This isn't to say I don't have biases. For instance, I find that although I enjoy a multitude of different genres, there are some I don't care for very much. I love suspense and horror, but I'm not a fan of gory "slasher" flicks. Also, with dramas one viewing generally suffices for me while I tend to watch action and comedy ad nauseum. I once had a friend tell me he refused to watch any black and white movies. "How sad," I thought. He could miss out on all sorts of good stuff. Eliminating thirty years of movie magic in one broad, dismissive brush stroke seemed completely arbitrary to me; akin to saying, "I'll never read anything from 500-700 in the Dewey decimal system." Personally, I think the 500-700s contain some pretty interesting stuff, and although I don't share or understand my friends mindset, I do realize he's not alone in having one.
We all need ways to cope with society's complexities, and mindsets are one way to do that. Mindsets allow us to generalize and make sense of all the disparate, seemingly unrelated, random events that comprise life. Without them, I for one would go insane. I have to take some things for granted or I could never make any decisions or arrive at any conclusions. I would be paralyzed by minutiae; constantly requiring another piece of information in order to make the "best" decision. In short, having a mindset is a necessary evil, but it still comes with dangers. The irony of mindsets is that they liberate us, allowing us to cope with life, but simultaneously, they can create a different prison to potentially trap us.
For example, there is an old saying: the only rule that doesn't have an exception is the rule that states there is an exception to every rule. That eloquent, old-timey, wisdom clearly points out one drawback to mindsets; overgeneralizing or stereotyping. That's a glaringly obvious danger that people quickly point out. I know I've been told not to stereotype for years now. I believe, however, another mindset danger lurks about that receives much less attention—the ideologue. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines ideologue as, "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology." In my mind, the key to the ideologue's mindset prison is contained in the words, often blindly. To help me try and recognize the trap I look for what I call "Nigelisms"; So named after a character, Nigel Tufnel, from a movie titled: This Is Spinal Tap.
The movie is a "mockumentary" or a documentary spoof that follows the antics of a fictional band, Spinal Tap, as they tour across America. In one scene, guitarist Nigel Tufnel shows the film producer Marty DiBergi all his guitars and then starts talking about the amps the band uses.
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and....
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
"These go to eleven" is my quintessential Nigelism. Nigel assumes that because eleven is bigger than ten, his amp is therefore louder than an amp that only goes to ten. Because of this mindset he cannot comprehend just how arbitrary the dial numbers really are. Tear off the sticker behind the knob and replace it with one that goes up to twelve and that amp isn't going to get any louder. When Marty suggests the number eleven isn't really responsible for making the amp louder, Nigel can't accept it. The concept leaves him completely dumbfounded. To his credit, he at least pauses before blindly restating his mindset. Hilarious. A classic comedic movie moment, and everyone laughs; everyone other than Nigel that is. He doesn't laugh because he doesn't see it.
As I mentioned earlier, “blindly” seems to be a key word. There have been countless times in my life where I involuntarily picture another person saying, “Uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven?” Sometimes it’s hard not to laugh out loud. Unfortunately, when it comes to ideologues these gaffs can become frightening too. Allow me to share a few examples.
Several weeks ago a friend of mine posted a video from way back on May 22, 2008. During that time oil prices had soared and the average pump price for a gallon of gas reflected those skyrocketing prices. Something had to be done, and the U.S. House of Representatives responded by holding a panel hearing (always a highly effective solution) with top oil executives. The clip my friend posted centered on an exchange between Representative Maxine Waters , D-CA, and John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil. Waters challenged the oil executives to guarantee that the prices consumers pay would go down if Congress allowed the oil companies to drill wherever they wanted off of U.S. shores.
Hofmeister replied, "I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down." He then went on to declare that paying $5 at the pump, "will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies."
Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …" [The congresswoman hums, haws and pauses for several seconds here to collect her thoughts.] "Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”
My first example is Maxine Waters. Her "liberal" mindset holds that government best serves public interest when it employs methods of economic interventionism, including socialism, to regulate private business. Isn't that what she just told the president of Shell Oil? I think the only reason she pauses to collect her thoughts where she does is because she knows the word "socialism," and all its permutations, carry a negative connotation for most Americans. Amazingly, she doesn't attempt to back pedal or change tack in the slightest. Instead, she pauses to ponder how she can rephrase "socializing" and then blindly charges on with her original mindset anyway. The video actually captures other Representatives on the panel leaning back and attempting to stifle laughter. At that point all I heard was, "these go to eleven."
