October 22, 1844

Soothsayers and prophets, prepare to meet thy doom! And other framings.

By Bryan Zepp Jamieson

11/26/04

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Religious/doom.htm

I was reading a column by Nicholas Kristof (which is where the title of this piece came from) and Kristof was writing about how the "Left Behind" series, not to put too fine a point on it, was a load of bigoted crap. Back last April, I had written an essay (Rapture or Rupture) that pointed out that the whole rapture thing wasn’t specifically bible based, and in fact the whole idea didn’t exist until the early 19^th century, when some demented Scottish schoolgirl had visions or smoked too much sheep dung or some damn thing and the world had the incredible misfortune of having her ravings overheard by one of the few Scottish preachers who could read and write, in addition to the usual Scottish preacher trait of having an eye toward making a fast buck. From that sprung the multi-billion dollar Prepare-to-meet-thy-doom industry.

One thing every end-of-the-world type has had in common is that he was wrong. The world didn’t end. The date that Kristof refers to, over 160 years back, is called "The Great Disappointment," since the angels with the deadly vials and the four horsemen and JC all failed to show up as scheduled. The most recent one of any large scale was December 31^st, 1999, the infamous Y2K, which was a bit different in that it not only engaged the religious fruitloops, but the techies and the Luddites as well. I still spot Y2K survival crap at garage sales at ruinously discounted prices.

This floated into my consciousness just about the time that several unrelated incidents juxtaposed. First there was a blurb on the television news about how 40% of Americans believe in evolution while 60% believe humans were created by God. The next day, I read about how the number of foreign exchange students in America had dropped by 65% since 1990.

I would think twice about sending my kid to be educated in a country where the majority – who can vote on school policy – believe in creationism.

Well, it made for a nice juxtaposition, but it turned out not to be the case. The reason there were less foreign exchange students was that they could find less families willing to take them in. Demand still exceeded openings available, although the article didn’t give any actual numbers.

In the case of the poll, I realized it was badly flawed, and probably misleading as hell. For example: I don’t believe in evolution. Evolution isn’t something you "believe in." You don’t accept it on faith. It’s a scientific theory, first proposed over 170 years ago and never falsified, with a huge mass of evidence supporting it. Gravity is a theory, too, and if you think calling it a theory means that you can make it go away by not believing in it, I invite you to jump off a tall building. Let me know how that works out for you, ok? In the meantime, nobody with any scientific background is going to say they "believe in" evolution. It’s not a tenet of the faith.

The second part of the poll was equally misleading. There are a lot of people who believe God or a god or various gods created humans who also regard creationism for what it is, a load of hooey. An amelioration, popular among Catholics and Unitarians, is the "billiard break" theory, in which it’s posited that God created the first atom and then sat back and watched it all develop from there. Most think that when God created that first atom, he had it all figured out – trilobytes, sardines, Satan, Henny Youngman. Some think that God, like all the rest of us, is watching with intense curiosity to see what happens next in his Rube Goldberg universe. I rather like the idea of a puckish God motivated by curiosity, but what can I say? At heart, I’m a primate, and I’ve got that old monkey curiosity.

But the media didn’t bother explaining any of that. They just reinforced the idea that the US had turned into a fundamentalist theocracy, and only a losing minority still clung to discredited old notions that there might be scientific explanations for the world. But at least they’re driving all those furriners out!

Two other disparate events then coalesced.

First, I read George Lakoff’s "don’t think of an elephant!" Lakoff’s thin volume makes the case that the reason the right wingers are winning the debate in America is because rather than actually debating using facts and reason, they are framing their audiences, using imagery that appeals to the "stern daddy" types both to portray them as strong authoritarians and to portray liberals as weak children who need disciplining. Lakoff has several suggestions for liberals. For example, he identifies the six bases for liberal thought, and points out that quite often, a liberal who is a member of one or two of the groups (Socioeconomic, Identity Politics, Environmentalists, Civil Libertarians, Spirituals and Anti-authoritarians) disdains those in the other groups. Lakoff points out that the dichotomies and schisms are even deeper among right wingers (you’ve got religious whacks, big business, fascists, racists and neo-nazis, authoritarians, and various yearners for golden ages that never were under one roof together with common thieves, thugs, and perverts who have realized that membership in the right party makes them virtually immune to prosecution) but that they’ve learned to march together for common goals (usually theft and subjugation). The last two parenthetic remarks are mine and not Lakoff’s, by the way.

