". . . he was systematical, and like all systematick reasoners, he would move both heaven and earth, and twist and torture every thing in nature to support his hypothesis. In a word, I repeat it over again; -- he was serious." -- Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy
I have observed something religious about politics and political about religion, an unholy nexus in the weakness of the human mind. Even as I am surrounded by people who
prove to me that, after being saved,
they cannot sin, I have also noted that President Obama's exemption for religious institutions for contraception "proves" his "
hatred of religion."
In both cases, I look at the very same reality that the other person does, and I say, "!"
I sincerely believe that few people lie on purpose, and I devoutly believe that fewer people are stupid than foolish. I cannot rest in a stereotype of "idiocy" for the political groups or "heretics" for the religious. I sought to know why the conservatives not only think they have "proof" of socialism, but why they also think they have "proof" that Obama "hates white people."
If their arguments were acrobats, they would be in Quer-que de Soleil. I have, though, discovered the secret engine that propels them. If you, too, would like to know how such logic functions, follow me past the napkin ring.
The short answer is as follows:
*When you know the answer first, you can find proof of it later.
*When you know you've proven a proposition, you can explain how it fits later.
There is an old tale about the man who came up with the quiddity. Having decided what it was and that it was a sort of liquid but imperceptible essence, he found it in everything. In fact, he could not stop finding it after he discovered it the one time.
Here are some common places the illogic of post facto proof show up.
1. Racism/Sexism: If you "know" that this person is a racist or a sexist, before you meet, generally from reputation or rumor, then not only can you find evidence confirming it, but nearly must examine each word and act from the person through a filter of race. In fact, if you find no indications at all, the most likely conclusion will be, "She or he just hasn't shown it yet." This is why the mere charge of sexism or racism can be a nuclear weapon, because it reorganizes the perceptions of the audience.
2. Cause and effect: Suppose you "know" that herbs cure maladies. Forget the placebo effect: being certain of a conclusion means selecting confirming data. If I know that anise is a cure for cough, then when I take it, I either feel better and cough less, or I say that the cough is too severe. If you do not like that example, then how about this one: If you know that "Jimmy is a jinx," then you will remember all the bad things that have happened when he is around and ignore or downplay the good things. Each misfortune will "prove" what was known.
3. Success/failure: Jimmy Carter was a bad president. This is "known." Therefore, "the interest rates went up" proves that he was a bad president. That would not be proof of a poor presidential performance for G. H. Bush or Richard Nixon, but we know that Carter was a flop. The rescue mission in Iran failed, and that proves what a bad president he was. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut did not show how bad Ronald Reagan was, because Reagan was a "great" president. Success and failure are conclusions rather than facts, and once a person takes the conclusion as a starting point, the facts can support it.
4. "We clever white men know what a Mongol looks like": Stephen J. Gould did a bit on this. His The Mismeasure of Man describes "Racial" anthropology. Anthropologists creating taxonomies of race and the "families of man" knew in advance what a "Mongol" looked like and would go to Mongolia to find skeletons. They would dig up bones that looked like the bones of any other human and reject them as atypical, or not Mongol. They kept going until they found a diseased specimen and then say, "Yes, that looks like a Mongol." That skeleton would be brought back as a "typical" sample.
But wait, there's more!
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" -- Samuel Johnson, ''Taxation No Tyranny'' (1775, in answer to the New England colonies)
To do what the conservatives who are avid for Rick Santorum do, it is not merely necessary to reason from a begged question. They must then have that conclusion, find the proof, and
redefine the conclusion fluidly to match emerging data. What must be saved at all costs is the
value judgment embedded in the fact judgment.
First, consider the "knowledge" of those people who hear Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter (warning: these links go to stupid places, where the stupid may be contagious or hard to wash out of one's clothes):
Everyone knows that "liberals"....
1. hate America
2. hate the troops
3. are socialists
4. are politically correct
5. are against religion
6. think they're better than others
7. want to force their will on others.
