Sara at Orcinus takes apart the macho little boys of the Republican party — it’s one of those posts that explains a lot.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Sara at Orcinus takes apart the macho little boys of the Republican party — it’s one of those posts that explains a lot.
It’s one of those posts which makes me think there’s more to Altemeyer than there is to Lakoff.
I find it difficult to take seriously people who use Freudian psychobabble to support their positions.
Is “naivete” the popular term of the month? “Denigrate,” “Islamofacists,” “naivete,” the list never ends.
Having spent a *lot* of time with latin men – working in spain & south america – I found the following 100% accurate
completely agree.
Female colleagues have comments in the past on my ‘pink’ shirts, etc. My wife is extremely happy with my masculinity (as are her friends, AFAIK ;)
Real men are simply ‘real’ — and do what the hell we please regardless of some ‘image’ definition. ‘real man action figure’ men need dress up to define themselves (camo shorts?).
It’s psychobabble, but it’s psychobabble that matches my anecdotal experience.
I won’t take it seriously, but I’ll still chuckle.
2007 Dodge truck with multiple inch lift, oversized tires, chrome running boards, etc etc drives by. Wife just mutters, “Small penis.”
Probably not the reaction he was hoping for.
Yet the rednecks at work continue to make references to their own rigs as being ‘pussy wagons’. Wishful thinking, group bravado or are there that many women out there who do fall for the image?
Sean – Honest-to-Pete, although I’ve known a lot of women (including myself) who appreciate a beautiful machine (even if tackily pimped), I have never, ever known one for whom the presence of such a vehicle itself was likely to lead her to think its owner was anyone she’d want to spend some time with.
It’s one thing if the guy likes that stuff himself. But anyone who thinks it would lead to romantic opportunities may as well get a tattoo on his forehead that says: I am so clueless about these things that hanging out with me would be a total waste of time, disappointing to you and embarrassing to myself.
“…it’s one of those posts that explains a lot.”
It surely explains a lot about the people who find it so illuminating.
Let’s see….
Sermonizing without substance. Check.
Anecdotal stories designed to “prove” pre-conceived notions and political viewpoints without actually having to do any research. Check.
Vague but important-sounding gobaldigook to paper over the lack of any actual — ahem — evidence. Check.
Change the POV Bill O’Reilly could have written it.
Agreed, Sinbad.
I still chuckle, though, since I’ve found myself wondering the same thing when faced with silly arguments from fundies (and then debunking them via pointing out logical fallacies).
I’ve seen this in the work world, too. There are always men in the workplace who will give women as much crap as they think they can get away with risk-free. We’re always having to acquaint these guys with the consequences. In my case, I arrange for them to meet my husband (six feet, 50″ chest, martial arts instructor, darkens doors). As soon as they realize I have recourse to Serious Male Authority (in this case, someone who can and will break their kneecaps if called upon to do so), the crap stops forthwith.
Mrs. Robinson
Now that’s feminism! Threating impolite males with a beating from your husband! Who no doubt, enjoys his role as a goon for the Northwests leading futuroligist!
“Dear, could you come down to the office and frighten some guys for me? Now, puff out your chest and look tough, that’s right honey. I’ll teach those pigs to fuck with me!”
As an ex-fundie myself, all I can say is that Sara’s post is spot-on.
PZ, what’s with all your whiner commenters? I get so sick of people who think personal experience (re-couched as “anecdotal evidence”) doesn’t count for anything.
Bleh.
writerdd:
Blogs run by hard science types tend to attract a lot of commenters from hard science backgrounds. One need not look far among the hard science community to find people who hold the soft sciences and creationists in the same regard.
Hence, the whiners.
(Also add a liberal sprinkling of trolls and Christian idiots…)
Criticize the Freudian psychology as much as you want, but if you look at the Republican smears and attacks against Democrats, they very often do so by attacking their masculinity. Why do you think all the focus is on Edwards’s haircut? Because getting your hair styled at a salon is generally a thing women do. They call him the Breck girl. Kerry drinks Chardonnay. Obama is a “wuss” with “weak rhetoric.”
The converse is true for female Democrats. Hillary makes Tucker Carlson fear for his balls. In her latest column, Ann Coulter says liberal women are “dowdy” and “grimy.”
Sara’s post hits on several of the same points about fundamentalism as a fear response to modernity that Karen Armstrong makes in The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. One of the best, most thought-provoking books I’ve read in the last couple of years.
Molly, Sean, et al:
Any guy who refers to his vehicle as a “pussy wagon” is obviously not getting any (and probably incapable, too).
Or do they mean they transport cats?
Strangely I’ve never heard a lesbian refer to her ‘cruiser’ as a “pussy wagon” – wonder why not?
…
…
Oh, boy.
Don’t know about psychobabble, but this post is spot-on in a lot of ways.
I grew up in Texas among rodeo cowboys and Deep South good ol’ boys, and I think I know something about macho and image-projection. Reading this piece really shed light on some of its roots.
It also answered a question I’ve been asking myself for years:
My best friend from high school was one of the most forcefully masculine guys I ever met, and yet he seemed to be a slave to the fashions of our small subculture – he would never even consider wearing anything other than cowboy boots, always had a tricked-out truck to show off, and would drive for days across country to service his horseshoeing clients, rather than fly, because “You ain’t getting’ me up in one o’ them thangs.”
I doubt if he has ever touched a computer in his life, and I know for a fact that he wouldn’t consider reading a book (and probably hasn’t since high school) or a newspaper.
