Learning from Monsters How NOT to Think.

Posted on by metroupe

I love finding out about an author or resource that leads to the discovery of other treasures. And so, I came across an old Interview with Gary Saul Morson and was really interested in what he has learned from years of studying and teaching Russian literature. You can listen to that interview here. 

I started going down the rabbit hole of some of his interviews and articles and came across this one called Leninthink. 

You don’t have to have read Lenin to be influenced by him. This article by an expert in Russian literature and history lays out some important things for us to consider in our age of polarization and political pragmatism.  You do NOT want to think and live like Lenin.

This is a longer and rigorous essay. But it is worth reading, probably twice. It is full of original source quotes and historical context. The point is to learn from history so we do not repeat it. 

Among the most interesting elements that I found most relevant for us:

Considering life a zero sum game. Every transaction is either an act of oppression or being oppressed.

That the slightest disagreement from the party line is absolute betrayal. There is no middle ground.

Rejection of any morality or limits against the power of the party/state. They are above accountability. Viewing morality as nothing more than an expression of class (we might say race/sex/gender) struggle.

Promising to maintain the civil rights of the people as long as they do not do anything we disagree with. e.g. You have freedom of speech as long as you don’t say anything we do not like.

Arriving at conclusions on issues, opinions, and incidents without the need for facts or evidence. Having a conclusion beforehand. Insisting you don’t need to understand an opposing view before you denounce it.

Radically changing facts about history or even the position of the party while refusing to acknowledge that any change has taken place.

People eagerly confessing to crimes they have not committed to support the party.

Denouncing family members and friends as an expression of party loyalty.

Justifying any means to advance the cause, even those considered immoral, and that you would condemn others for using. 

Our Problem With Public Apologies

Posted on by metroupe
I just had a thought, are there any similarities between Kathy Griffin’s apology for a mock beheading of Trump, and other public apologies from the right side of the isle (just reflect on what happened before the election with Trump and his treatment of women)?
Do we have a problem with public apologies as a culture (maybe as human beings), rather than just partisan problem? Do we have a problem with apologies that are designed more for PR and damage control than honestly accepting responsibility for bad behavior? Do we as Americans have problems blaming others for our transgressions rather than owning them without qualification?
What would it look like to say: I was wrong, there is no excuse for that. No one else is to blame for my choices but me. I am sorry for the damage I have caused and apologize to those I hurt. I am going to do what I can to make amends, and I accept the consequences.
 
This is really, really, hard. But I think anything less hurts everyone involved. When we are more concerned with saving face, than owning the truth we perpetuate the problem.
This is a hot topic, just google the issue of organizations, governments, law enforcement, or doctors apologizing and you will see that we have a big problem.

An Old Prediction About Trump, the Left, National Pride, And Scapegoating

Posted on by metroupe

Here is a fascinating, deep, albeit brief look at something unexpected: A liberal philosopher predicts of the rise of a Trump-like figure 20 years ago based on the worst elements of the left’s political  and philosophical blunders. He is not the only one to make such an observation (note the linked video from Jonathan Pie is one profound explanation of the rise of Trump, but it is NSFW- lots of bad language). Back to Rorty. He explains:

“National pride is to countries what self-respect is to individuals, a necessary condition for self-improvement”

My thoughts: A few things that are becoming more apparent to me:

The political left despises America, many of its historic values, and many of its citizens. They don’t want to improve America so much as bury it and create something new in its place.

The modern left, just as the neoconservative movement, has departed from it’s more historic values (liberalism).

In the article there is another insightful paragraph. In trying to remove the stigma from minorities and the underprivileged, the left has shifted it onto middle class white people. Many of them were glad to throw it back.

The lesson? Demonization doesn’t work.

“Rorty’s only issue with identity politics was that the left, having worked so hard to transfer stigmatic cruelty away from received categories like race and gender, had done too little to prevent that stigma from landing on class—and that the white working class, finding itself abandoned by both the free-market right and the identity left, would be all too eager to transfer that stigma back to minorities, immigrants, gays, and coastal élites.”