He talks about "framing," which is basically the art of taking elements and words and molding them to fit the pre-existing philosophy of conservatives and right wingers. They’ve spent millions and millions of dollars creating hundreds of think tanks to hire psychologists and linguists to figure this out. Lakoff doesn’t mention the term, but they developed the art of using memes, idea fragments, to convey images and emotions that resonate well with the conservative voting bloc. He picks the meme, "The United States doesn’t need a permission slip" to convey the essence of the projected ideology, which is that the deserving rich, including America, are stern but fair authority figures (parents, priests, headmasters), while the undisciplined poor (liberals, third world nations, the poor) are in need of correction. The phrase conjures up, in the conservative mind, the idea of a brat giving the teacher permission to go to the bathroom. It resonates.

I read the book intently, but with a sense of unease and distaste. Liberals depend on logic and reason. Liberals are strong, independent. To use the same tactics would be to treat my readers the way Rush Limbaugh treats his audience, like easily melded morons who will salivate to various verbal bells.

OK, my next essay will be "Audience Fucking for Cheap Applause." You guys are better than dittoheads, but you can be swayed by emotion and imagery and memes, just like all people can.

And of course I use memes! Take for example, my use of the word "Putsch" instead of "Bush." Most people know it’s the German word for "coup," and many know that it’s specifically used to describe Hitler’s abortive 1923 attempt to overthrow the Weimar Republic in Germany, the "Beer Hall Putsch." So when I use the word in relation to Bush, I’m not only trying to remind people of how he took office, but linking him to treason, ineptitude, and Hitler.

Sure. I’m a liberal. I prefer to use reason and logic. Except when I don’t. Many of you read me because I use reason and logic, but don’t mind when I don’t.

Which brings us to the fourth element, the final totally unrelated event that led to this particular essay. I just read "Exile," a 1991 novel by Michael Kube-McDowell. While the novel is something of a disappointment (Kube-McDowell seemed to have decided, with about 300 pages of narrative to go, that he should just wrap it up in the next 30 pages and go on to something else), there is one part that is utterly brilliant.

An event occurs, witnessed by nearly everyone in the city. While most people don’t understand exactly what it was they saw and heard, the authorities recognize it as a threat to their authority, and proceed to use force, intimidation, mob psychology and deft dividing and setting of one faction against another to not only eliminate the faction who want to know what the event meant, but to remove all memory of the event from the public mind. It’s detailed, fascinating and chilling, and rings very true. The reason Exile disappointed was because the ending was pat, and didn’t really address the issue of fighting power and propaganda. But Kube-McDowell’s depiction of how authority can misuse tools to mold our malleable grasp of reality is deeply disturbing.

The American people are frightened and numb, lead to forget atrocities performed in their name and against them, subject to vast amounts of psychological and emotional manipulation, buttressed by a captive press and reinforced by constant messages that only by believing as the right wingers believe can someone be patriotic or pious.

We have the media insisting that the think tanks are right, that we are stern parents who must reluctantly discipline liberals and the poor and other nations that don’t obey us. They leave unchallenged claims that we have become a theocracy. We have Lakoff and Kube-McDowell showing how they are doing it.

So even though I do have reisistance for Lakoff’s message, that we must learn the art of "framing" and turn their own tactics back on them, and learn to manipulate instead of persuading, I have to agree that he’s right.

"don’t think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives" by George Lakoff, is published by Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont (ph 802-295-6300) ISBN # 1-931498-71-7