Political Dark Side: Propaganda, Censorship, and Calumny

 

by

Gadfly

As a concept, “politics” is neither good nor bad.  Its application, however, is either good or bad.  My favorite political philosopher, David Eastman, had a simple definition for politics: “the authoritative allocation of values.” 

Values are not the same as virtues.  Values are preferences based on desire, which can be virtuous or vicious.  Virtues are principles that promote goodness and provide guideposts for virtuous behavior.  Vices represent evil passions and effects.

Power is a value, and a vicious behavior if it is sought as an end and not a means.  On the other hand, power can represent a virtue if it manifests the authority of moral behavior to achieve goodness.  Both forms can manifest in the character of the body politic of a nation.

These distinctions were recognized and understood centuries ago in the wisdom shared by St. Paul to the Galatians in Chapter 5 of the Judeo-Christian Bible.  In this short chapter, Paul reminds his followers of the difference between the liberty of the fruits of the Holy Spirit in contrast with earthly bondage.  It is amazing how clearly this liberty versus bondage choice is recognizable in the current true life drama playing out in America.

A political dark side dominates the American body politic, and it is patently observable in the form of propaganda, censorship, and calumny. 

In his book, Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler provided his observations about the importance of propaganda in this passage (I included this material in another previously published article “Evidence Is Overwhelming but There Is an Elephant in the Room”): 

 

The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses [this is why Democrats aggressively define the opponent; see also here]. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood [and Democrats/Leftists employ calumny with no limits].

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice [i.e., the emphasis on social justice, fair share, equity, diversity & inclusion, dignity & respect, etc.]; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side [similar to progressive George Lakoff’s axiom that it is the frame that matters, and facts are only relevant if they fit the frame]. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas [e.g., racist, bigot, white privilege, misogynist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, etc.  In her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton argued that Trump followers fit into one or more of the standard progressive stereotypes.]. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion [does it not shock, let alone surprise, that Democrats/Leftists persist in their calumny against Donald Trump?]. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles [Trump dossier, impeachments, a raid on Trump’s home, etc.], but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.[1] (Text in bold, italics is my editorial insertion)

With such bold actions in the form of propaganda, why not also censor?  Just today, Jonathan Turley reported that the AP press is in full denial of widely known facts.  See here.

More disturbing because of its subtle yet sinister behavior is the combination of propaganda, censorship, and calumny by Big Tech.  Dr. Robert Epstein, a registered Democrat, provides compelling evidence here.  This can be fixed by Congress and the Courts as threats to our First Amendment Rights.  “We the people” should insist that this happens.

Friends, mainstream media platforms are an additional instrument in advancing propaganda, censorship, and calumny.  Yet, there is a growing number of alternative news sources that still pride themselves on honest journalism.

What more can be done?  First, recognize this is a spiritual contest that cannot be avoided by denying the presence of evil intentions and behaviors.  Second, be on good terms with the source of our moral authority and pray for wisdom and courage.  Third, do what we can to rebuke evil and affirm good behavior.  Not only does the soul of our nation depend upon these actions, but our very own souls are at stake as well.

My articles have recently been sparse because I am attempting to do what can be done through a nonprofit called Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (www.starrs.us).  I invite you to check us out, join the cause, and spread the word. 

---

[1] Mein Kampf citations are from the Project Gutenberg-hosted 1939 English translation by James Murphy.

What Is a Domestic Enemy?

by

Gadfly

           On June 11, 2020, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, apologized for accompanying his Commander-in-Chief for an important signal in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.  President Trump appears to have shrugged it off.

           I reflected on a couple of experiences that risked being political and showing disloyalty.  The first was a top three meeting (master sergeants, senior master sergeants, and chief master sergeants) at an Air Force wing.  About 80 were present.  One chief master sergeant stood up and said, “Colonel, it’s not fair that the commander-in-chief can participate in sexual harassment and lie to our Nation without being held accountable.”  My response was, “Accountability for the President is a matter for the ballot box.  We know what our ‘zero tolerance’ standards are.  We all set an example for others by enforcing them.”  The question spoke to a political matter, and I did not step into the trap.

           On another occasion, while teaching as the head of the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at a university, one of my students (a cadet) asked for my view on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  I responded that “it was a good question.  As I stand here before you in uniform, I support the Department of Defense policy.”  The student pressed, “But, Sir.  What is your personal view?”  I told him that it would be inappropriate for me to offer my personal view, but encouraged the students to spend a few minutes debating it.  I wanted to emphasize the importance of being apolitical and loyal to the institution, even when you might disagree on some matters.

   

Thus, trying to understand Milley’s rationale for the apology made me realize that he may not know what a domestic enemy is.