Source: Richard Rorty’s Philosophical Argument for National Pride – The New Yorker

Medicare’s Biggest Problem is Basic Math

Posted on by metroupe

adding machine

Medicare has problems. A lot of problems. Some are hard to figure out. This one involves 3rd grade math.

Even if politicians weren’t siphoning money out of the barrel and then demanding more under the pretense of helping the elderly, we are still on our way to running out of money.

If you want to be scared about the intelligence of our leaders and our future, instead of watching a horror movie, read this article.

“…Medicare’s real problem is not fraud and abuse but basic math. For example, according to the left-of-center Urban Institute, a married couple with two average earners turning 65 in 2020 will have paid roughly $154,000 in Medicare payroll taxes over their lifetimes. That certainly seems like a lot of money. But, given average life expectancy, that same couple can expect to receive $479,000 in benefits (net of any Medicare premiums they pay). It’s hard to see a program that loses $325,000 per couple as “working.”

Source: Medicare’s Costs and Benefits | Cato Institute

 

Photo courtesy of Seattle Municipal Archives, some rights reserved.

American Capitalists and Socialists Have The Same Message

Posted on by metroupe

Capitalists socialists green

Recently I have noticed that in America the hard core consumer capitalists and socialists are really saying the same thing.  Both groups have morphed away from their traditional roots into distorted versions of themselves.  Marketing culture has now invaded every square inch of our lives.  I was at the DMV the other day, and this government office now has TV’s running advertisements to entertain people as they wait for their appointments.  The ad war has been so successful that we no longer believe it is possible to have a good life without more and more stuff.

In order to be successful, both groups have to move us to a place of discontentment, and even fear. They have to convince us that what we already have is not enough.  Then we are ripe to believe their propaganda: They can solve our problem.

The consumer capitalists, through the ubiquity of advertising, are telling us we need new shiny gadgets to have a good life.  Happiness is not possible without this stuff. So spend your money to buy happiness. Use a high interest credit card.  After all, what is happiness worth?  We are marinating in this narrative. We can’t escape it. It’s on TV, the internet, sporting events, nonprofits, schools, etc.  Not all of this is bad, but it does fuel the worst in human nature. We end up believing that happiness comes from stuff.  And that it comes from having stuff in a  particular way: the newest, the fastest, etc. And happiness is found in its highest concentration in having more stuff than our neighbors. So when you see your neighbor with the “next big thing” you need to go out and buy it. No interest, no payments for 6 months.

The socialists are saying that in spite of unprecedented prosperity (the majority of people considered poor have a vastly higher standard of living than the middle class 40 years ago),  happiness is not possible when others have more than you do.  You cannot be allowed to forget that the rich have more than you do.  And where this problem exists (and it is universal) there must be some cosmic inequity. You are a victim.  So the government will take other people’s money AND STILL GO INTO DEBT on your behalf so you can have the good life– which basically means more stuff.

Now poverty is real, and there are far too many poor in America where we have plenty of resources. So I don’t intended to diminish that.  More needs to be done to help those truly in need.  But I have observed that the socialist agenda wants to encourage more Americans to feel like they are poor.  To believe that they need government aid to survive. I just received a letter in the mail from our school district asking us to consider if we can qualify for free school lunches in a “need based” program.  What is the threshold to qualify?  For a family of 4 it is $52K/year.  But I wonder, If you are making this much money and you’re NOT spending it on food, where is it going? I think it is noteworthy that this is not assistance for “extras” like college applications, AP tests, field trips. That much might be understandable.  But this is for food.

My sense is that in the current context, many American socialists and capitalists are saying the same thing about where you can find the good life. They just have different plans on how to fund it. And in the end the good life won’t be found in stuff, no matter who is paying for it.

So don’t believe the lie, no matter which side is telling it.