democratically elected tyrants.
The above footage gives the viewer a sense of mindlessness, a strong connection with the Limbic system. Paraphrased by: “I support her, but I don’t know why.” And the reason they can’t rationalize it, i.e.: put it into words, is because its not rational. It has to do with an different part of the brain. One that we indeed use everyday and that is very important, but not rational.
“I love my girlfriend.” – “Why?” “I just do. She’s nice and beautiful and I like to cuddle with her. I love being in the same room, but I can’t really give A REASON. I just do.”
Not the same as: “I purchased the latest Sanyo HD 2000 camcorder after reading several reviews. Its got great value, lightest in its class, Dual video and stills, with flash, 8 hour battery autonomy which is plenty for my purposes and a 16 gigs replaceable memory card. “
Its just not the same process. Indeed, this distinction has been one of the great (though maybe not most desirable) discoveries of the 20th century. It gave birth to the pyscho-analytic movement, techniques of propaganda, the focus group, and the massive public relations industry which has completely changed the relationships of power in Western societies and later around the world. (See the life’s work of Edward Bernays and a fascinating 4 part series from the BBC titled The Century of the Self)
The limbic system of the brain is a group of structures which govern emotions and behavior. The limbic system, and in particular the hippocampus and amygdala, is involved in the formation of long-term memory, and is closely associated with the olfactory structures.
So then the question becomes: which is a better suited process, the emotional (Limbic) or the rational? Are they both equally acceptable? Is there something less valid about an opinion held, or a democratically cast vote on the basis of one process rather then the other.
Indeed I believe there is. However we must construct that argument. Rather then to challenge the Palin Book-Signing Crowd and their like, on issues, trying to say to them – rationally – “yes, but M’am, Obama is not a Leninist. ‘Tsar’ is just a nickname given to special counselors chosen for their expertise in a particular area to keep the president up-to-date and provide advice. M’am I assure you, they have no autocratic power. They have nothing to do with Russia, (and even if they did it would be a pre-Communist Tsarist Russia). In fact and this term ‘Tsar’, this journalistic slang, has been coined in Ronald Regan’s days and has been used consistently through Bush I, Clinton and Bush II”.
That just wouldn’t do it. It would not matter to them. And even if it did, by the time you’d manage to explain it to one of them and demonstrate the gaping holes in their ‘logic’, 4 new mindless Palin supporter types will have been recruited as the process of indoctrination gains traction and indeed grows exponentially, as emulation takes place in Church groups, in front of the television and within communities.
And so two sentiments swell within us: for one, these people appear hopelessly lost to us, and secondly despite our lofty ideals, deep inside, we can’t get ourselves to respect their point of view. One might think, “Man, I can’t believe these people get to vote!” And so the alienation begins.
There is something of course laudable, egalitarian and valuable about the principle One Man One Vote. But are all things consented to, equal? We are likely to find something disturbing about the consent of one man who followed David Koresh to a bloody shootout with the FBI. Or an other man, being an inner circle member of The Order of the Solar Temple, who nodded approvingly at the leadership’s decision to approve mass suicide in two villages in Switzerland. Both were victims of psychological coercion that ultimately led to their tragic death. So we can accept that consent is not the sure mark of free will. And so we can work our way backwards and see that it applies to less extreme instances of psychological-coercion. Indeed citizens that make choices and indeed vote on the basis of emotional (Limbic) opinions they formed through exposure to a massive propaganda machine must be in some way less valuable, less legitimate.
So what do we do? We could imagine an entrance exam, demonstrating a minimum knowledge of issues, to qualify to register. But that would offend the universal suffrage principal we hold dear. Well, what must we do? What can we do?
We must ensure that the landscape is fecund for democracy. That it not be sabotaged.
To guard against sabotage, the priority should NOT be placed on debating the issues, because its not about the issues (that requires articulated reasoning, which we can see is absent). What motivates the Palin crowd is in a different realm then reason, its emotional. And so, the priority should be placed on attacking the emotional source of the intellectual corruption.
Debating these people is like trying to fix the porcelain when the bull (or a bully) is still in the China shop. First neutralize the bully that is breaking the China. Then bring out the glue. You can try to fix it, and indeed we should promote better information and education, but first you have to stop the propagandists.
Democracy requires an informed citizenry with a culture that promotes rational argumentation in decision making-processes and this is A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY. And indeed Fox News (and all sensationalist Media under the guise of informative outlets) is a danger to national security. We must take that step and make that connection. It is JUST THAT SERIOUS.
(but before we get to that, we need campaign finance reform. But, that’s a different story).
