What is an "enthusiast", and just why is this an interesting question to ask? Now, the Oxford English Dictionary mostly gives the now archaic definition, relating to religious rapture or possession by a god or demon. Not terribly helpful in a literal sense. I read once that the legal definition of an enthusiast is (to paraphrase) "one that requires no proof for their beliefs, and when presented with evidence contradicting their beliefs will not alter them." Religious fanatics clearly still qualify for the latter (as they receive their insight directly from God). However, the legal view is instructive. Trials are about seeking the truth, and juries are supposed to be truth detectors. Everyone in court knows that people lie and that everyone has a point of view. The key is, can a person be relied upon to provide accurate or pseudo-objective data? The answer is, enthusiasts cannot be trusted to provide anything other than their foregone conclusion, even if pesky details (like fact) interfere. This can be grounds for throwing out their testimony. In other words, no one can rely on an enthusiast to tell the truth, not even other enthusiasts that agree with them.
Why do I bring this up now? First of all, it must be pretty clear that I am not a fan of enthusiasm (of the denotative sort above). Enthusiasts are the enemy of analysis, discovery, and just about anything interesting. The squelch inquiry, and have no limit to their ability to argue, debate, nit pick, bicker, and generally make their point of view seem important. However, I will go a step further. Enthusiasm is dangerous. I believe that the "Red Team-Blue Team" mentality that pervades current politics is based in some respect on this idea. People filter political information and only hear that which reinforces their "gut" feelings. People can't trust their neighbors to not hate them for disagreeing about politics or policy. People feel that our country is full of millions and millions of people that are out to get them. This is incredibly destructive to our society- in fact it is untenable.
There is, however, another danger posed to our society by enthusiasts. Elected representatives that are enthusiasts may represent their direct ideological relations at the exclusion of all others. Communication with dissenters is a matter of evangelism (if you need their help) or is a waste of time (if you don't need them), since dedicated enthusiasts can't believe the word of the uninitiated. Facts cannot stand up to their interpretation. In essence, their ability to learn, analyze, process, compromise, negotiate, doubt, or hesitate is severely limited- likely rendering them essentially unfit to serve in a public capacity. That's right, I said that they can't be trusted, and they are incompetent to serve in public office.
Now, let me get specific about who this is aimed at, if you haven't already noticed. George W Bush is an avowed enthusiast, claiming to take his inspiration directly from the Almighty (going back to the original definition of it, which was used to execute people during the Reformation), and approaching public relations as psychological warfare (
according to one General with decades of intelligence experience that was a paid consultant for his PR effort). His inability to adapt, coordinate, negotiate, or invent is well documented, and has been unfortunate. However I do not want to pin all of this on him. He is in office because people voted for him. Lots of them. I believe he is the product of a machine- the modern Conservative Movement, which is driven and drives enthusiasm above all else. So long as a candidate promises to adhere to the holy tenets of the movement, they are acceptable (and the less they invent and analyze the better). Why else is belief in creationism held aloft like a badge of honor, only in conservative circles? Belief in eliminating taxes under all circumstances? Why is it so important that they have such strong convictions about these ideas, and wear them on their sleeve? Because it is a movement designed to harness the raw energy of enthusiasm, that's why. Now, candidates can rise to the highest office merely by appearing to espouse membership in the club, even if they are nearly devoid of qualifications.
This brings me to the beginning and the end of my point. First the beginning. The son of the now dead founder of the conservative magazine National Review recently was
fired/quit his job as an Op/Ed contributor after he posted an endorsement of Obama on a blog. He claimed that the work environment subsequently became untenable, and he said it was unfortunate that reasoned analysis was so anathema to the magazine, regardless of whether its result agreed with the sentiments typical of NR. Finally, he said of his father, that conservatism used to be about adherence to certain concepts and goals, regardless of their vehicle. His father supported several prominent Democrats for national office. In other words, his father was not an enthusiast, but an analyst. All of the intellectual capacity of the Conservative movement has been spent, and now it is efficiently producing pure, ideal products for national office such as Sarah Palin, Enthusiast in Chief. This is the end of my point. That lady is pure danger, for all the reasons I have given here. If she became President, she would feel no restriction to her authority (given by God, to her, personally). She has used the tools of government for her own personal gain (punishing a dufus ex-in-law), and has said (if speech is what you call it) that our Constitution gives great leniency for the exercise of Executive power. Know this, she does not trust or care about anyone not allied with her, and cannot be trusted to abide by the conventions or traditions of the past. As a perfect product of the Conservative movement, she is not effectively from our country, but sees (or at least portrays) herself as from the red half (an imaginary distinction).
This may sound like the rant of an equally enthusiastic "Liberal Democrat," but I ensure you that I am neither an enthusiast nor a Liberal or Democrat. I am astonished by the ability of self-described "progressives" to fall into these same cognitive pitfalls, though at least being a Progressive does not involve disdain for objective analysis. I despise enthusiasm because of its corrosive effect on society and people individually. Hate and fear shut down critical thinking, and enthusiasm promotes and sows hate and fear. Let us all please, please, try to hear and not judge, contemplate and not condemn, and live comfortably in disagreement. This is not a liberal or elitist idea.
And if you disagree, and believe that enthusiasm is great, and that Jesus rode dinosaurs, you'll love to order a "
Palin for Generalissimo" campaign button or bumper sticker.
Posts
