Johann Hari: Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason
How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality?
Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarised by the comedian Bill Maher: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."
The election of Obama – a black man with an anti-conservative message – as a successor to George W. Bush has scrambled the core American right's view of their country. In their gut, they saw the US as a white-skinned, right-wing nation forever shaped like Sarah Palin.
When this image was repudiated by a majority of Americans in a massive landslide, it simply didn't compute. How could this have happened? How could the cry of "Drill, baby, drill" have been beaten by a supposedly big government black guy? So a streak that has always been there in the American right's world-view – to deny reality, and argue against a demonic phantasm of their own creation – has swollen. Now it is all they can see.
Since Obama's rise, the US right has been skipping frantically from one fantasy to another, like a person in the throes of a mental breakdown. It started when they claimed he was a secret Muslim, and – at the same time – that he was a member of a black nationalist church that hated white people. Then, once these arguments were rejected and Obama won, they began to argue that he was born in Kenya and secretly smuggled into the United States as a baby, and the Hawaiian authorities conspired to fake his US birth certificate. So he is ineligible to rule and the office of President should pass to... the Republican runner-up, John McCain.
These aren't fringe phenomena: a Research 200 poll found that a majority of Republicans and Southerners say Obama wasn't born in the US, or aren't sure. A steady steam of Republican congressmen have been jabbering that Obama has "questions to answer". No amount of hard evidence – here's his birth certificate, here's a picture of his mother heavily pregnant in Hawaii, here's the announcement of his birth in the local Hawaiian paper – can pierce this conviction.
This trend has reached its apotheosis this summer with the Republican Party now claiming en masse that Obama wants to set up "death panels" to euthanise the old and disabled. Yes: Sarah Palin really has claimed – with a straight face – that Barack Obama wants to kill her baby.
You have to admire the audacity of the right. Here's what's actually happening. The US is the only major industrialised country that does not provide regular healthcare to all its citizens. Instead, they are required to provide for themselves – and 50 million people can't afford the insurance. As a result, 18,000 US citizens die every year needlessly, because they can't access the care they require. That's equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year. Yet the Republicans have accused the Democrats who are trying to stop all this death by extending healthcare of being "killers" – and they have successfully managed to put them on the defensive.
The Republicans want to defend the existing system, not least because they are given massive sums of money by the private medical firms who benefit from the deadly status quo. But they can't do so honestly: some 70 per cent of Americans say it is "immoral" to retain a medical system that doesn't cover all citizens. So they have to invent lies to make any life-saving extension of healthcare sound depraved.
A few months ago, a recent board member for several private health corporations called Betsy McCaughey reportedly noticed a clause in the proposed healthcare legislation that would pay for old people to see a doctor and write a living will. They could stipulate when (if at all) they would like care to be withdrawn. It's totally voluntary. Many people want it: I know I wouldn't want to be kept alive for a few extra months if I was only going to be in agony and unable to speak. But McCaughey started the rumour that this was a form of euthanasia, where old people would be forced to agree to death. This was then stretched to include the disabled, like Palin's youngest child, who she claimed would have to "justify" his existence. It was flatly untrue – but the right had their talking-point, Palin declared the non-existent proposals "downright evil", and they were off.
It's been amazingly successful. Now, every conversation about healthcare has to begin with a Democrat explaining at great length that, no, they are not in favour of killing the elderly – while Republicans get away with defending a status quo that kills 18,000 people a year. The hypocrisy was startling: when Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska, she encouraged citizens there to take out living wills. Almost all the Republicans leading the charge against "death panels" have voted for living wills in the past. But the lie has done its work: a confetti of distractions has been thrown up, and support is leaking away from the plan that would save lives.
These increasingly frenzied claims have become so detached from reality that they often seem like black comedy. The right-wing magazine US Investors' Daily claimed that if Stephen Hawking had been British, he would have been allowed to die at birth by its "socialist" healthcare system. Hawking responded with a polite cough that he is British, and "I wouldn't be here without the NHS".
This tendency to simply deny inconvenient facts and invent a fantasy world isn't new; it's only becoming more heightened. It ran through the Bush years like a dash of bourbon in water. When it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, the US right simply claimed they had been shipped to Syria. When the scientific evidence for man-made global warming became unanswerable, they claimed – as one Republican congressman put it – that it was "the greatest hoax in human history", and that all the world's climatologists were "liars". The American media then presents itself as an umpire between "the rival sides", as if they both had evidence behind them.