Here is how (transcript here; infamous clip here) the General expressed his apology in front of colonels graduating from the National Defense University (bold, italics are mine to address in subsequent commentary):

Equality and opportunity is a matter of readiness. It’s the basis of cohesion. We fight wars as teams, and we cannot tolerate anything that divides us. Let me conclude with two simple pieces of advice, based on 40 years in uniform, that you may find useful as many of you will surely go on to be flag officers. First, always maintain a keen sense of situational awareness. As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched, and I am not immune. As many of you saw the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society. I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I’ve learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it.

           Equality and opportunity are political euphemisms.  An Army private is not equal to a corporal, let alone a four-star general. Access to opportunity is subject to many variables and factors and is dependent upon the motivation of each individual to be prepared to benefit from opportunities when they present themselves. For members of the profession of arms, professional competence and loyalty are far more critical.  We expect these individuals to meet or exceed these standards; and if they do not, we discharge them.  Our profession is existential.  There is no room for pandering or coddling.  I will address loyalty later in the article.

           [W]e cannot tolerate anything that divides us.  The protests, looting, and rioting are fully intended to divide us.  So, for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say what he did, speaks volumes about his critical lack of situational awareness.

           Lafayette Square (also known as President’s Park, Washington, D.C) was on the way to St. John’s Episcopal Church, (often called the Church of the Presidents).  President Trump wanted to do two things during this event.  First, as President of the United States of America, he wanted to demonstrate that our Nation is still based on the rule of law, such that he could openly walk across Lafayette Square (President’s Park) to a site (the Church of the Presidents) that had been vandalized by the “so called peaceful protestors.”

Trump’s second objective was to send a signal (far more than a photo op) that First Amendment rights do not justify violating sacred values through physical destruction of churches.  “Fire-bombing,” “torching,” or “setting on fire”— language advanced by the media downplayed the fact that “peaceful protestors” do not deliberately vandalize property, let alone sacred property.

 

Yet, Milley emphasized during his speech:

 

The freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution allow people to demand change just as the peaceful protesters are doing all across the country. That is why we serve in the military. On day one, you and I, we all, we all swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

           Peaceful protestors?  Is Milley unaware of the millions, perhaps billions now, in damage being incurred across the nation?  Is he unaware that anarchists have seized and now occupy territory in Seattle?  As these “peaceful protestors” take down or destroy historical monuments, is he unaware that a statue of Lenin (responsible for tremendous brutality—see my article “Where to Begin”) still occupies a safe space in Seattle?

           Swore an oath.  Milley did not include that we support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

           Milley also said the following:

We who were the cloth of our nation come from the people of our nation. And we must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic. . . .. And my second piece of advice is very simple. Embrace the Constitution, keep it close to your heart. It is our North Star. It’s our map to a better future. Though we are not a perfect union, believe in the United States, believe in our country, believe in your troops. And believe in our purpose. Few other nations have been able to change for the greater good. And that is because of the rights and values embedded in our Constitution.

         [W]e must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military.  I completely agree.  What does this mean?  It means loyalty (in addition to professional competence) to the commander-in-chief, regardless of political party.  It also means avoiding getting entangled in political issues.  When the military, such as Service Academies, impose on their cadets and midshipmen to engage in “conversations” about social or political matters, it becomes VERY political.  It is very difficult to encourage open minds when the thrust and tone of such “conversations” reflect a monolithic “political” view.  Right now, the monolithic view is progressivism, Milley’s map to a better future, based on the power elite’s North Star.

           President Trump also believes in the Constitution and the essence of our republic.  President Trump subscribes to natural rights grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition.  This is what made America great and it reflects his political agenda.  A republic is the golden mean between two extreme forms of government:  autocracy and democracy.  The protests, looting, and rioting are a manifestation of democracy.  If unchecked by the tools and institutions of a republic, the democracy will give birth to a tyrannical autocracy.  In his commencement speech, among the lessons being taught, Milley failed to instruct a fundamental principle of our Constitutional Republic:  Trump is the politically elected commander-in-chief to which our military pledges its apolitical loyalty.

[B]ecause of the rights and values embedded in our Constitution.  The rights embedded in our Constitution are natural rights—equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Bill of rights expand upon these rights.  Other rights, such as civil rights, are statutory and have emerged overtime, typically recognizing factions that characterize a democracy, which weakens the golden mean of a republic.  In essence, our governments have usurped the sovereign people by creating an administrative state that has become repressive over time.

          Political philosopher, David Easton, defined politics “as the authoritative allocation of values.”  “Authoritative allocation” implies political power.  President Trump was elected to carry out his political agenda, which reflects Constitutional Republic values.  These values are not congruent with the left’s.  Instead of finding ways to advance their agenda in peaceful ways, the left distorts the truth and pursues lawfare ways (costly litigation and activist judges) of punishing those with different values.

