Irrational Terror

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

            -- Friedrich Nietzsche

As I have described in many posts, rationality is a very late development in human history and is quite fragile and easily disrupted.  When higher order cognitive functioning is disrupted, we regress to earlier modes of thinking; ie, the irrational core re-asserts itself. 

[In Psychoanalysis, we foster such regressive states in order to reactivate earlier self and object states and earlier conflicts in order to re-examine them in the light of the present and come to a more adaptive and functional resolution; alas, it is impractical to put an entire country on the couch.]

We are living in a time of intense stress.  The stress arises, in part, from the accelerating rate of change in society that threatens so many who have difficulty adapting to near constant dislocations.  This leads to intense anxiety about the future, encapsulated by the fears that the world is coming to an end because of Global Warming.  The stress also involves a difficult war with savages who have shown us our vulnerability in ways that even the cold war failed to make real.  Everyday the worst aspects of the savagery in Iraq and around the world, in all its bloody glory, is brought into our living rooms by the ubiquitous 24 hour news services and the always "on" internet.  In response to such stressors, our society is clearly regressing to more primitive modes of thinking.

Our frightened and angry Congress is busy debating Iraq War resolutions primarily designed to offer them political cover in 2008 and conspicuously disconnected from any rational discourse about the war, the change in strategy/tactics/ROEs involved in the surge, the Iraq theater's relationship to the greater war on Islamic fascism, etc; further, there remains almost no discussion of who and what it is we are actually fighting!  Bush lied!  Withdraw Now! Withdraw by a date certain! More Troops!  None of these slogans represent rational arguments; they are emotional expressions that arise from anxiety (and sometimes, opportunism).  None of them address the real issues related to the source of Islamic fascism within officially sanctioned Shia Islam (Iran) and Sunni Islam (Saudi Arabia).  None of them address the danger of a spreading meme of hatred of the West and the Jew that is becoming increasingly identified with, and as, Islam itself.  None of the arguments discuss the implications of the various forms of failure that are presently being described as the only possible end games in Iraq, a view heavily supported by a Media that seems to believe that chaos is good for sales and must be supported at all costs.  Jonathan Tobin tries to lay out the situation in rational terms in One defeat might yield another:

Newly confident Democrats, who rightly smell victory in 2008, and cowardly congressional Republicans, who are beating a hasty retreat on the war now that it's no longer popular, aren't thinking much about the next conflict right now.

But they need to, because even if, as the optimists insist, the Iranians are behind schedule on their nuclear program, the winner of the 2008 election — whether a Democrat or a Republican — won't be able to evade the coming confrontation sometime during his or her first term in office.

Right now, it's hard to get anyone to talk about anything but stopping the war in Iraq, and the effort there may well be doomed. But the disgust with the bloodshed in that country cannot be allowed it to be the touchstone of our foreign policy.

FANNING THE FLAMES
Many who feel the Iraq war to be a costly mistake understand the nature of the Iranian threat. But once you have unleashed the genie of cynicism and disbelief in force, it is hard to get it back. Having worked so hard to delegitimize the American effort in Iraq, those fanning the flames of anti-war sentiment will be hard-pressed to reverse course on Iran, even if they wanted to. The impulse to downplay the awful nature of the Iranian regime and the potential costs of appeasement of them — just like that of our Iraqi opponents — is not something that can be easily switched off.

War with Iran is not inevitable. There is a chance that serious sanctions that are rigorously enforced by all of our "allies," combined with threats that are backed up, might still tip the balance in Tehran and convince its leaders to back away from the abyss.

Unfortunately, our Congress and their media enablers are so caught up in their hysterical reactions that rationality is in short supply.

Or consider Anthropogenic Global Warming, the other "great crisis" of our times, the discussion of which in the Media and among the political class is devoid of any understanding of science, not to mention devoid of any responsible policy prescriptions.  A rational discussion would have to include the fact that all of the proposed measures, even if they were strictly adopted and adhered to, a highly doubtful point no matter which party controls the government, would do almost nothing to actually address the "emergency".  Robert Samuelson does the honors:

We Have No Global Warming Solution

You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international group of scientists -- concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels, or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something'' with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming when they're not. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations.

Samuelson, though not a Psychoanalyst (that is a middling attempt at humor), intuitively recognizes that rationality is not part of the arguments about Global Warming:

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of CO2. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive new technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot.

Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports; but it would also check CO2 emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.

It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.  [Emphasis mine-SW]

When a great deal of emotional energy is being expended which can be so easily shown to have non-rational roots, the Psychoanalyst looks for defenses and unconscious determinants.  I wonder if the terrorists have done their job.  Certainly many people in Washington and in the media, not to mention throughout the West, are terrified.  They are terrified of their party (or themselves) not being elected, terrified of the sea levels 75 years from now, terrified of the midnight knock on the door that has been coming for the last 6 years but has failed thus far to arrive.  They are also terrified of the kinds of blinking lights that paralyzed Boston this week.  Yet few admit to being terrified of Islam and/or Islamic fascism.

The most interesting point is that whenever someone raises the issue of Islam's threat to the West, cries of Islamophobia and epithets such as Neocon are sure to follow.  We are told repeatedly that we are desirous of a Clash of Religions, when in fact we are simply pointing out that there are many on the other side of the divide who loudly, daily, proclaim their engagement in just such a clash!  (For those who still have trouble with this idea, read MEMRI or check out the Fox special on Islamic fascism; it is here and growing.) 

Perhaps, like "he who must not be named" in the Harry Potter series, merely invoking the name, the mere thought of an Islam inimical to everything we value, is enough to terrify.