It's a shame, because there are some areas in which a conservative philosophy – reminding us of the limits of grand human schemes, and advising caution – could be a useful corrective. But that's not what these so-called "conservatives" are providing: instead, they are pumping up a hysterical fantasy that serves as a thin skin covering some raw economic interests and base prejudices.
For many of the people at the top of the party, this is merely cynical manipulation. One of Bush's former advisers, David Kuo, has said the President and Karl Rove would mock evangelicals as "nuts" as soon as they left the Oval Office. But the ordinary Republican base believe this stuff. They are being tricked into opposing their own interests through false fears and invented demons. Last week, one of the Republicans sent to disrupt a healthcare town hall started a fight and was injured – and then complained he had no health insurance. I didn't laugh; I wanted to weep.
How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality? It begins, I suspect, with religion. They are taught from a young age that it is good to have "faith" – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don't have "faith" that Australia exists, or that fire burns: you have evidence. You only need "faith" to believe the untrue or unprovable. Indeed, they are taught that faith is the highest aspiration and most noble cause. Is it any surprise this then percolates into their political views? Faith-based thinking spreads and contaminates the rational.
Up to now, Obama has not responded well to this onslaught of unreason. He has had a two-pronged strategy: conciliate the elite economic interests, and joke about the fanatical fringe they are stirring up. He has (shamefully) assured the pharmaceutical companies that an expanded healthcare system will not use the power of government as a purchaser to bargain down drug prices, while wryly saying in public that he "doesn't want to kill Grandma". Rather than challenging these hard interests and bizarre fantasies aggressively, he has tried to flatter and soothe them.
This kind of mania can't be co-opted: it can only be overruled. Sometimes in politics you will have enemies, and they must be democratically defeated. The political system cannot be gummed up by a need to reach out to the maddest people or the greediest constituencies. There is no way to expand healthcare without angering Big Pharma and the Republicaloons. So be it. As Arianna Huffington put it, "It is as though, at the height of the civil rights movement, you thought you had to bring together Martin Luther King and George Wallace and make them agree. It's not how change happens."
However strange it seems, the Republican Party really is spinning off into a bizarre cult who believe Barack Obama is a baby-killer plotting to build death panels for the grannies of America. Their new slogan could be – shrill, baby, shrill.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Next Article In Johann Hari
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
and downright lies, being served to them by Republican politicians they blindly admire and hero-worship, with the connivance of like-minded media owned by this, or that, smoothie publisher whose newspaper or TV newscast lives on twisting facts, then selling them as truth to the undiscerning public.
Freedom is a big word in the U.S., and that includes, freedom to be dolts. Freedom of thought also allows one to be a blatant racist.... everyone to his or her own bigoted opinion...the Constitution provides for it, you know!
In the healthcare reform debate that has broken out, President Obama was mistaken to be conciliatory
towards those with vested interests in the status quo..that is..NO reform, thus in turn, giving the impression of being apologetic about the whole "sorry" affair, and looking rather weak. He was elected by a majority who want change, and healthcare is probably the biggest issue. If he loses that fight for those millions of Americans needing medical care, he's bound to lose other issues, or else, end up with
hot-cold compromises.
The other side aren't holding back on their punches, and neither should the newly elected President-for-
change Obama.
As for integrity of Mr Obama;
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
And,
All Americans are entitled to National Health Service.
Article 21
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
I prefer things go wisely in a peaceful manner.
Article 26
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
And finally
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Education, unity, equality and individuality
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
of enjoying the benefits each Article assures them they are entitled to as their birthright.
I dare say, the Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration of love for Mankind.
But history has always been marked by critical movements such as wars...and still is doing so.
How can countries and people live in peace and prosperity when the same powerful member countries represented in the UN are also perpetrators of war through their production and export of armaments
especially to those impoverished regions of our imperfect world?
I, too, visualise people of all races sitting together side by side, and talking amicably in a civilised manner as their representatives do in their daily UN sessions, but alas, the reality tells us better.
It identifies he's a Marxist, Socialist, and believes in the islamic ideology of religion.
Guess it just goes to prove that government health care doesn�t work. Or else it confirms that they don�t have health care available in the United Kingdom.
Enjoyed the part about denying reality. Hearing the oxymoron of �ideologue conservative� it always amazes me. How anyone could be so mentally convoluted to believe the ideologue concepts of liberalism requires a much larger capacity of faith than most rational people posses.
Remember it was the leadership of the Democrats, Clinton, who first proposed that �is� depends on what you think �is� �is�. Huh?
No our leader isn�t a secret muslim, he admits he�s a muslim. And it is obvious he hates white people, he admits his background is from Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright, who hates not only whites but America. He�s married to a woman who has publically stated she hates America.