           Embrace the Constitution.  Members of the profession of arms (as well as government officials) swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  In his commencement speech, Milley spent less than three minutes on the foreign threat and more than 10 minutes on domestic matters.  By balancing his speech the way he did, Milley delved into politics.  Not once in the speech, nor in any other public statements, did he mention the “domestic enemy” of the Constitution.  The domestic enemy is on full display and his “situational awareness” fails to see it.  Today, the left—progressives, democrats, the Communist Party USA and various communist front organizations (Organizing for Action, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Sunrise Movement, and so forth —is fully committed to “fundamentally transforming America.”

          

Milley’s walk with the President was an opportunity to acknowledge this awareness and to send a strong signal to our military force that we are fully prepared to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Perhaps Milley has since had an epiphany and now understands the seriousness of this existential moment in our journey through history.  I hope so.  We all make mistakes and err in judgment.  Yet, when called upon to exercise courageous leadership in a critical situation, we must be worthy to make the right decisions.     

Trump Qualification Concerns

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, aside from all the fake news about the nature of Russian hacking, it seems to me the central concern from the left is that Trump is unqualified to be president and lacks presidential demeanor.  Your thoughts?

IM:  Let’s address the unqualified allegation first.  The only Constitutional qualifications for president are stated in Article II, Section 1:

  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

AM:  Trump meets all of these criteria.  But, remember:  there was some question as to whether his predecessor met the “natural born” criterion.  Those who were or are skeptical about the natural born status—except, that is, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff that introduced this as a possible issue during the 2008 presidential campaign—are derided as “birthers” . . . conspiracy theorists, even though some would argue that there is some evidence to support the theory.  For instance, Obama has gone to great lengths to seal certain records (e.g., administrative records at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard) that could assuage these concerns, if he were natural born.  Further, as proof of birth, the Obama campaign circulated a certificate of live birth that is normally issued for those individuals born to US citizens outside of the State of Hawaii.  Then, after pressure from Trump, Obama finally released a so-called long form birth certificate.  Yet, forensic investigations (see also here) into this form revealed serious issues—that is, a forged certificate.

Old Gadfly:  Assuming the “natural born” criterion is not an issue for either Obama or Trump, what do you think the left means when they say Trump is not qualified?

AM:  Before we dig into an answer to your question, I want to point out that one of the Texan delegates to the Electoral College has publicly declared he will become one of the few “faithless electors” in our nation’s history because he believes Trump is not qualified.

IM:  I recall that the announcement by this faithless elector, Christopher Suprun, was through the New York Times.  This was part of the swarming activity by Hollywood dupes and media mimickers related to convincing at least 37 electors not to vote for Trump.  Unfortunately, as we wade through all the “fake news,” generated by the left, there is little fanfare that Suprun has been completely discredited by, among other things, stolen valor (see here and here).

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, let’s get back to the qualification question.

AM:  I have heard and read that Trump lacks policy experience.

IM:  I agree.  The claim is that since Trump has never served in a government capacity, he has no expertise on policy matters, whether domestic or foreign.

Old Gadfly:  What is policy?  People throw that term around all the time without defining it.

IM:  A dictionary definition states that policy is:  “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.”  So, here we are talking about government policy.

Old Gadfly:  Good.  Now, from what is a course or principle of action derived?

AM:  Good question.  The context is political, in that we chose a Party candidate over another based upon their platforms.

Old Gadfly:  OK . . . continue.

AM:  The platforms represent values.  For instance, the progressive Democrat believes in freedom, opportunity, responsibility, and cooperation.  Progressives believe these values can only be enhanced by a large, central government and its central planners (congruent with socialism).  For a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of these values from a progressive perspective, see here.  On the other hand, the conservative Republican believes in respect for human life, individual liberty, limited government, a strong defense, and free enterprise.  For a more detailed explanation, see here.  Here is another source that explains how progressive and conservative values shape policy (here is another good source). Finally, here is an article that explains why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals (and progressives).

IM:  Speaking of political perspectives and happiness, I recently read an interesting article by a university professor.  Here is a quote from her article:

I have long appreciated the optimism about human progress that is a key ideal of liberalism (think of the term “progressive”). While I still embrace this view, I wonder if conservative ideals are more natural ideals. That is, does human nature, as it emerged under the pressures of natural selection of our small-group-living ancestors, include the urge to curtail individual expression, enforce authority, and hoard resources for the in-group? Compared to liberals, social conservatives may well be living lives that are more similar to what humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. And if so, is their more natural mind-set the reason that conservatives are, at least according to surveys, often happier than liberals?

