The Illogic of Obama-Bashing Mania
Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:38:10 PM PDT
Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verification of that theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it.
-Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
There are two types of theories that provide explanations for Obama's successes. One claims that Obama has created a cult of personality. The other claims that Obama is just a good politician. Both theories rely on the same set of facts (excluding the Obama is a dirty politician and friends with terrorists meme). The Cult Theory (CT) is not a good explanation. It is overly complex and riddled with ad hoc dodges. It contains one of the hallmarks of irrationality; there is no situation that it cannot explain, there is nothing that does not confirm it. It is unfalsifiable, and, therefore, a bad theory.
More on the flip...
Here is a rough sketch of the CT, and why it fails to be a good explanation.
(1) Obama's supporters like him because they have been brainwashed to do so. Obama is a charismatic and eloquent orator, and has used these talents and charm to convince voters to overlook his vacuous and empty message. He doesn't have positions or experience, or, to quote a recent diary,
Obama's rise and the uprising that follows feels like unearned advantage to stodgy believers in meritocracy. We see in the dismissal of experience, the triumph of style over substance, the victory of glitz over hard work, something of the ageism that accompanies the US cult of youth. This is the same ethos that provides Generation Y with its sense of entitlement. This group projects onto Obama their own fantasies of immediate gratification and reward, the belief that they too can be presidents-of companies and the like-right out of school.
.
No amount of argument that Obama does have positions--that he speaks about them in his speeches and writes about them on his website--are enough. He always needs to do so more. He also isn't experienced. This, of course, ignores his time in the Illinois State Legislature and progressive work throughout his life, but these things don't count.
Perhaps most vexing is the idea that Obama's supporters are all brainwashed, and that their ire is raised when they are called brainwashed only shows just how brainwashed they are. Their arguments can be dismissed out-of-hand as the ramblings of a kool-aid drenched mind.
(2) The CT goes on to downplay and demonize other aspects of Obama's campaign. When presented with evidence, for example, that Obama has appeal among moderates and independants, an ad hoc employed by the CT is that he is secretly being supported by Republicans in order to ensure that the weaker Democratic candidate wins the nomination. I quote a recent recomended diary at MyDD, here:
But what if Obama is not actually bringing in tons of new voters? What if Republicans have organized to cross party lines or vote independent with one goal in mind: to defeat Senator Clinton. And what if this strategy was developed by top level Republican party functionaries-- including Karl Rove-- who believe Clinton will be the more formidable opponent in the general election?
This explanation can be dismissed virtually out-of-hand as is explanatory goodness compared to, say, the GPT is weak. The addition of this ad hoc falls quickly to Occam's Razor; it is vastly more complicated and requires far more tack-ons and additions to make it tenable. Why hasn't it been reported on? The response would have to appeal to a broad and devious conspiricy involving practically every rank-and-file Republican, MSM outlet, and huge numbers of government officials. This argument seems akin to the "God created fossil evidence to test us" ad hoc used to defend Creationism.
The CT goes on to claim that states that hold caucuses (except NV) don't matter, and, in general, states that Obama won don't matter. This, too, is a kind of dodge aimed to under downplay Obama's success. It, too, is unfalsifiable. To claim that these states do matter, only shows that you, too, have been drinking the kool-aid.
The CT does such a good job of describing the world, that there is nothing which does not confirm it. It is like Popper's descriptions of Marxism and Freudian Theory (posted in the intro). These attacks and assaults, of course, are not just directed at Obama. There are also those who would claim that Hillary is a closet Republican, and no evidence or argument could possibly change this.
I should say that I was (and am, in a way) an Edwards man, through and through, and I don't have a horse in this race. Maybe I would see things differently if I did, but the level of inane vitriol spewed at Obama and HRC during this campaign is astounding, as are the claims that "I won't vote for (Obama/HRC) in the general if (Obama/HRC) loses the primary."
There are good reasons to support either candidate, and plenty of room for debate, so let's stick to the reality of the candidates, not half-baked, unfalsifiable theories.
Permalink | 50 comments