Notice that each of these is a value, not a fact. Liberals all feel and want something. The authors know what the mind and heart of the Mysterious Leftist is. Rather than asking one, they urge their readers and listeners to take a short-cut into one-line summary judgments. (My problem with the religious folk is similar, in that I do not think they are closing themselves off to debate as much as to affective challenge.)
The critical knowledge that proof must follow is intention or desire or goodness. Just as New England colonists spoke of "liberty" all day long without being able to define it, they knew, and could cite examples of how, theirs has been denied. (Note: I am not saying that the American Revolution was a bad idea.) When you know "taxes are too dam high" without knowing what taxes are, it's easy to complain every month and vote every year. After all, a blanket assurance can never lead to trouble. "Taxes" are the things the government "takes" every April, right? Sales and excise and payroll taxes are not included.
What's essential is that they know that the thing is bad or good beforehand. When you know "how those liberals are," then you only sit and wait for the evidence to confirm what you know in advance to be true.
If "a conservative" gave money to General Motors, then it would not mean anything, but "a liberal" is simply showing his true colors and nationalizing industry. A "conservative" who says that religious institutions have to pay for birth control is striking a compromise between Protestant and Catholic, but a liberal is showing how much contempt he has for Christ. A conservative who apologizes for burning Korans is not even going to be reported on, because it's not newsworthy, but a "liberal" is insulting the troops, which you knew he was going to do, and showing how much he hates America, which you knew he did. Why? It's simple: once you know that the liberal is a liberal, no matter what he does or says, and you know that liberals hate the troops, and once you know that conservatives are the friends of the military, no matter what they've done to avoid service, then a conservative who apologizes has obviously been forced into it against his character, while a liberal has just as obviously been waiting for that chance to fulfil the character one knew he had.
Do we progressives do it, too?
We might. We certainly can. After all, we think we know what conservatives are like, and if we fail to assess their words and actions on their own merit but instead suspect every one of being part of a plan to achieve the nefarious end we have decided upon in advance (perhaps Fahrenheit 9-11 suffered from a bit of this), then we're mistaken, too. The thing about "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" that sounded wrong was not that there were no factual supports, but that it was a comment about character and desire, and it was not sound. Based on Bush's actions toward America's social programs, poor, and education, one would think Kanye right, but based on his HIV/AIDS initiative in Africa, one would think him entirely wrong. Based on his Cabinet ministers, he would seem wrong. The sentiment Kanye expressed resonated with me, and a lot of us, but we were doing what they do.
Of course I haven't seen us as particularly numerous or powerful (except in conservative fantasy, where we rule the air). This self-confirming mind can fool itself for years, and it can become violent because it is starting from an assumption of intent.
"I shall spend no time in answering. . . accusations; where men are prejudiced, the best apologies are lost...." -- Bernard de Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, "Preface."
Rick Santorum cannot be persuaded that J. F. K. did not mean to destroy the Catholic Church any more than he can be convinced that colleges are not set to destroy the religious feeling of their students. This is because he knows both things to be true in his heart, and all that can happen now is that there be confirmation by example. It is similar to the person who knows in advance that Paul's discussion of "sin nature" and "a new life" in Christ means that the unsaved are compulsively evil and servants of Satan, while the saved are driven by a separate essence. The knowledge of what the scripture meant came first, and then the scripture was read in a "Bible reading" that explained how it proved what was known.
By not engaging facts (a fact, for me, is "a representation of reality at a particular moment") until the intention of the facts is in place, it becomes not only possible but obligatory to agree. Any person in such a situation who disagrees (a "conservative" who says, "But Obama has increased the military, deported more immigrants, and given more gun rights" or a believer who says, "what does 'nature' mean here? in the big passage he seems to be talking about the fallibility of the flesh and how little we can know on earth") does not provoke debate or persuasion, but expulsion. Because words, actions, and documents were not the base of the pyramid, talking about them is anathema. The base of the pyramid was a belief, taken from a person in authority.