Old Gadfly:  Good points.  So, when we hear the left accusing Trump of not being qualified, what we’re being told is that anticipated policy stemming from a Trump administration will reflect values that are contrary to the left’s.  Do you agree?

IM:  Absolutely.  For starters, here are examples of what the left is angry about:

·         Repealing Obamacare and reducing taxes is a rejection of the Marxist values called redistribution of wealth and fear from want.  

·         Reducing the size of government in terms of federal regulations by an unelected bureaucracy is a rejection of the value of a large, centralized government. 

·         Installing retired general officers as Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security promotes a Constitutional government that is strong on defense and the safety of America and assumes a larger leadership role in the international system, contrary to the feckless “lead from behind” posture over the past eight years.

·         Installing business men and women in various positions such as Secretary of State and Commerce recognizes the role healthy free enterprise-oriented economies play in the globalized international economy.  This is contrary to the notion that government experts know better than the players actually involved in voluntary free exchange of value and Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order and prosperity.  After all, Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated and look at how the stock market responded.

·         Building a wall and enforcing immigration laws enfranchises the individual liberty of those citizens who exercise responsibility through the rule of law.  This negates the exploitation opportunities the left has enjoyed through identity politics and political correctness.

AM:  Given all the excuses that Hillary and her campaign surrogates are giving for her loss, there is no doubt that they lack the capacity to reflect on the difference in political values in light of what the American idea is all about, how it led to the greatest prosperity in the history of humankind, and why so many want to migrate (legally and illegally) to America.  More sadly, progressives must lie and deceive in order to dupe those who choose to follow.  Among the many lies told by Obama at his last press conference, the one that many saw through—justifying their vote for Trump—was about all the jobs created.  The most important indicator of job growth is the labor participation rate; and it is the lowest since the 1970s.

IM:  Speaking of dupes, here is what Hoover said in his 1958 book, Masters of Deceit:

What lesson can we as a society learn from the Party’s methods of recruitment?  Most important, I think, is to realize the Communist Party is attempting to exploit the rise of materialism, irreligion, and lack of faith in our society.  In an era when moral standards have been lowered, when family life has been disrupted, when crime and juvenile delinquency rates are high, communists have tried to set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women.  They have, in truth, tried to “steal” the nobility, the fervor, the enthusiasm of a free government under God (pp. 107-108).

Old Gadfly:  Thus, concerns about policy are more about the difference in political values.  Certainly Obama’s experience as a community organizer, one-term state senator, a nearly two-year US Senator provided no experience for the type of policy expected at the national level.   Yet, to this day, he enjoys high popularity ratings, despite a mess he leaves behind.  Perhaps Obama’s greatest achievement is the perception of presidential demeanor.  I suspect many on the left see this as an important qualification.  Is demeanor a qualification?

IM:  Comments made on the Access Hollywood bus rankled a lot of folks as conduct unbecoming an American president.

Old Gadfly:  Well?  Are they wrong?

AM:  Trump did not deny the comments, and he apologized for them.  Trump may come across as crass to those on the left, but he comes across as a hero for those who are sick and tired of political correctness.  He comes across as authentic and sincere.

Old Gadfly:  Do you believe Trump followers prefer the naked truth as opposed to a facade?

IM:  I believe good old American patriots who feel good about America and what it stands for represent manly men and womanly women:  those who have avoided or escaped conditioning by the progressive, secular humanist conditioners.

AM:  Those on the left either favored an open socialist, who (in the words of Hoover) “set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women”; or another socialist in progressive clothing who presented an image of presidential demeanor with actual policy experience.  Those so duped on the left had no interest in the failed policies (Middle East, Libya, Russia, etc.) or corruption associated with illegal email servers and the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation.

AM:  There is no facade with Trump.  What you see is what you get—like most ordinary Americans who believe that all men and women are equal; and who should not be ashamed that they happen to be white or male, a police officer, or a Christian baker that believes in traditional marriage.

IM:  Meanwhile, Hillary and her surrogates will continue to seek ways to make Trump’s presidency illegitimate and to demean, with great contempt, those who share Trump’s values.

Old Gadfly:  With a left-leaning press, many can understand why Trump resorts to his Twitter account.  This is about the only way he can control his own narrative to counter the distorted caricature being painted by his political opponents.  Time will tell whether enough Americans want to preserve our Constitutional Republic, overcome the insidious forces of socialism, and make America great again.

Reifying Marriage

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, there is a lot of talk these days about same-sex marriage . . . even the Supreme Court is now involved.  But, before we delve into this topic, how was your paper presentation in New Orleans? 

