The Frontal Cortex

1

(Fortunately, my parents were part of that coastal elite that sips lattes all day long and hates God. Or so Guiliani would have you believe.) As a result, I ended up with an identity that lets me relate to people like this:

As it happens, my own mother is a devout creationist Mormon, and I was born and raised in Utah. But somehow, I ended up as a liberal atheist, who has trouble identifying with the Democrats (in part because they're too conservative, both socially and economically), but I usually end up voting for them anyway.

Posted by: llewelly | September 5, 2008 1:13 PM

3

Dear Lehrer,
Not too bad upbringing and identity after all!

But i hope that the next wave in the sciences of the mind turn to explore the many intricacies in our social (animal) nature (neuropolitics?): what makes someone to think and act according to a given frame of mind and not other in principle, how that frame of mind can shift, and more important that the acquire knowledge allow us to build a more objective political science.

Is not unbelievable that we as humans send a man to the moon but we cannot agree about the best form of goverment?

Posted by: Anibal | September 5, 2008 2:05 PM

5

Great tip, Rachael!
and James Fowler´s stuff a good starting point to really change things.

Posted by: Anibal | September 5, 2008 2:26 PM

7

What struck me is how the chant "USA, USA, USA" did not evoke a feeling of bi-partisan unity or "country first" in me. Instead, it had an aggressive and menacing tone, like some hyper-masculinized woofing for the home team against some implicit enemy. Making the chant "USA, USA" obscures the palpable truth that the chant isn't about higher principle or unity or a call for bipartisanship. It could not have sounded more like the beating of a tribal war drum, revving up for war and trying to intimidate the tribal enemy.

Posted by: Dr X | September 5, 2008 4:35 PM

9

Does anyone else get the odd feeling when they listen to McCain that he's gotten his identity on backwards? It's slightly embarrassing to watch, like someone in public with their fly unzipped.

Posted by: Becca | September 5, 2008 6:46 PM

11

I remember reading a history of the Western world and though I can't remember who the author was, I recall his analysis of the creation of national identities. He held that nationalism was the idolatrous worship of an identity. He traced it to the period in Europe after the Enlightenment when religion's grip on people had been loosened but the same instincts were played upon to have people identify with the nationalities that were forming and not just to see themselves in terms of their regions.
It often comes to mind when I see the chanting of "USA, USA" that Dr X describes and similar expressions of tribalism elsewhere.
From this perspective political parties are more like sects than anything else.
I see an irony in the fact that, seen like this, the right-wing fundamentalist Christians, who are very prone to this idolization, are breaking one of their own commandments.
However, I am sure they would find it as easy to reject this analysis as they find the rejection of evolution, preferring to reformulate America as God's chosen people. Even though it has no scriptural basis.

Posted by: Apashiol | September 6, 2008 12:43 PM

13

It is a tense election year; they have been tense since the 2000 debacle and they will probably be tense for many years to come (and perhaps they were tense before 2000 and I was too young and/or apathetic to really appreciate it).

The folks who are energized by their candidate express this energy in many ways, from T-shirts to shouting matches and many methods in between. I think this energy is derived by a believe that, somehow, the candidate we support is truly capable of making the world a better place by having the opportunity to transform his or her beliefs into policy whether it be based on science, religion, security, charity, or other important (and even unimportant) items.

And while it is natural for us to run in circles with peers who tend to share our viewpoints, it is interesting to realize that one out of every two people we pass on the street, politically, is the exact opposite as we are (and, obviously, consequently very, very wrong and stupid).

But I'm starting to discover (or at least believe) us ideological loudmouths are the minority. And I think deep down, 75% of the voters care (and vote) about one thing - their personal finances. Will democrats tax more? Will republicans drive up unemployment rates and gas prices? Based on the most popular believe, our votes will be cast.

Basis for my theory? Mostly talk, the informal "good-humored" debates when even the most quiet folks will eventually spill out their political leanings, and it always seems to be based on how much they are, or will be, paying in taxes. For some possible meat behind the theory, I look at ballot referendums that call for increased taxes. In my glorious home state of Virginia, we strongly voted down a democrat-backed sales tax increase of .25% to fund a transportation plan. Virginia is typically Red, but not by much given its ever growing Washington DC suburb, but even our Left-leaning folks on the right-side of the state didn't support a small tax increase to ease our top-three-in-the-US gridlock.

Perhaps this is all a weak argument, but I'm stuck thinking economics drives our voting trends. And when we are, in a large amount, a very economically challenged populous with often little regard for retirement savings and credit card debt, it can be a very dismal link to our political powers.

Posted by: Fertanish | September 6, 2008 4:31 PM

15

Hmmmm.

Don't we all completely understand that the political process is focused almost exclusively on the emotional? That's a negative our political class and the industry that supports them---from their "handlers" to the pundits, to the media---seeks to perpetuate. Why? Because it diverts our attention away from the critically important, but difficult path, of forcing politicians to articulate a realistic and well founded basis on which to govern. When was the last time anyone asked a politician to articulate their political philosophy, let alone why they believe (or not) that, just as an example, global warming, if it exists, is caused by man? What about their view of the consequences of certain action they oppose or support?

Instead of the press, the pundits, or, God forbid, the candidates themselves raising awareness of the issues, the approach by these gatekeepers of information is the same as accepting that we are right or left handed---it is what it is and there's no sense in not just going along with it.

Few recognize their role in the political system as keeping the focus on the issues and the subtle and not so subtle consequences of those issues on the Nation. The discussion is almost universally about a candidate's ability to manipulate a constituency rather than understand problems and articulate sensible solutions. It's sad that millions of dollars and incredible time are unwaveringly focused on the wrong thing.

We'd rather eat candy (act emotionally) than do something that's a little harder: discriminate the actual differences in policy and the consequences therefrom.

Posted by: Marc | September 7, 2008 1:01 PM

17

I bought your book a few months ago as a gift for a friend. I didn't realize you are a limousine liberal or I wouldn't have spent money on your book. You were in Manhattan on 9/11--whom do you thank that there haven't been subsequent attacks?

Very ungrateful, it would seem. Such a shame.

Posted by: Lisa | September 14, 2008 5:59 PM

19

thanks

Posted by: okey oyna | March 5, 2009 3:01 AM