Statistically our health care system is equal to the best in the world. Our health rates and our length of life statistics are equal to Sweden, when skewed for the ethnic groups. So don�t play misrepresentation without verification to make a position.
It�s interesting that your verification of statements are verified as coming from sources I�ve never heard of, nor even know how well know they are in America. It would require research to verify your statements. To adversely point out the incompetence, the racial bigotry, the socialistic desires and the Marxist future this man has for America can be confirmed from his own admission in the book he wrote.
And as always, it falls back to racism. American is not racist; no matter how damn hard the Democrats attempt to make it a point of discussion.
And as your leader Churchill so eloquently identified; �If your 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 40 and are not a conservative, you have no brain.�
Your journalism has a moribund vision that someone who has experienced the world envies.
Enjoy your journey; I�d give a million to once again take it from idealist to realist once again.
you do? Americans aren't racists - no, I suppose not.
http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/report/
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new
you were doing so well up until this point. faith isn't, necessarily, belief without ANY evidence to back it up. on the contrary, i think belief without ANY evidence to back it up would be classed as insanity. faith is more like 'belief without SUFFICIENT evidence to prove true to a commonly held scientific standard' or something along those lines. i believe in God, i know there isn't sufficient 'scientific' evidence to prove that God exists, but my belief is based on my life experiences. this is evidence to me, just like the experiences i've had in my life provide evidence to me that emotions and love exist
Although I appreciate that belief may be based upon personal experience, in fact it usually relates to it, that does not make the experience "evidence" from a rational standpoint: and Johann Hari's arguement is about how confusion over this fact can lead to a distortion or rationale in other areas of life, although I do not think it is always the case.
You can't equate a belief in god with a "belief" in emotions, because they are not the same thing: the latter are something we experience and are, therefore, directly observable. God is not. Now we may look at the world and think, well, even if it's a grand scientific process I feel there is a purpose behind it and choose to believe such without seeking to rationalise why. It's a personal choice without consequence on others if you keep it simple, but that is not "evidence" in any rational sense.
There's a scientific point that is drilled into statisticians, researchers and people who study human behaviour especially, "correlation does not imply causation". The human mind looks for patterns in the world around us and it is prone to make errors and fabricate causal links where none exist. Superstition is built upon this phenomena, which occours throughout the animal kingdom, as a very basic form of trial and error learning.
There's a famous experiment where pigeons were randomly fed food from a dispenser and over time the pigeons began exhibiting repeated and odd behaviour that corresponded with how they were behaving at any time food was given, to the point at which they would repeat such behaviour often. When food was then randomly dispensed again it confirmed their behavioural "hypothesis", and the behaviour was reinforced.
Their behaviour was based on experience, it was not based upon the rational concept of evidence. What the pigeons were doing was, in a sense, confusing correlation with causation: coincidence, with a process that involves a cause and effect chain of consequence. The study was wittily entitled "Superstition in the Pigeon". You can read it here, if you like.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/P
Pigeons are, of course, not self aware: they cannot analyse their thought process, as far as we can tell. Humans can but it's fair to say we often choose not to: it's evident that people do sometimes fall into the same "trap" as the pigeons, from non scientific historical observations about how the physical world "functions", in spite of the fact.
When we observe the world and conclude *from it* that there is a god, we are making a correlative assumption: such assumptions do not deal well with the random and probabilistic state of the physical world described by physics.
It's a little worrying when people choose to distinguish "scientific" evidence as something separate: and I suppose this is a consequence Johann Hari is concerned about. Science is the consequence of the rational process which describes the world around is; evidence is by definition "scientific" even if the term is misapplied. Without context it loses it's meaning; the idea which it is the purpose of a word to convey. To dismiss science and then eve attempt to phrase any logical arguement is inherently hypocritical.
My cousin age 71 has been on the kidney dialysis for 4 years and can be on for life. He enjoys life and is in good spirits. He is as poor as a church mouse but has had in the last eight years colon cancer surgery, diabetic coma, laser treatment for near blindess, heart bypass surgery, diabetic amputation of one leg[ he was given a very expensive artificial leg], and amputation of part of his other foot. He is still mobile with the help of a cane. All these treatments were done in a very timely manner certainly within hours or days of diagnosis. Another friend has been on dialiysis for over 10 years and is 78 years old. He is quite wealthy but was covered by our fine medicare program and his assets haven't been depleated. I have heard of people being on dialysis for decades. There is nothing to compare with our system. Certainly not the NHS with it's long lines, assembly lines, and backward treatments. I met an retired english fire chief on a cruise. He told me he had to pay 25000 pounds to have a knee replaced or wait in line for five years. There is no retiree in america who couldn't get this procedure done for peanuts on our medicare system within a couple months at most. The reason Obama is in the toilet on this issue is because we have a vast information system in America that can't be stifled by our elites. It has nothing to with racism but everything to do his incompetence and inexperience. Mr Hari like most atheists is a bigot who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Every time I see or hear Republicans spouting out their angry, greedy drivel, which disturbingly has framed the mainstream political (and increasingly our social) philosophy in the UK over the last 30 years I despair for reason and wonder how people can believe this stuff. I wonder whether Obama's approach to rise above their current hyperbole might be the best option, if only to avoid walking headlong in to the Republican's territory, i.e. a street fight. That seemed to be his strategy pre-election and maybe he's sticking with it.