Old Gadfly:  It went well, IM.  Amazingly, the research can help me explain what is happening with the same-sex marriage issue.  Let me say at the outset of our conversation that what we are witnessing is a process called the reification of marriage.  And, I know you will be engaged with me in this conversation because it is important, even though it involves a complexity that Copernican drones are incapable of understanding because they lack the motivation and the reasoning capacity to develop this level of critical analysis.  

IM:  What was the topic of your paper?

Old Gadfly:  The paper was part of a panel of presenters from academia and one from a government agency.  The theme of the panel was “The Emergence, Evolution, and Praxis of Ethics Systems.”  The title of my paper was “Values as Tagging Mechanism in Ethics Systems:  Linking Theory to Empirical Evidence Using a Phenomenology Design.”

IM:  What did you learn in your research for the presentation?

Old Gadfly:  Values are highly subjective—many based more on emotion than reason; yet, they serve as the signal, or what we call tagging mechanisms in complex adaptive system theory, for shaping ethics systems.  For example, justice is an important value—we can approach it from emotional and reasoned perspectives.  John Rawls, in his seminal work, A Theory of Justice,[1] claimed:

Among individuals with disparate aims and purposes a shared conception of justice establishes the bonds of civic friendship; the general desire for justice limits the pursuit of other ends.  One may think of a public conception of justice as constituting the fundamental charter of a well-ordered human association.[2]

Rawls admitted this definition is ideal by acknowledging that societies are seldom well-ordered. Thus, according to Rawls, institutions are needed, and “are just when no arbitrary distinctions are made between persons in the assigning of basic rights and duties and when the rules determine a proper balance between competing claims to the advantages of social life”.[3]  The impact of Rawls’ logic is to support his claim that: “Clearly this distinction between the concept and the various conceptions of justice settles no important questions.  It simply helps to identify the role of the principles of social justice.”[4]  Thus, in Rawls’ reasoned judgment, justice is a means, not an end.  In the process, he reified the abstract concept of justice.  And you can see how Rawls' understanding of justice works its way into a topic such as same-sex marriage.  As I will further explain later, this type of elitist behavior is considered a social pathology.

To test my proposition that values serve as tagging mechanisms in shaping ethics systems, I developed a two-part theoretical framework.  The first part linked three theories at the individual level to understand how moral reasoning[5] is shaped by our neuro-networked brain functions[6] and the psychological needs that shape motivation.[7] See the graphic below.

Individuals are members of groups that I call collectives.  So, for the second part of the theoretical framework I hypothesized how the level of collective moral reasoning might be derived through a phenomenological (perceptions based on lived experience) analysis of Hannah Arendt’s book, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil; and Robert D. Kaplan’s books, Balkan Ghosts:  A Journey through History, and The Arabists:  The Romance of an American Elite.  For this portion of the analysis, I used Robert Merton’s theory of social structure and anomie.[8]  See the next graphic below.

Merton theorized certain behaviors based on whether an individual (or as a collective, in the case of my analysis) accepts or rejects institutional means and accepts or rejects collective goals.  Anomie, some form of alienation from the existing structure, triggers a behavioral response.  As you can see in the graphic above, there are four primary behaviors:  conformity, ritualism, innovation, or retreatism. 

Conformists obey and do not challenge existing norms.  Ritualism is a pathological form of conformity.  As Merton described it: “activities originally conceived as instrumental are transmuted into ends in themselves.”[9]  An example is the food stamp program.  The Occupy Wall Street Movement also falls into this category because in the minds of this collective, the 1% symbolized by Wall Street greedily hoards wealth that belongs to the other 99%.  A significant number of Romney’s “47%” function in this category. 

In another category, those who innovate are willing to challenge existing norms.  Arguably, advocates for same-sex marriage operate in this realm.  We’ll talk more about this shortly.  In the fourth category, those who have given up by rejecting institutional means and collective goals, retreat.  This may explain why 7.9 million fewer Democrats and .8 million fewer Republicans voted in the 2012 elections compared with 2008. 

There is a fifth behavior, called rebellion, which seeks new institutional means and collective goals.  I would submit the Tea Party Movement (much like the Boston Tea Party experience) represents behavior in this category.

IM:  Did your analysis of Arendt and Kaplan link any evidence to theory?

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  While the results are preliminary at this point, they do paint a picture.  Arendt and Kaplan made phenomenological observations of various societies in their analyses.  By doing a content analysis of the context and language in Arendt’s and Kaplan’s narratives, the collective behavior of the various societies appeared to manifest features summarized in the following graphic.

  

            IM:  Can you walk me through this chart with an example?

