November 4, 2009

The exponential problem of paranoia

Anglican sent me an email sent to him by a right wing friend. In that email, the person admitted that some of the email might be extreme, but that was what people on the right were feeling about Obama. The actual substance of the email was frighteningly paranoid and rambling. It had me thinking of the nature of this kind of thinking, and it is something that both sides have to watch, but it seems to be embraced on the far right.

It goes something like this. You analyze something real and come to that part where you have to make a judgement about something that is, perhaps questionable. At this point, you choose to accept the most extreme position, which in that particular issue, is probably rather benign. But that becomes the base line for your next decision, and so on, and so on.

So you look at Obama and believe that he might not be Muslim, but that his association with Wright makes him a radical or even non-Christian. Moving forward from that point, you now assume him to be non-Christian and therefore a liar. Since he is a liar, you don't believe any of the things he says that are reasonable (which are most, frankly). And since he is not a christian, and a liar, you believe those who say he is some kind of radical Marxist. And as a Marxist, then you approach healthcare and the economy with the assumption, not that he is trying to make things better, but that he is trying to make things worse as a part of his plan to force the country into Marxism. You take partial bits of evidence, and read them in the most extreme way: this email said that Obama had already "taken over two major industries." I think Ford would be surprised to hear that they are now part of a nationalized industry, as would those banks who are out from under TARP. But facts, at this point, are meaningless.

By that time, Obama has become a monster and is a threat. I think that is pretty much the path I have seen from the far right and Christian right. To be fair, that same process occurred on the left under Bush. I will say that in my defense, I hesitated at each of those steps to assume the most radical option. Part of that was my own lack of clarity. Was Bush stupid or malevolent? Hard to believe he was involved in some plot to allow 9-11 to happen if he is so incompetent that he can't quite even enact any of his policies. I would also argue that my final disgust with the man came with the evidence of torture and wiretapping--things that were documented and factual.

Anyway. Thoughts?

5 comments:

ANewAnglican@gmail.com said...

Fascinating post. Well done!

leighton said...

I do see some sense of panic in email forwards like that, in the sense that the core message is not delivered by the words; the important takeaway is the metamessage of "I'm terrified, and you should be too." It's as though people who forward the emails (I'm less inclined to be charitable toward the email composers) feel like their voices are not being heard by policymakers, hence their freaking out about a lack of control.

I would argue that this lack of control was always present--it's just that given the choice between two parties that nearly always vote contrary to their interests and principles, they choose the one that praises them in the months before an election rather than the one that ignores them.

There are other complicating factors, such as the "America must continue to be the greatest nation" affirmation (as though people in places like Germany, Holland and Australia aren't capable of leading happy and productive lives), and the superstitious view that the only thing keeping American families safe from disaster and ruin is having enough politicians willing to talk like evangelicals. But the big cause I see behind the email forwards is the sense that if they somehow managed to sneak into the corridors of power, they would be exposed as outsiders.

Anonymous said...

Streak, I had a similar thought yesterday when I saw an article on election coverage yesterday on CNN. I cannot find the picture now [it was of a middle-aged couple apparently screaming at a town hall]. I was stupefied by the picture because I do not know how people can be this angry over something like health care. After thinking about, I thought the answer lies in "whiteness." Now before launching off the deep end here, let me preface my comments by saying that I do not think nor am I saying that these people pictured or many people who oppose Obama or send out e-mails like this are explicitly racist or even explicitly racialist arguments. However, it may be that people are reacting in this manner [e.g. sending out paranoid e-mails or vociferously complaining about health care] because they feel a subconscious attack on "whiteness" in America. Meaning, that “whiteness” and “white privilege” has been so engrained in the American subconscious that anything interpreted as an attack on “whiteness” must be vehemently attacked.
The e-mail Anglican received and the anger expressed at town halls is, I think, linked to a host of other debates in the United States - in California, white people will not be the majority population in the state, the immigration debate [which, of course, harkens to 1920s immigration debates about southern and eastern Europeans who were also classified as non-white], and teaching Spanish in schools. For many, Obama represents the ultimate assault on "whiteness" because a white racial identity, historically, has been linked to power and privilege. If you accept much of the historical scholarship on the issue (see for instance David Roediger’s work), the argument is that the working class has most often been at the forefront of promoting and fighting for “whiteness.”
-- WIV

Streak said...

WIV, I am going to have to look at some of that scholarship. Perhaps you can post a few more reading suggestions on this issue of "white privilege?"

As you and both Leighton and Anglican have noted, the issue of fear that seems to be hard to understand and get at is the key issue here.

Anonymous said...

Streak,

I found David Roediger's THE WAGES OF WHITENESS: RACE AND THE MAKING OF THE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS helpful in this regard. Others may also want to consider Noel Ignatiev's provocatively titled HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE.

-- WIV