Now that our fraud of an economy is collapsing, there's renewed - and belated - concern for our numerous deficits: our current account/trade deficit, our net energy deficit, our budget deficit, and our savings deficit. These are all important, and they all must be addressed; however, it's important to remember that these are all merely accounting deficits that reflect underlying economic imbalances. There's been essentially no discussion of what underlies these economic imbalances, which is a far more serious problem. The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe that these issues are simply a manifestation or derivation of a much larger deficit afflicting the society as a whole: our deficit of reason.
This deficit of rationality is so pervasive, so all-encompassing, that defining it with any degree of precision is nearly impossible. It afflicts virtually every aspect of American life, and can, I think, be traced to a number of distinct causes. If it's not immediately clear what I'm talking about, hopefully it will become so. Now then, among these causes:
• Widespread Political Correctness
Now, it's obviously good to treat people with respect and to refrain from epithetic labels - no one will find any argument from me on that point. However, I believe that the high value placed on political correctness has inadvertently taken on a life of its own; it's led to a situation in which assigning euphemistic labels to people and groups perceived to be or actually disadvantaged is valued more highly than either legitimate respect for individuals, or more importantly, for truth.
Rather than pursuing, determining and proliferating fact, years of intimidation by presumptuous, self-righteous, self-appointed arbiters of socially-acceptable language have bread a culture in which the ultimate goal of inquiry is not truth, but making sure no one is ever offended by anything, ever. After all, facts which are offensive to an individual and/or upset, or may potentially upset, their dubious group identities could lead to feelings being hurt, and that is an outcome which must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, the PC thought police demand that all semblance of truth, objective analysis, and rationality must be sacrificed on the altar of good feelings. Facts, however necessary to solving society's problems, must be discarded - or at least swept under the rug - if they pose even the slightest potential of upsetting anyone's precious feelings.
This social ethic has led to a situation in which objective reality is ignored or opposed, while anyone who refuses to comply with the politically correct crowd's relentless assault on it is either shouted down or simply ignored. Predictably, this state of affairs has severely infected our political discourse, in turn being highly deleterious to the leadership of the country. It's sadly ironic that most of those to whom I refer share many of my political views.
A glaring example of this phenomenon occurred (if memory serves) in one of the intra-day media back-and-forths between the candidates during the 2008 Presidential election. During this row, John McCain kept trying to imply that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was responsible for controlling the military and foreign policy of Iran, to which one of Obama's people reminded him that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, controls the military and foreign policy of that country. When reporter pressed him on his continual distortion of this basic fact for political ends, McCain replied "Well, if you feel that's the case, then fine, but I think the American people know who the leader of Iran is." He might as well have simply come out and said "I know that's what the reality of Iran's political structure is, but the public perception of Ahmadinejad is very negative, so we're going to keep asserting that he's the top guy when he's really not because it could help us accomplish our political objectives."
This may not seem to be a direct connection, but would it really have been successful had respect for objective truth regardless of expediency been all but destroyed by political correctness? I think not. What we have now is thus a situation in which any sort of dubious positive claim can plausibly be played off as a normative claim, that is, if someone dares to be so audacious as to imply that there's any such thing as material reality. In other words, there's no such thing as lying or misrepresenting fact anymore, simply "disagreement." After all, asserting that someone is lying could hurt their feelings, and we can't have that. No, in the interest of never ruffling anyone's feathers, we must simply "agree to disagree."
The antidote to this precarious state of affairs is unflinching insistence on objective truth on the part of the public at large, often through the use of the logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. Rather than simply cowing to liars to avoid an argument, the average citizen must stop letting merchants of bullshit spew their wares uninhibited. The next time someone deliberately misleads you, do not let them off the hook. Do not back down.
For instance, say someone makes the oft-repeated and totally false claim that "tax cuts increase revenues." Rather than simply "disagreeing without being disagreeable," demand that they tell you why, if such reasoning is so, we don't simply cut tax rates to nothing - say, .1%? By their logic, the government would have more tax revenues than they could spend, right? Everyone realizes that the answer to this is no, so don't back off until they either retract their claim, or are forced to embarrass themselves by claiming something which is so laughably false as to be plainly absurd to even the feeblest of minds. And don't let them change the subject, either.
• The glorification of religiously-motivated irrationality.
