Science Junkie-February 6, 2011
. . . While I indulge in a bit of possibly relevant personal
history.
I started writing a column here in September 2008, near the
ignominious end of the criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration.
Back in those now-forgotten days, TPJmagazine was still “The Political
Junkies,” and I adopted the pen name, “Reluctant Junkie.” I chose that nom de
plume because politics was not something I had ever wanted to obsess over. I simply
was not a political junkie at heart, and over many years I rarely paid more
than average attention to politics. Then the “Unitary Executive” and his
henchmen took over the government and began systematically deceiving the nation
and undermining the foundations of our constitutional democracy.
Now don’t scoff: I always knew full well that politicians
lie more than, say, bus drivers, schoolteachers, or members of most other
professions. It’s just that the inherent dishonesty of high-level politics had
never grabbed my attention with such urgent, gut-wrenching force. Day after day
I read or watched the news with jaw-dropping astonishment and rising anger as
official and unofficial right-wing liars spewed out the most brazen
disinformation. I remember on several occasions calling to my wife, “You’ve got
to hear what they’re saying now – you won’t believe it!” And after 9-11,
the administration’s treacherous propaganda machine, abetted by a timid and
complicit mainstream media, ramped up to a truly spectacular level as our neocon
rulers made their false case for invading Iraq, and George Bush got the war he craved to
build his political capital. From there things continued to deteriorate,
and for probably the first time I felt personally threatened by my own
government. I’m not saying I shouldn’t have felt that way earlier, only that
the threat signal never broke through all the noise with enough force to
distract me from my preoccupations.
And I sure resented the hell out of feeling that way about
my government. Call me an idealist, but I hold the quaint view that our Federal
Government should uphold the highest standards of honorable and ethical conduct
in all areas. (And in truth many government agencies seem to do pretty well,
considering the uncertainties and constraints they work under.) Yet here was
this purportedly elected administration operating in secrecy and running the
people’s government in the style of an organized crime cartel. By the end they
had run up an unconscionable debt, destroyed the economy, alienated most of the
world, passed some abominable legislation, and made a travesty of a number of
federal agencies. In the latter case, they appointed inexperienced political
hacks to run federal agencies and obstruct the regulatory apparatus wherever it
conflicted with the goals of their various constituencies. Essentially, Bushco
politicized everything they could get their bloody hands on, turned the
government into a spoils system to advance their political goals. I haven’t
researched this, but I remember reading that even if the Democrats manage to
stay in power for another election cycle or two, they will not be able to
dislodge those career right-wing apparatchiks that Bush appointed.
At this point a moderate might say I’m overstating the case,
coming down too hard on an administration that just had a different political
philosophy. To any such suggestion I would reply, “Overstating, hell! If
anything, I’m being far too generous.” For eight years I paid close attention
to what those bastards were up to, and I can give you chapter and verse on many
of their crimes and scandals. But as this is only an overview, I’ll refer you
to Google: try entering “Bush administration crimes/scandals” and spend an hour
or so refreshing your memory, as I did. And maybe you’ll come to the same
conclusion, that Bush and his cronies should all be vigorously investigated,
charged as appropriate, and arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. They did
nothing less than run our government like a criminal enterprise, and they
should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
Of course I know that nothing close to that is going to
happen. But when the Democrats won in 2008, I hoped that maybe the wheels of
justice might begin to grind, however slow; instead, under a president who only
wants to ”look forward,” the wheels have ground to a halt. It galls me that
Democrats are so intimidated by the rabid right in this country that they won’t
even investigate obvious crimes.
Anyway, the dozen columns I wrote as a reluctant political
junkie were personally rewarding and also somewhat therapeutic, providing me
with a modest opportunity to feel like I was fighting back against the outrages
emanating from the right. I can’t recall ever writing with such passion. But
then real life intervened and I had to suspend the column for personal reasons.
A year later TPJ agreed to take me back; so here I am again, this time with a
new pen name – Science Junkie – that reflects a new focus on
science, particularly as it relates to human nature rather than the
discouraging topic of U.S. politics. Of course, given the right’s belligerent
and well-financed opposition to any science that conflicts with their goals,
politics is inescapable and will rear its head to some extent in almost every
column. But my primary emphasis will be on my first love, science and related
issues, not partisan politics, which never was my forte.
During my year-long absence from TPJmagazine, the Obama
administration has repeatedly disappointed
its progressive supporters on several fronts. Speaking for myself, I have
been especially incredulous regarding Obama’s unjustified efforts to promote
the fantasy of bipartisan cooperation. Who besides Obama thinks this is
possible? The very idea that reasonable, pragmatic people can work with the
power-hungry “Party of No” or the incoherent Tea Party is absurd, utterly
pointless. Considering the nature of fanatical right-wing extremists, their
express and implicit goals, and their recent, barely disguised endorsements of
violence, the only rational course of action for those in the reality-based
community is to do everything possible to keep power out of their hands. Which
is main reason I support Democrats these days rather than joining the call for
a progressive third party. I wouldn’t feel that way if we were talking about a
situation closer to normal politics; but victory at this time for Republicans
and their Tea Party comrades could very well mean the reversal of all the
progressive gains of the past seventy years. These new conservatives are even
more radical than Bush’s cohorts and could make us yearn for the calm
rationality of the Bush-Cheney administration. Their success would be nothing
short of a disaster – for us and quite possibly most of the world. Hence,
my very practical, lesser-of-evils, reluctant but necessary support for the
Democrats.
That’s why, as much as I respect Ralph Nader, I could not
vote for him or any progressive third-party candidate at this time. I agree
with Mr. Nader that elected Democrats are almost indistinguishable from
Republicans in many ways, and we can no longer count on them to protect and
defend the rights and interests of the vast majority of working people and the
disadvantaged – but at least they offer a fighting chance. If we follow
Mr. Nader’s advice and vote our conscience, as he recently recommended, we’ll
be throwing the next election to regressive
fanatics who very likely have no intention of ever relinquishing power. So
I would remind him that if he thinks the previous administration posed a threat
to our democratic institutions, this generation of reckless ideologues will turn
that threat into a living nightmare.
So on that happy note I take leave of writing about partisan
politics to focus on the fascinating world of science, especially as it impacts
crucial human issues now confronting us. I am especially excited about discussing
findings in relatively new fields like cognitive neuroscience that now have
much to contribute to our understanding of human nature (for want of a better
term). I would like to report on recent findings that might help to explain,
for example, why people cling to patently false beliefs and ideologies that
defy reality. Or how large numbers of otherwise intelligent people can be so
easily manipulated by quacks, charlatans, and demagogues. I contend that the
new sciences of the mind may be yielding some truly useful findings – not
speculative theories but genuine facts that could force us to reconsider all
the old assumptions about our “true nature.”