I have a communications disorder. It's called 'talking with fundamentalists.' Any help would be appreciated.
When you can use ‘science’ to justify that embryos feel pain and are, in fact, ‘sentient’, and you can use selective ‘science’ to justify that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will be a planetary blessing, and when you can use ‘science’ to justify some cockamamey conclusion that utilizing tar sands in another country will lower gas prices and make bird songs more pleasant (I’m making up the birdsong part), but somehow, ‘science’ can’t be believed when it can analytically prove that 450 ppm in atmospheric CO2 is irreversibly going to alter (in a really bad way) life on earth and that scientific panels like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the International Panel on Climate Change are, in point of fact, not really God hating socialist propagandists …….Just why is it that one kind of ‘science’, the ridiculous one, is believable but not the other?
For some reason, articles on faith based science and brain differences between conservatives and liberals have drawn the attention of my cursor finger lately. And when I read them I am reminded about the good old days of William Buckley and Everett Dirksen, days when Republican conservatives could argue free markets and work for civil rights at the same time. They could come together with Democrats and form the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA. They could agree that water boils at 212 degrees and that books burn at 451. There was need and there was science and the two could join and flying cars and Tang would jetson the world into a better tomorrow through chemistry.
Now, conservatives can’t pick their nose and whistle Dixie much less contemplate scientific realities that are the most challenging since the invention of fire. And I’m being a little disingenuous here. What I mean is that conservatives aren’t stupid or, in reality, uninformed. No, they are much more corrupt, much more evil than that. They are acting out the root word contained in ignorant. They are making a conscious choice to ignore the facts of the evolving world around them, to make a choice to not believe the tested facts that science provides and to chose, instead, a complex set of bizarre rationales. The intention of these clown based rationales is to inject a series of myths (read: religions in general), voodoos (read: ‘voodoo’ economics, anything containing the word ‘Bush’), paranoias (read: women’s privates) and fears (read: black people) into the marketplace of competing ideas used to form sound judgments for both societies and governments worldwide. They are, in fact, asking Mr. Ed, the talking horse, for advice, and when they are told that the world needs more oats, FOX breaks a story on the global oat shortage. Surprise, surprise.
I am mixing TV metaphors. We don’t have Mr. Ed. We have Gilligan’s Island, the boring, unfunny, totally unbelievable, vast wealth discrepancy, bikinis vs. pigtails and jeans short version that is today’s Republican Party. Throw in Ron Paul hoarding the coconuts and you get the picture. It is comfortable and easy to discredit science when you have Jesus (Rick Santorum). It’s easy to rationalize pumping heated tar sand mixes over thousands of miles when you support a lie that this action benefits national security (Mitt Romney…or Barack Obama….or both). But what we have is Republicans on Gilligan’s Island and everybody else…someplace else, and this distinct separation is causing a communications gap that threatens a lot more than the body politic. It threatens everything I love.
I don’t know what it’s going to take to bridge a communications gap based on delusion and fear. From the point of view of a shrink I would think that the choice of language is important, to be compelling but not condescending, convincing without being threatening, etc. From experience, can there really be a serious discussion about the deficit or defense spending when worldviews are so desperately different? Can there really be a comprehensive discussion on climate change when words like ‘hoax’ compete with ‘undeniable’? Is there a discussion to be had on entitlements, health care, taxes, or race relations when the ‘facts on the ground’ of all these issues is trivialized, competed over, falsely defined or just plain lied about? Really? Is this where we are? Are ‘facts’ the new paper mache rocks conveniently shaped by your choice of research group and think tank? Can science be shaped to fit a lie?
Divides are nothing new to mankind. We thrive by crossing them. It helps our genes, normally. This time, it might be the only way to keep them alive. I am befuddled to come up with a strategy that facilitates whatever form of communication we need right now. I’ve tried English. It doesn’t work. Maybe it’s going to have to be a higher language, one that takes more time to master, one that speaks without speaking, knows without knowing, hears without listening. I’ll check the course catalog at the community college but I don’t think it will help. It’s going to be up to me. But it would be better if it were up to us.
Post script: This is my first post in a long time. I had brain surgery on Jan. 3 to remove a tumor the size of a dinosaur egg. My perspectives have shifted and my leg is still a stranger to me but I figured it was time to get back to work. Every Kossack has been an inspiration to me so, thanks a lot people. There is much to be done. Saddle up.