There seems to me to be something quite disturbing about these people psychologically in that their whole world view appears based on confrontation, anger, demonisation, downright distortion and lies.
Most worryingly of all I see the UK becoming more Americanised by the day with increasing anger, greed and garbage culture, whether it be Big Brother, cosmetic surgery, accident insurance claims, war games advertised to our children as entertainment (any wonder so many are carrying knives now?!) or Jeremy Clarkson, it's all trash, it's all damaging and it's all 'from over there'.
Contrast this with the wisdom and common sense of the likes of Johann, Caroline Lucas (Green Party), Christine Lagarde (French Economic Minister) and others, and it's easy to think the Republicans are on a different planet...if it was only thus.
To witness, piss poor Americans raging against reform that they so desperately require, is, as the man said, enough to make you weep.
I disagree with you on one point, however; the condition of religious derangement you describe is not, in my experience, curable. We can only vaccinate people against it, but once infected they are lost.
Excellent point explained nicely, Mr Hari. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
It was bound to happen, the big guns of the insurance sector in a show down with Obama.
Only here, very revealing that their minions are the GOP, most of whom supposedly of good christian character who profess helping thy neighbor, especialy when in need (and when one brethren is more in need than when sick or injured).
American Republicans, and Conservatives, Jesus of Nazareth is ashamed of you,
and behold lest the curse of The God befalls you...
Face the snakes amongst you and root them out, you have a duty to your vulnerable citizens, share the bounty that God gives you before you lose it too...
Well, hypocrites (those who say and do not do) rarely listen, unless and only when the torment affects them directly.
As for the NHS, you have no idea, we are lucky to have it here...
and those who put it down talk with little knowledge...
"Nothing new under the sun" - King Solomon
Sooner or later, and like the financial sector, the private health care insurance sector will unravel and start crumbling, and then they will come grovelling and ask for big government to the rescue (socialism for the fat cats) only then, I hope they will receive a dose of their own medicine and get fully nationalised...
Are not Doctors supposed to uphold a Hippocratic oath that they will not let down any patient coming under their care, clearly, the insurers constitute unwanted static that have perverted that beautiful and noble profession.
Very sad to have to bow down to such greed, lack of concern for human suffering, and darkness of spirit.
America is not yet ready to face its own demons, this is why it has been busying itself outside its core, and in that process, it might lose its soul, and its link with The God of Mercy... May The God have pity on the righteous among them...
because all civilisations which ignored the plight of their weak, sick and disadvantaged and refused to give them a fair share of the bounty that they received were ultimately caused to perish, and so their rulers... Babylon, Sumer, Egyptian Dynasties, Hellenic Kingdoms, Roman Empire, Islamic Expansions, Ottoman Empire,... etc...
This is Faith or... more appropriately (deserved) Fate...
Of course we civilised british would never be "gullible in politics, swallowing up half-truths
and downright lies, being served to them by ... politicians they blindly admire"
The problem with freedom is that people will do whatever they want with it.
Obama's problem is that he campaigned on a single concept CHANGE, every speech, poster & report trumpeted the word. I don't recall many description's of the detail. Now the US is beginning to see what he wants to change and they don't like it.
You're just jealous because you don't understand what my minister is saying when he speaks in tongues, or when he asks for forgivness for buggering the 15 year old boys in his Christian Camping and Baptism Club.
Don't forget, Democrat Senator Baucus from Montana, who headed up the Senate committee to explore healthcare reform, gets a lion's share of his campaign funding from the healthcare industry, and routinely denied a seat on that committee to any proponent of a single payer system... so i guess our prayer vigils and rending of garments worked after all! The bit about the death panels were juat Jesus way of putting icing on the cake! Praise the Lord! Hubbidybubbidy loobba scooba intafornico lustcosta in my reer chasm of poopy scoopy! Amen!
