Last night Keith Olbermann offered a Special Comment on Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" and, more generally, on conservatives' using the tactics of agnotology - induced ignorance - that create what author Charles Pierce calls Idiot America. For me the more important exchange happened earlier in the show, in Olbermann's interview with Chris Hayes of The Nation. Hayes wondered why conservatives aren't using what he called "substantive charges" that could be made about the bills. Olbermann suggested the reason was that "that's hard." That's close, but not quite there.
More below the fold....
Knowing vs. Believing (Idiot America)
This week we're exploring Charles Pierce's Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. And in the past month we've seen several case studies play out on the national stage: birthers, deathers, Van Jones, the president's back-to-school speech, and of course Rep. Wilson's outburst during a presidential address to a joint session of Congress.
That outburst occupied much of the news cycle yesterday. That was very convenient if you wanted to distract the American people from a speech wherein President Obama laid out three clear goals for health care reform, a comprehensive plan to meet those goals, drew a line in the sand on universal coverage and another on obstructionism, and cast health care reform in moral terms as a test of our national character. Given all that meat to chew, it made sense for the media to focus on the cotton candy of Rep. Wilson's childish tantrum.
That criticism aside, Keith Olbermann focused less on the tantrum itself than what it encapsulated: conservatism's growing use of the tactics of what Stanford professor Robert Proctor calls agnotology - induced ignorance or confusion - or in Olbermann's less academic parlance: "the stupid." Olbermann's MSNBC colleague, Rachel Maddow, reinforced that theme in her show as well.
Olbermann's "Special Comment" was excellent, but for me the key point came earlier in the show during the interview with The Nation's Chris Hayes, when Hayes suggested there were "substantive charges" that conservatives could bring to the debate, based on conservative ideology and the facts of the proposed bills. Olbermann suggested conservatives aren't doing so because "That's hard." That's close, but not quite there. The better answer is such charges would shift the debate from believing to knowing, and that would be deadly for conservatism and the Republican Party.
Belief is egalitarian.
Belief is egalitarian. Anyone can have a belief on any topic. Our cultural traditions and First Amendment doctrines of free speech, free press, and the free exercise of religion encourage us to have and express our beliefs, and generally prohibit government from punishing those expressions.
Indeed the further the belief is from fact, the more protection you have. You can't be sued for defamation for an opinion that makes no claims of fact - e.g.: "the president is a jerk" - as defamation law only covers false statements, and the Supreme Court has held that there's no such thing as a "false opinion." Avoid facts and you avoid any legal sanction.
What's more, there are no prerequisites for belief. The law doesn't require a college degree or a license to be a preacher or a pundit. Journalists rarely even need a press pass, a document which makes no claims about one's qualifications or skill; a press pass merely verifies that its holder represents a specific news organization. In the internet age, anyone can publish his/her beliefs to an audience of thousands or even millions.
From a legal perspective, this free expression of belief is important and often beneficial. Most of us don't want the government to decide which beliefs are legitimate and which are suppressed. And sometimes, today's wacky belief becomes - or at least inspires - tomorrow's amazing scientific breakthrough. The egalitarian nature of belief loosen the shackles of political, religious, scientific, and intellectual orthodoxy.
But it can also poison the well of civic discourse and prevent us from solving problems.
Knowledge is elitist.
Problem-solving requires that we identify and understand understand the problem, assess the available resources with which we might solve it, and estimate the benefits, costs, and risks of possible solutions. Each of those steps often turns on knowledge: facts that can be tested against observable experience.
Knowledge is not egalitarian. Each of us can have our own beliefs, but we can't always have our own facts. Knowledge is "hard," as Olbermann said, but it's more than that. It's elitist. If I want to know details about medicine, I'll ask a doctor. If I want to know understand quantum theory, I'll ask a physicist. If I want to know the specifics of a law, I'll ask a lawyer. If I want to stop a leaky pipe, I'll ask a plumber.
Sure, it's possible that a non-expert would also know the correct answers. I might first discuss the issue with friends, at least to help me clarify my questions. I might also do some research online, though if I do it's better to look for information developed by experts. And if I can't find the answer that way, I'll contact an expert directly. While I should still be skeptical and not take the experts' information without question, my chances of learning reliable knowledge increase dramatically if I seek out experts.
And none of us can be an expert on everything.
The challenge of self-government.
Self-government is essentially collective problem-solving, and like individual problem-solving it often requires knowledge. But that's a problem if you don't have the requisite knowledge and your ideology - your collection of beliefs - is not a useful framework for solving that problem. The egalitarian ideal of self-government says you should have an equal say, but the elitist nature of knowledge says you should defer to those who understand and can help solve the problem.
Conservatism has shackled itself with strict ideological orthodoxy, and its ideology - its constellation of beliefs - simply don't work for many of the problems America now faces. Its manifest failures led voters to reject the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008. The GOP now face a double dilemma: they can't get the credit for solutions while Democrats control the White House and Congress, and to meaningfully participate in that problem-solving process would require them to set aside belief - and their media hucksters who sell only belief - in favor of knowledge. That is a lose-lose strategy.
So they turn to agnotology, spreading disinformation and manufacturing controversy to create ignorance and confusion. Marginalize knowing and celebrate believing. After all, believing is egalitarian and everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's the American Way.
Republicans aren't spurning substantive challenges on health care simply because those challenges are harder to make. Those challenges - and any substantive discussion - would shift the discourse away from believing and into knowing. And right now conservatism doesn't dare go there. It would mean shutting down their most prominent spokesmen. Worse, it might lead to real policy solutions ... for which Democrats would get credit.
Better to just yell "You Lie!"
+++++
Happy Friday!