Sunday, February 14, 2010

Thinkin'

Every so often, it occurs to me that I don't think about things enough. Frequently, it's politics that triggers this thought. I'll read something about how focused and organized certain political groups are -- the latest to come to mind are the people who decide what school books Texas schools will use; they're strictly conservative, and the size of their book orders drives what American textbook publishers will create -- and I'll think something along the lines of "How the hell do people like that get such disproportionate power? Where the hell are the liberals on this? Why aren't they fighting back to establish at least a balance, if not more?" (It's of some consolation to me that what a liberal might regard as a minor victory is regarded by those people as a crushing defeat.) When this sort of mood comes upon me, I think that I really ought to be reading more, thinking more, developing profound thoughts. That any profound thoughts I might have matter not a whit to anyone is usually enough of a realization to make me end those thoughts with "...or maybe I'll just go have some ice cream. Chocolate, if we have it. "

Sometimes, though, I abstract those thoughts and simply think 'what is it about some people's writing that tells me, almost instinctively, that I ought not to read what they have to say, because I will intensely disagree? I don't want to read things where I'm unable to argue, even in my own mind, effectively with them, but this is what seems to happen with me and certain writers. They're wrong, I know they're wrong, but I can't, even in the solitude of my own mind and this blog, come up with crushing logic and compelling evidence to make them retreat into the slime from whence they came. They seem so sure! How can that be? Better not read any more of their stuff. I'll just get mad. But what tells me this? What part of my reptilian brain instinctively knows that reading their stuff isn't a good idea?

Here's an example of something that just triggered that thought, from an article in Forbes magazine. (Forbes: Satisfying Capitalist Wet Dreams). It should be something I'd want to read, because it's about finance and economics, two topics about which I'm mildly interested:

During 2009 there was a lot of smug talk among academic and political liberals of Keynesianism enjoying a triumphant revival. But in the real world of jobs, wages and production--as opposed to the imaginary one of the chattering classes--the evidence shows that John Keynes' notion of being able to spend your way out of recession has not worked this time, if it ever did. It's important to note that ordinary voters are more sharply aware of this idea's failure than are the Western governments that have put their trust in Keynes.


That's just about as far as I got before thinking 'perhaps theres's something else to read'. But why? It's not, after all, intuitively wrong. It's simply saying that a certain view is incorrect. So why should I stop? And the best I can say is, there are trigger phrases. When I see them, I think this person is crazy -- stop reading. What phrases? Smug talk....But in the real world... the chattering classes..... if it ever did. All of those say to me that the author is sneering at me, that he's throwing up smoke screens, that he's going to do what I think of as a Republican/conservative trick -- that being, denying that something works because it's not what they would have done, exactly as they would have, and even if it was, it wasn't their idea. This person's not trying to talk calmly, sensibly -- he's trying to brainwash me. Am I sure? I look a little further - are more sharply aware of this ideas's failure...- my god, the proletariat are rising, quick, man the ramparts. He is trying! Oh, damn, I'm not ready for this. So I look elsewhere. Perhaps I can find someone eloquent to think for me -- someone such as Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow. They're smart, they're insightful, yeah, them. And I try not to think that this is probably how the idiots on the other side view Limbaugh and his slimy ilk. I'm not always successful. I find myself thinking certain thoughts ....and you know how it goes from there.

Perhaps we have chocolate ice cream?

5 comments:

genderist said...

I've found that I really just have to look for something else to read if it's political. It makes me mad and then I become the blubbering idiot talking about the other idiots... :)

Cerulean Bill said...

So, you're kind of like me?

It's part of why I don't like confrontations. I'm not good at them. In these cases, I know that its not a spontaneous argument -- they've had time to write and rewrite -- but I feel as if I don't know WHY I think what I think. Or what I do when I find myself both agreeing with an opponent and not wanting to give up on the basic thought because I like it.

STAG said...

Helps to know propaganda when you see it.

Of course, that doesn't make the message wrong. Just supect.

STAG said...

just "suspect".....

Cerulean Bill said...

Thats part of the problem. When is what I perceive as their propaganda actually worth exploring? When is OUR propaganda actually jettisonable?

We don't have all the good answers. Well, okay, right now we do, but still.....