My second, and more frightening, example is one of the responses my friend received in regard to his Maxine Waters post.
UNNAMED 3: Incredible. Just remember that not all of us Dems think like that. In fact, I'd say precious few.
I do agree most Democrats don't see the world so radically. I think most of them are reasonable, liberty-loving, self-reliant, red-blooded Americans just like most Republicans, Libertarians or Independents. My complaint is with Democrats and Republicans who are also ideologues, because they have an extremely limiting mindset that potentially impacts every citizen in this country—all Democrats/Republicans (depending on which ideologue you ask) are good and all Republicans/Democrats are bad. So while UNNAMED 3's assessment may represent the truth that "precious few" Democrats are as radical as Maxine Waters appears to be, enough Democrat ideologues shout, "Damn the torpedoes!!!" as they blindly pull the blue “D” lever and keep giving us all the Maxine Waters' of the Democratic party. Why vote for a radical Democrat who doesn't represent the majority of Democrats and not even consider the Republican they might actually have more in common with? Uuuuuuuuuh, because he/she is a Republican? Or phrased another way, uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven? All that matters to an ideologue is red/blue .... Dem/Rep.
Just because my examples picked on Democrats doesn't mean Republicans aren't guilty of the same lunacy. Republican ideologues give us Rudy Giuliani who is only "Republican" in name and national defense or Arlen Specter who decides to swap parties when he gets wind that he's finally misrepresented PA Republicans to the point he doesn't think he can get reelected. Why did PA Republicans continue to reelect Arlen Specter time after time? Uuuuuuuuuh, because he is a Republican? Or phrased another way, uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven?
This Nigelistic mentality results in a slew of elected officials who no longer represent their constituencies and continue to act in defiance of the will of the people. Referring to protesters at town hall meetings on health care reform, Harry Reid (D-NV) said, " These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having. ... They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets" 8/6/2009. No, Harry, they aren't. That's just ideological rhetoric and disingenuously false, but politicians sleep soundly at night knowing full well the ideologues will unthinkingly pull their color coded levers like animated, but mindless, Chatty Cathy dolls ripping their own strings from their backs.
Not to be outdone, the media itself also likes to get involved. From talk radio's Rush Limbaugh, who appears to be criticizing Republicans for not being Republican enough, to cable news' Keith Olberman, who claims, "... Fixed [Fox] News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists ..." 8/25/2009, ideologues can hear exactly what they want to hear. Both of these guys routinely pander to their fan base, reinforce Nigelistic mentality and give Republicans and Democrats new ways to yell at each other, "these go to eleven!"
Earlier this year, the media represented tea parties (protests over unprecedented private sector bailouts and government spending) as merely a "Republican" or "right wing" movement (which is just media speak for anyone who isn't a Democrat...and any Democrats who ask too many questions). Now, as citizens struggle to understand health care reform, the media misrepresents opposition to the one and only proposal in Congress the same way. On Aug 4, 2009 Barbara Boxer (D-CA) went on CNBC's Hardball and stated, "So all of this is a diversion of ... by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama." She then went on to claim, "You've heard Republican Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) say it. 'Let's make this Obama's Waterloo. Let's break him.' That's what this is about." No, Barbara, that's not what this is about. That's ideological rhetoric and patently false. While the tactic is disingenuous, politicians, and complicit media, do it because they know ideologues, who don't wish to be associated with such pejorative titles, will dismiss tea parties and town hall protesters without investigating the facts more fully on their own. What if my wife is one of eleven women in labor and there are only three hospital beds? Uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven?
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, believed, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Goebbels would love to work his propagandist magic on a nation of ideologues. Ideologues are unwitting participants devoutly waiting to hear what they hope is truth. Ultimately, the greatest mindset danger is to unquestioningly accept whatever information reinforces a particular mindset while arbitrarily rejecting any information that doesn't. In that light, you make a great point Marty. Maybe I'll look into making ten the top number and just make that a bit louder.