            Old Gadfly:  Sure. Let me describe Arendt’s characterization of Israelis.  Members of the Israeli government located Adolph Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Israel for trial.  As you can imagine, the holocaust was an emotional memory for many Israelis, just as 9/11 was for Americans.  Yet, the striking difference is that Eichmann was arguably responsible for sending six to 15 million Jews and other Eastern Europeans to Nazi concentration camps for extermination.  Osama bin Laden, on the other hand (within a later historical context not examined by Arendt in her particular narrative), was responsible for the loss of around 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 (9/11), yet also responsible for the deaths of others, in the hundreds (not millions), in other parts of the world. 

The collective Israeli approach was conformist in so far as it accepted institutional means for promoting justice and accepted the Israeli goal of justice within its sovereign borders and within the international system.  As such, the Israelis were operating with deliberative moral reasoning characterized as Kolberg’s Stage 6 (universal principles).  This level of moral reasoning implied that, within this particular historical context, Israelis had achieved a collective motivational level of self-actualization. Maslow[10] provided a clear definition of self-actualization:  “It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially.”[11]  To this day, the Israeli nation fights for self-fulfillment as a nation.  Finally, since the Israelis were willing to invest the time and resources to try Eichmann in a court of law, open to the public, they were operating at what MacLean calls the neocortex complex level, which allows associative reasoning unconstrained by emotion or memory, or the pressing need for survival.

IM:  Since you mentioned the American action against bin Laden, how would you characterize Americans in their approach, especially as indicated by strong public sentiment in support of it?

Old Gadfly:  Ironically, America’s response could have been an opportunity for a real teaching moment, especially for an individual who campaigned on moral righteousness.  Here is how I would characterize Americans in this particular instance:  conformist, Stage 1 and 2, security, and reptilian.  The conformist distinction aligns with institutional means for promoting security and the importance of security as a goal.  Moral reasoning reflected an intuitive response characterized as the importance of obedience and punishment at Stage 1, and self-interest at Stage 2.  The motivational level clearly reflected the motivation for security.  Finally, while the memory of 9/11 still evoked a nation-wide emotional element, many have rationalized that by not executing bin Laden in favor of attempting to bring him to trial would have rallied other terrorists; further, a capture might have incurred too much risk for the SEAL team.  No doubt, these rationalizations have merit as hypothetical conjectures.  However, since the removal of bin Laden, al Qaeda-affiliated terrorism has not gone away.  The tagging mechanism related to this form of terrorism is an abstract ideology that was symbolized in concrete form by bin Laden.  Our attempt to reify the al Qaeda behavior by thinking al Qaeda would disappear with the execution of its concrete symbol did nothing to dismantle the abstract organizing signal.  The ideology remains intact.  Thus, our response characterized more of a reptilian approach, fueled by the memories and emotions at the paleomammalian level of functioning.  In the long-run, the execution reinforced this level of terroristic collective behavior and diminished America’s strategic moral standing.        

IM:  This is fascinating, Gadfly, and I want to learn more about your study; but already, given your description of how values serve as tagging mechanisms for shaping ethics systems, I can infer some of the illogic of the push for same-sex marriage.  I want to try my hand at explaining it to you, but I must admit your comment about the reification of marriage stumped me.  What is reification?

            Old Gadfly:  Essentially, reification is making a thing out of something abstract.  It’s an attempt to make an abstraction more concrete and, in the process, diminishes the original meaning of the abstraction.  Marxist reification dealt with labor, and this form of reification haunts us today (I am stupefied that we have and apparently tolerate unionized government officials in a constitutional republic). 

One of the first sources on reification with which I am personally familiar was Robert Merton.[12]  Now, understand, Merton’s research took place in the 1930s.  He was very much aware of the liberal fascination with Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, and their statist-oriented social experimentation.  Eugenics was an important goal imposed upon  society by the political and intellectual elite.  Even the great American champion of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, believed in eugenics.  These efforts were examples of reification of governance and the collective behavior of the governed.  Merton never used the word, reification, in his analysis, yet implied it in other language.  Here is an example from Merton:

The empirical observation is incontestable: activities oriented toward certain values release processes which so react as to change the very scale of values which precipitated them. This process may in part be due to the fact that when a system of basic values enjoins certain specific actions, adherents are not concerned with the objective consequences of these actions but only with the subjective satisfaction of duty well performed. Or, action in accordance with a dominant set of values tends to be focused upon that particular value-area. But with the complex interaction which constitutes society, action ramifies, its consequences are not restricted to the specific area in which they were initially intended to center, they occur in interrelated fields explicitly ignored at the time of action. Yet it is because these fields are in fact interrelated that the further consequences in adjacent areas tend to react upon the fundamental value-system. It is this usually unlooked-for reaction which constitutes a most important element in the process of secularization, of the transformation or breakdown of basic value-systems. Here is the essential paradox of social action--the "realization" of values may lead to their renunciation.[13]