This goes along with political correctness bit, but the nature of religious belief is especially destructive to reason, so I think it's worth addressing separately. Essentially, almost religions teach fundamentally the same thing - that belief without evidence is not only acceptable but vital; that doubting fantastic, unsubstantiated propositions (i.e., virgin birth) is a grave sin; and that insistence upon evidence is to be tossed aside in favor of blind faith in antiquated dogma. Every theist I've ever met has at some point been "troubled" by doubt of their religious faith, which just goes to show how successful high-monied religiosos have been in warping the thinking of the credulous.
Skepticism - doubt - of widely accepted beliefs is not only acceptable, but should be encouraged, for it is only by questioning the status quo that humanity progresses. The founders of the United States directly questioned the political status quo. Albert Einstein questioned the universally-held notions about the physical universe. Indeed, nearly every great advance of any sort originally came about because someone was bold enough to question common knowledge or common practice. Yet a public which is able and willing to raise questions and doubts about the status quo poses an existential threat to the religious elite; thus, they seek to inoculate the individual against critical thinking before the ability to engage in such thinking even develops. The clergy inflicts emotional and psychological trauma - brainwashing, essentially - to discourage critical thinking in youth, in a cynical bid to keep the populace dumbed-down and easily controlled.
While in primitive societies it may have been necessary for leaders to provide the public with false knowledge as a substitute for outright ignorance, with the renaissance and rise of scientific inquiry, we long ago passed the point in which answers to moral and existential questions need be contrived. Today, the role religion plays is purely destructive - it teaches followers that they are dirty, unworthy vermin; that they must reject the "false god" of scientific enlightenment and instead embrace bronze-age superstition. It's true that some moderate strands of various religions no longer do this, but the moderates are not to be absolved, as they provide a veneer of respectability for the extremists.
In going about this process of systematic indoctrination, religion severely stifles the natural impetus towards critical inquiry which is so vital to human progress. And, similar to political correctness, by discouraging skepticism and rationality, it pollutes all manner of public discourse. In this way, I feel that religion poses the gravest possible risk to modern society. The dangers of climate change and nuclear weaponry are incidental threats; the real problem is the irreason which comes from and thrives on religious faith; Christopher Hitchens is correct - religion poisons everything.
Oh sure, religion - with its promises of life after death and so forth - may give hope to some, but along the way, it has destroyed many, many advances which would have actually eased suffering and prolonged life. Just within contemporary events, a perfect example is found in one of the cutting-edge fields now being researched by scientists and start-up companies: immortality technology. In just the few short centuries since the reemergence of scientific values in the enlightenment, the very promise which has sustained religion for millenia is within our grasp. Predictably, the religious elite opposes this, just as they've opposed virtually every other technological advance which has improved the human condition.
The point is that religious faith is innately irrational, and therefore stands in opposition to reason and the progress that it brings. The rejection of skeptical inquiry and embrace of the unproven and unprovable has impeded development, poisoned politics, and caused untold suffering. It's far past time that rationalists - both in America and elsewhere - stop indulging the dogmatists and start demanding that they justify their beliefs. If someone was insistent that the universe was created by a magic dragon which lives in the trunk of their car, you'd treat their belief first with derisive laughter, and then with contempt. We in the reality-based community have a duty to do the same with the no less absurd beliefs of Christianity, Islam, and other faiths. I'm not exaggerating when I say that a second - and possibly final - dark age is currently very real; we must ensure that it does not come to pass by tirelessly and unrepentantly working to expose religion for what it is.
I'd prefer not to have to address it at all, but I'm afraid it's inextricably linked to our material problems. In this way, I think religion and rationality cannot coexist indefinitely. Either we will evolve, rid ourselves of the destructive dogmas which have plagued our species for so long and advance to a new era of enlightenment, or we will regress back into the comfort of mythology, turning our backs on most all of the social, economic, and technical advances of the modern era. If the experience of the last 8 years shows anything, it's that compromise is not possible, as the zealots' thirst for certainty ultimately renders them incapable of doing so. Moderation and reform are logically and socially untenable. It's either-or: reason or myth, science or superstition, the values of the enlightenment or the values of the stone age.
• The embrace of optimism at the expense of realism.
This one is especially relevant to Americans today; as I've previously written, the naive optimism of Ronald Reagan and his acolytes is, in many ways, responsible for the sorry present state of the nation. One may be inclined to lay the blame solely on conservative ideology, yet what is that ideology but infinite optimism in the power of markets and traditional social structures? The deregulation of the financial sector proceeded from the optimistic - but historically false - belief that self-interest would keep recklessness in check. The invasion of Iraq without proper preparation and due diligence was the direct result of unbridled optimism in the power of democracy. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that we trade in optimism for pervasive pessimism; however, we must recognize that optimism unchecked by realism can be highly corrosive. It's good to be optimistic about what the future holds, but only to the extent to which it does not eliminate reality from the equation.