As a reader, it feels as though you hang out with so many like-minded people, drinking soya milk lattes and nibbling on organic tofu, that your world view has now shurnk to such an extent that it's affected the credibility of your commentaries.
It'd be really nice to see you be a little more adventurous and perhaps take a look at the failure of the Obama Administration to live up to its relativerly unambitious promise of being a transparent, unifying Government, rather than just another divisive one, and the reasons for this, especially in the wake of the polarizing Bush years.
To help get you started, the reasons have nothing to do with either the Republicans, or any gun-totin', bible-bashing, racist, right-wing fundamntalists. You might want to begin by taking a look at why that huge voting block of Independents who voted for him, last November, have subsequently lost their faith in the flip-flopping Messiah and abandoned him. If you think I'm telling lies [or "mis-speaking" as the Obama Administration prefers to say] then please take a look at the Prez's latest poll ratings for evidence of this. The Independents hold lots of clues, but they're not the whole story.
Bro, you've got to look way beyond the Huffingtong Post & Jon Stewart for a much broader & far more rounded perspective on American politics. Champagne Socialism really is so last century. Isn't it time that you moved on?
Are you suggesting that America needs a near bankrupt NHS? It's my view that, before we British adopt the superior position that you adopt in this post, we need to address the many failures of our own NHS.
Issues such as our abysmal survival rates. Of the 200,000 people who die of strokes and cancer here every year, it's estimated that some 30,000 would survive if they lived anywhere else in northern Europe. UK's Poor treatment standards kill thousands unnecessarily annually. A substantial proportion of them would have lived if treated in the US where survival rates are also far superior to ours. Then there are the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 deaths in UK from C Diffilicile and other killer infections.
Do you remember the Panorama NHS investigations? Part of the transcript form 'The National Homes Swindle' 5:03:06
�thousands of people who are very ill have had to sell their family home because the NHS in England and Wales has unlawfully denied them the free care they were entitled to...William Hancock is 91 and terminally ill with bone and prostate cancer. The NHS, under pressure to cut waiting lists, wants beds freed up fast. They want William Hancock out and into a private nursing home where he�ll have to pay hundreds of pounds a week for his own care. Janice Turton (his daughter):
"one of the nursing staff there and they said to me that: �he�s blocking the bed, we have other people wanting to come here.� I thought it was appalling. I thought the NHS looked after you when you were terminally ill. I had no idea they didn�t. It�s been a huge shock to me to find this out."...[William's daughters] have had to put their father�s house up for sale" I believe William died a few weeks later. Do you call that universal health care?
Do you also recall Panorama's "Who'd be an NHS Whistleblower?", about the appalling treatment of dying people in one NHS hospital - said by Panorama to be not atypical of other NHS hospitals? It seems to me that we in UK need to put our own house in order before we preach to Americans about the humane system of healthcare we claim to have.
Are you suggesting that America needs a near bankrupt NHS? It's my view that, before we British adopt the superior position that you adopt in this post, we need to address the many failures of our own NHS.
Issues such as our abysmal survival rates. Of the 200,000 people who die of strokes and cancer here every year, it's estimated that some 30,000 would survive if they lived anywhere else in northern Europe. UK's Poor treatment standards kill thousands unnecessarily annually. A substantial proportion of them would have lived if treated in the US where survival rates are also far superior to ours. Then there are the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 deaths in UK from C Diffilicile and other killer infections.
Do you remember the Panorama NHS investigations? Part of the transcript form 'The National Homes Swindle' 5:03:06
�thousands of people who are very ill have had to sell their family home because the NHS in England and Wales has unlawfully denied them the free care they were entitled to...William Hancock is 91 and terminally ill with bone and prostate cancer. The NHS, under pressure to cut waiting lists, wants beds freed up fast. They want William Hancock out and into a private nursing home where he�ll have to pay hundreds of pounds a week for his own care. Janice Turton (his daughter):
"one of the nursing staff there and they said to me that: �he�s blocking the bed, we have other people wanting to come here.� I thought it was appalling. I thought the NHS looked after you when you were terminally ill. I had no idea they didn�t. It�s been a huge shock to me to find this out."...[William's daughters] have had to put their father�s house up for sale" I believe William died a few weeks later. Do you call that universal health care?
Do you also recall Panorama's "Who'd be an NHS Whistleblower?", about the appalling treatment of dying people in one NHS hospital - said by Panorama to be not atypical of other NHS hospitals? It seems to me that we in UK need to put our own house in order before we preach to Americans about the humane system of healthcare we claim to have.
Guaranteed.