            In a fairly recent lecture[14] at the University of California at Berkeley, Axel Honneth, a product of the Frankfurt School, spoke about reification:

There are innumerable investigations in the domain of cultural sociology or social psychology that have discerned an increasingly strong tendency on the part of subjects to feign certain feelings or desires for opportunistic reasons, until they eventually come to experience these very same feelings and desires as genuine elements of their own personality. This is a form of emotional self-manipulation that Lukacs already had in mind when he described journalism as being a “prostitution” of “experiences and beliefs,” regarding it as the “apogee” of social reification.[15]

Some scholars, such as Lukacs in this particular case, are not intellectually constrained—they understand and have the courage to proclaim the consequential disservice modern journalists commit in the name of journalism. In his lecture, Honneth emphasized that reification is a social pathology, where the instrumental aspect of behavior tends toward selfishness and self-interest with careless and thoughtless disregard for the consequences imposed on the broader collective.  Honneth went on to say:

. . . “reification” is used in a decidedly normative sense; it signifies a type of human behavior that violates moral or ethical principles by not treating other subjects in accordance with their characteristics as human beings, but instead as numb and lifeless objects—as “things” or “commodities.” The empirical phenomena thereby referred to encompass tendencies as disparate as the increasing demand for surrogate mothers, the commodification of romantic and familial relationships, and the boom in the sex industry.[16]

IM, does this provide a sufficient notion of reification?

IM:  Yes, and I see now why you say the current activities related to same-sex marriage are a form of reification.  Traditionalists believe marriage, as an abstraction, has promoted stability within society by perpetuating the agape form of love between a man and a woman, living in harmony with the Laws of Nature.  Living in harmony with the Laws of Nature means procreating and nurturing children for future posterity.  Other forms of love such as filial (friendship or brotherhood of a nonsexual nature) and Eros (sexual affection) represent lower motivational needs (sexual appetites, sexual pleasure, belonging, etc.) and as such tend to be more instrumental than agape; thus, more selfish and self-interested.  Yet, many would argue that even traditional marriage has social pathologies in the form of divorce, abuse, and so forth.

Old Gadfly:  It is true that there are pathologies as you describe.  Do these manifestations, based on intention and choice, invalidate the traditional abstract concept of marriage?

IM:  I sense not, but I’m looking for a neocortex level response.

Old Gadfly:  Let me help you out.  Do all traditional marriages start out from an agape form of love?

IM:  I suspect, many evolve out of a filial form, especially those who cohabitate for some time.  Others try to legitimize an out-of wedlock pregnancy.

Old Gadfly:  None of those you describe is beyond primitive or emotional perspectives.  How about couples who start out with an agape form but later divorce?

IM:  My sense is that one or both individuals take on greater selfishness or self-interest that makes the original bond vulnerable.

Old Gadfly:  I agree.  Our quick analysis does not invalidate the traditional concept of marriage.  The only logical way to invalidate it is to reify it.  So, let’s get more specific regarding how marriage is reified.  How does social science reconcile with biological science in this regard?  Is sexual orientation a genetic and involuntary disposition?  If so, does this not justify, from a moral reasoning perspective, the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex?

IM:  Gadfly, you already know the answer, because we discussed this question before; but for the sake of completing our analysis, I’ll answer the questions you pose.  First, behaviors are phenotypic in nature—that is, shaped by one’s environment and experiences.  Behaviors may be predisposed genetically, that is, humans are predisposed to eating and sexual activity based on genetic material.  A dandelion exhibits behavior by orienting toward the sun.  This is a primitive form of genetically predisposed behavior.  Further, all life forms below the human being lack any form of intention.  Our dandelion cannot choose to orient away from the sun.  However, the orientation of sexual behavior in a human being is certainly influenced or shaped by one’s environment and personal experiences; but the human being has the designed capacity (i.e., associative reasoning in the neocortex complex) to choose how to accommodate environmental influences.  I don’t know about you, Gadfly, but I remember feeling pretty comfortable with frat house sexual mores until I met my wife to be.  My whole outlook on life moved well beyond the frat house primitive orientation.  When the environment and personal experiences are reified through rationalization, those who embrace this form of rationalization have lost the capacity and discernment to reason deliberately—unless confronted with an alternative worldview.

