g m g D e s i g n . c o m

Generally speaking, people don’t like generalizations. People are very predictable that way. Of course, people generally make generalizations all the time. Some are benign, others not so much. It’s the subset of generalizations that are generally considered “non-benign” that are so bothersome, of course. And hence, in our world of (often coerced) political correctness, people generally shun generalizations, often calling them “sweeping generalizations,” “stereotypes,” or some other negative term.

They never talk about political corruption on the news!

It’s really nice outside!

Dogs are so obedient.

Those are all generalizations. I’m sure they do talk about political corruption in the news; it’s not nice outside to everyone, everywhere; not all dogs are obedient.

Of course, there is no national uproar over generalizations such as these. People only object when generalizations are offensive to them, due to their own personal biases. Generalizations against their “enemies”—often political, or of particular people or organizations they find distasteful—are entirely acceptable, of course. Again, no national uproar over this sort of hypocrisy.

Some generalizations truly are offensive (to the general population). For example, I find the idea that I “can’t dance” (due to my complexion) or that I am “aesthetically ignorant” (due to my gender) entirely offensive (though both observations happen to be true). But, like it or not, the absence of any kind of generalization at all would make communication extremely cumbersome. Imagine a piece of legalese where every single provision is spelled out ever-so-carefully; communication of that sort in the general sense would be incredibly unmanageable.

So why are people generally so opposed to generalizations? What’s wrong with a rhetorical short-cut or two? And why are people only outraged when the generalization contradicts their own personal or political preferences?

Wow, great editorial. Excerpt (emphasis added), plus some comments…

Yet, one thing we do know: Many Americans now believe many things about their government that are false, and they expect much from the government that the rulers cannot provide. The public at large embraces myths about what the government can do, what it actually does, and how it goes about doing it. Only people enamored of such myths can support, for example, a gigantically expensive health-care “reform” at a time when the present value of the government’s promised future Social Security and Medicare benefits alone amounts to several times the current GDP. (I am disregarding here the interested parties who expect to reap short-run pillage from an intrinsically doomed system.) Until more people come to a more realistic, fact-based understanding of the government and the economy, little hope exists of tearing them away from their quasi-religious attachment to a government they view with misplaced reverence and unrealistic hopes. Lacking a true religious faith yet craving one, many Americans have turned to the state as a substitute god, endowed with the divine omnipotence required to shower the public with something for nothing in every department – free health care, free retirement security, free protection from hazardous consumer products and workplace accidents, free protection from the Islamic maniacs the U.S. government stirs up with its misadventures in the Muslim world, and so forth.

Points made by blog entry (my paraphrasal):

1. therapy and diagnosis are different – if you want a support group for your ideology, consult the relevant right- or left-wing news source (depending on your bias); if you want a diagnosis, don’t be upset when one is given
2. the general public disagrees on “the problem”
3. the general public disagrees on “the solution”
4. the (US) public is increasingly replacing belief in formal religion with the (informal) quasi-religious belief in government as the provider (rather than God)
5. there is no immediate, “magic bullet” solution
6. we should be incredulous of “magic bullet” solutions (flat tax, “public option” in healthcare, etc)

This corresponds with an observation of mine that the US is heading toward Fabian socialism (philosophically): in practice, social democracy. Western Europe is ahead of us in this regard (“ahead of us” is bad, in this case). Think of social democracy as a mix between democracy and socialist ideals. It’s the idea that “communism didn’t work out, but the underlying ideas were valid.”

Of course, that’s false. The irony in all this is that when countries are “converted” into socialist-style democratic systems, the people don’t get to compare such systems with what things would have been like absent those systems. Some people might think of the good ol’ days, but others will naturally prefer the system that “takes care of them” (absent God, someone’s gotta do it!), and while the non-socialist alternative might be substantially better in practice, there’s no way of 1) proving it cogently to the public, or even 2) returning to such a system, since governmental systems win constituencies that prevent such systems from improving over time (Social Security can’t be reformed for this reason).

So we’re left with a deeply flawed system that’s trending worse toward a maddeningly avoidable fate. Well, at least we get eloquent speeches out of all this.

I’ve felt for a while that mandatory liberal arts (or humanities) courses at universities are not the best idea. Never mind that humanities courses often break down into indoctrination courses into illiberal, left-wing thinking. They’re also of limited use in the real world–outside of academia, that is. The NY Times reports on this phenomenon.

No offense to devotees of the liberal arts. Some of the courses are interesting and useful. The NY Times suggests the following justification for humanities courses:

But “the need for my older view of the humanities is, if anything, more urgent today,” he added, referring to the widespread indictment of greed, irresponsibility and fraud that led to the financial meltdown. In his view this is the time to re-examine “what we care about and what we value,” a problem the humanities “are extremely well-equipped to address.”

Of course, the idea that humanities courses at universities encourage morality seems silly to me. Religious beliefs, not left-wing philosophical beliefs, account for personal virtue more than studying the works of Chomsky, Nietzsche, or Marx.

Economically, does it make sense to mandate humanities over business and technology courses? My answer: only if your career ambition is “life-long college student” or liberal arts professor.

I’ve noticed certain “themes” that are prevalent in left-wing editorials. These themes are typically interspersed in editorials, satires, and Hollywood movies. Sometimes the implications are subtle, sometimes not subtle at all. The latter scenario might be more shocking or emotion-provoking (Michael Moore’s flicks, or Noam Chomsky’s books), but the former is far more pernicious.

Those themes are:

1. Disdain of capitalism/corporatism; obsession with class struggle; implicit or explicit favoritism toward Marxism or other non-market model
2. Obsession with idea that all racial and gender socio-economic disparity is explained by institutional and aggregate cultural biases, with no interest in important discussion on alternate view points on that important issue (to the detriment of those most adversely affected)
3. Disdain of religious faith of any kind, esp Christianity
4. Willingness to excuse intolerant groups deemed “oppressed,” including terrorist groups (i.e., the US “deserved” the 9/11 attacks by “freedom fighters”)
5. Along with previous theme, a kind of anti-majoritarianism; opposing the majority (the masses) for the sake of opposing them

None of this is to demean the many moderate liberals who do not share the fanaticism of the far-left. Nor am I suggesting that there aren’t wrong-headed themes on the far-right as well. Current culture, however, and especially Hollywood, leans much more heavily to the left, and the agenda-filled propaganda should be examined with these themes in mind.

I’ll add that some left-wing themes have some validity when evaluated objectively. For eg, theme 2 is certainly worth studying objectively. But fanatics–of all sorts–fail to consider their view points rationally and within the broad context, instead favoring ideological explanations.