• The superior value assigned to specialized knowledge over broad intellectual pursuits in American society.
Virtually every liberal/progressive is familiar with this one; what liberal hasn't been called an "academic snob," "intellectual elitist," or something similar by the opponents of reason on the right? I have been labeled as such so many times - despite my total lack of any sort of formal training in "intellectual academic elite" fields (i.e., sociology, philosophy, French literature, etc.) - that I named my website in ridicule of right-wing anti-intellectualism. Now, this cause derives partially from the aforementioned reasons for America's rationality deficit, but also largely owes to the natural evolution of the division of labor and the sorry state of our education system.
As capitalistic economies progress, there is a need for individual workers to perform increasingly specialized functions; this increases productivity and output, but has the unintended consequence of creating one-dimensional citizens who shun - consciously or not - broad "academic" pursuits and the study of human history, human nature, and social organization. In other words, as people become so focused on performing their individual job function, they stop thinking about the bigger picture, creating a fertile environment for power-hungry cynics and delusional ideologues to wreak havoc on the society writ large. If you've ever worked in an office, chances are you've probably heard something like "I don't have time to talk about politics, I have this production systems interface to write before my meeting with my boss tomorrow!"
Thus, the perpetual advance of the division of labor leads people to lead increasingly asocial, insular lives, which in turn fosters ignorance about the issues which affect all of us. If these developments are not checked - say, by organized labor or compulsory national service - they're not only conducive to irrationality, but by themselves threaten to rip the fabric of society apart. Perhaps that's not even a good way to phrase it - it may be more appropriate to say that, left alone, the advance of economic specialization and the division of labor can corrode society to the point in which society proper ceases to exist; we just become a random collection of individuals, working individual jobs, leading individual lives, in a zero-sum world in which there is no incentive to do anything other than increase our own consumption or advance our own social position.
As these developments occur, many of the "cogs in the machine" tend to develop a deep resentment for those who do understand big ideas and the like, projecting their frustration with their replaceable-part status onto intellectuals and those engaged in lasting academic pursuits. Thus, disdain for intellectuals grows as their own intellectual development wanes. As we see on Fox News on a half-hourly (or more) basis, this trend is often helped along by those who have it in their interests to control or eliminate intellectual pursuits. All the while, self-interest grows, and interest in social issues dies out.
It's exactly this "I've got mine, so screw anyone else" mentality which leads to budget-busting tax cuts, a public completely apathetic about going to war, complacent while their nation's reputation is reduced to ash in the halls of Abu Ghraib. Considering this, I suppose the disgraces of the last 8 years and the current wanton looting of the treasury for the benefit of the already-wealthy isn't really surprising; after all, it's almost as if the nation of America has been dying a slow death since the 1980's, when the Gospel of Selfishness was once again made fashionable. Oh sure, there's still the state called the USA, but the GOP's ideology of selfish irrationality has nearly confined any sense of national unity and solidarity to the trash heap.
If you've been wondering how a people who once boldly championed human rights, built vast public works for all to use, and accomplished collective goals like putting a man on the moon, can sit silently as millions of our fellow citizens are imprisoned for non-crimes, as our schools crumble, as our soldiers are killed, as our children are indebted to bail out financial criminals, and as our infrastructure is reduced to third-world standards, I think this is the answer. Nobody cares because they've never been told that they need to care - they've been told that they need to look out for themselves and their family, and that any collective attempts to advance the common good are doomed to failure by a vast chorus of cynical hacks. So, instead of even trying, people resign from participation in society. Instead, they go to the mall to anesthetize themselves with the products of Chinese slave labor, or turn on the boob-tube to drown out the sorry state of the country, or immerse themselves in the features of the latest gadget. Besides, in the nation of self, there's no need to try to advance the common good - you can just drive your BMW past those "undesirable" parts of town where the "others" reside, on your way home to your surreal suburban existence.
Luckily, we have a President-elect who (I hope) realizes at least some of these problems, and will (hopefully) provide the moral and intellectual leadership that's been so sorely lacking since a dark November day some 45 years ago. However, the onus ultimately falls on us to reverse course and close our irrationality deficit, and for that matter, our compassion deficit. If we can get those under control, the deficits of the bean-counters will eventually fall along with them.
Cross-posted at my (semi-)new blog, The Daily Elitist