Along these lines, I was amused and disappointed by an op-ed piece by a professor of biology in yesterday’s New York Times, trying to use science as justification for same-sex marriage.  Professor David Haskell reifies the abstract meaning of marriage by explaining human behavior as an analog to lower life forms.  So, The New York Times, evidenced by this op-ed piece along with a strong advocacy for same sex marriage, demonstrates what Lukacs meant when he “described journalism as being a ‘prostitution’ of ‘experiences and beliefs,’ regarding it as the ‘apogee’ of social reification.”[17]  Even worse, the professor is teaching our young people who are experiencing the same frat house environment to which I just confessed.

Old Gadfly:  Great analysis, IM.  Before we close our conversation, summarize where we are on the same-sex marriage issue.

IM:  As you explained in a previous conversation on memes, the whole same-sex marriage notion is a strong and contagious notion stemming from the reification of the concept of marriage.  I suspect as this wave continues to build same-sex marriage will run its course.  The beauty of the theory of evolution is that it allows mutations to occur.  These mutations allow some diversity to challenge the existing order.  Same-sex marriage is such a mutation.  In this case, even though purchased adoptions bring children into a “same sex” relationship, adopted children do not get to perpetuate the “genetic” material of their adopted guardians, only the “phenotypic” material.  Yes, there are cases where natural children of women become members of a lesbian relationship.  But one partner is not a biological parent.  In both cases, children are reified when they enter such an environment because they have no choice in the matter. 

I’ll close by saying, in terms of the durability of the same-sex form of “marital” species, the Laws of Nature will dictate how well it will survive in the long run.  I’ll offer a hint:  a species must be able to biologically replicate itself.  In the short-run, however, there will be unintended consequences.  This reality was so eloquently explained by Merton, when he said action ramifies such that “consequences are not restricted to the specific area in which they were initially intended to center, they occur in interrelated fields explicitly ignored at the time of action.”[18]   Those directly affected by the issue is small.  A recent Gallup report indicates about 3.4% of the population claim to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.  And the highest percentage is among the 18 to 29 year group.  Fifty-three percent of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.  Yet, when many who are not gay, lesbian, or bisexual are asked why they support same-sex marriage, typical responses are mostly emotional—he’s my son, she’s my friend, they appear to love each other, it’s not fair to deny the same right to others, and so forth.  ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3), summed up the arguments this way: 

Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.

Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages.

Look at the loaded language:  “benefits and public acknowledgement enjoyed by heterosexual couples.”  What are the benefits?  If the joy of producing new life is a benefit, then legalizing a gay marriage will not enable this.  If inheritance and other economic or financial benefits are the intent, then civil union laws provide for this.  Public acknowledgement is public-wide reification of the traditional concept of marriage.  The ProCon.org language also assumes opponents to same-sex marriage presume traditional marriage is a weakened and threatened institution.  Same-sex marriage is an imitation.  Tom Cruise’s heroic feats in Top Gun were an imitation.  Top Gun and its popularity did not weaken or threaten the real fighter pilot institution.  Yet, Top Gun was a great way of reifying the fighter pilot world by making it more concrete for the theater patrons.  Finally, the slippery slope toward polygamous and interspecies marriages is an extreme red herring.  The slippery slope is the one or more generations of lost children who will be phenotypically shaped and discriminated against in terms of the potential for self-actualization by the selfish and self-interested behaviors of those fighting for moral legitimacy.        

            Old Gadfly:  Thanks for the reasoned work out, IM.  Our discussion is an example of how religious orthodoxy can influence unreasoned behavior.

            IM:  We never addressed this issue from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

            Old Gadfly:  Your observation is correct.  The entire Western culture has yet to truly comprehend the ubiquitous orthodoxy of secular humanism.  Another discussion for another day.  

---

[1] Rawls, J.  (1999).  A theory of justice (Rev. ed.).  Cambridge, MA:  The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.

[2] Ibid, p. 5.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Vol. 1. Moral stages and the idea of justice: Essays on moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

[6] MacLean, P. D. (1990). The triune brain in evo­lution: Role in paleocerebral functions.  New York, NY:  Plenum Press.

[7] Maslow, A. H.  (1943).  A theory of human motivation.  Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.  Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

[8] Merton, R.  (1938).  Social structure and anomie.  American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-692.

[9] Ibid, p. 673.

[10] Maslow, A. H.  (1943).  A theory of human motivation.  Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.  Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

[11] Ibid, p. 382.

[12] Merton, R.  (1936).  The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action.  American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894-904.

[13] Ibid, p. 903.

[14] Honneth, A.  (2005).  Reification:  A recognition-theoretical view.  The Tanner Lectures of Human Values, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, March 14-16, 2005.  Retrieved from http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Honneth_ 2006.pdf

[15] Ibid, p. 93.

[16] Ibid, p. 94.

[17] As cited in Honneth, p. 93.

[18] Merton, (1936), p. 903.