The question was: How could he be so strong and confident, and yet never dare to think or do anything other than what “our people” counted as acceptable? How could he never be open to anything new?
For a long time as we were growing up together, I thought he was a very strong person, but when I left Texas and saw what people in other places were like, my view of him started gradually to change. Turns out he was probably one of the most RIGID people I ever met.
I don’t think I can really convey the sheer rigidity of this guy. You couldn’t get him to try sushi if you held a gun on him – and his reaction to the idea of YOU eating sushi would be, seriously, that you were insane.
He recently became a loudly born-again Christian, and as near as I can make out from telephone conversations, he and his wife still think George Bush is literally the savior of the United States.
Again with the psychobabble accusations above, I can’t say. But I can see with my own eyes that the type of rigid, closed behavior he (and other of my old Texas friends from high school and after) displays is not consonant with strong self-confidence and self-assured individuality.
Somewhere under that rigidity, it seems to me, is a great deal of fear. Fear of making a mistake, of being laughed at? Fear of not fitting in, of being an outsider? Maybe fear of displaying independence … fear of being alone.
…
…
Loads and loads of psychobabble. Not that she doesn’t have a point–just that she hasn’t proved it. Freud was great at finding patterns in behaviors. Problem is, as the fields of cognitive and neuroscience took off, they sorta left him in the dust.
Still, the anecdotal opinions seem pretty dead-on.
“Somewhere under that rigidity, it seems to me, is a great deal of fear. Fear of making a mistake, of being laughed at? Fear of not fitting in, of being an outsider? Maybe fear of displaying independence … fear of being alone.”
One could write a strikingly similar post about a terrified Leftist, demanding that the government protect him because he’s afraid of venturing out on his own, afraid of failure and afraid of personal responsibility and independence….
Sinbad:
I vote for my political leaders; I talk to my senators and representatives; I make my voice heard and speak out. I protect myself (and my future children) quite well. It’s just that I’m not afraid to use the most effective tool available, which in some cases is the law.
Because I realize that the “big, scary government” isn’t that scary when the people stay alert and stay involved – the heart of personal responsibility.
So tell me, Sinbad, who’s terrified?
Sinbad wrote, “One could write a strikingly similar post about a terrified Leftist….”
No doubt.
Or one could recognize that a progressive liberal feels that there is adequate wealth in society to ensure that no one freezes or starves and everyone has the opportunity to get as much education and training as they personally desire. Free from the fear of losing everything because of uncontrollable corporate downsizing or an unavoidable problem with their health.
Just as there are positive aspects of adult individualism, there are positive aspects of adult collectivism.
But Sara’s point still holds, it’s acting like an adult which is important.
Sinbad,
One can imagine whatever one likes about the feelings behind people’s actions. Thing is, I am and have known many born-again Christians and ex-Christians who openly admit that they were contstantly in fear (fear of hell, fear of Satan and demons, fear of backsliding, fear of the occult, fear of witches, the list goes on and on).
I have never met (or even heard of) a liberal or ex-liberal who has said the same.
When I claim that these people are acting out of fear, it is because they are acting just like people I know personally who have told me they acted out of fear, and because they are acting just like I used to act when I was always afraid. I am not just trying to be a bitch and say mean things about them because I don’t like them or their theology or their politics.
I know many of you don’t give a crap about personal experience, but for most of us human beings it is very important.
…
…
Yes, Sinbad, one could. But at least the leftists try the sushi.
And, uh, do you have any personal experience with such “leftists”? I don’t actually know any like that. Certainly today, my experience is that what the “leftists” think they most need protecting from IS the government.
And just kinda generally psychobabbling here, but you sound THREATENED. Next time, try a post with a little less high-pitched Pee Wee Herman “I know you are, but what am I?” and a little more actual thought.
…
…
There’s something to this in a lot of individual cases, but I am always suspicious of generalizations that convert a political position into a pathology, whether I agree with the position or not. This is just a very sophisticated ad hominem attack that forgoes discussing what’s wrong with the position in favor of speculating about what must be wrong with a person who would hold that position.
It isn’t as if one has to look terribly hard to find similar “analyses” of the alleged mental defects that lead one into liberalism.
I live in the “Bible Belt” of western Canada, and observe this kind of behavior every day. Thousands of monster trucks roam our streets while those with a sense of social responsibility drive small, fuel-efficient cars and get laughed at and cut off in traffic. The pseudo-macho posing is endless (and endlessly annoying).
I have discovered the ultimate insult to use with these people – 2 simple words we’ve all heard before – GROW UP.
You should see some of the reactions…
When will the neocons and fundies understand that describing us as leftist, socialist atheistic commies is one of the greatest compliments they could ever give?
Bruce made an excellent point – “I have discovered the ultimate insult to use with these people – 2 simple words we’ve all heard before – GROW UP.”
But why would they grow up; isn’t it easier to just be born again?
@Gelf – “This is just a very sophisticated ad hominem attack that forgoes discussing what’s wrong with the position in favor of speculating about what must be wrong with a person who would hold that position.”
The article is not an ad hominem, IMO. It doesn’t forgo discussing what’s wrong with the Right Wing Authoritarian position: that it’s rigid, dualistic, hierarchical, overly deferential to authority figures, uncomfortable with ambiguity and differences, and inclined to irrational or magical thought.
Have you watched any of the Republican Presidential debates, Gelf? Happen to notice that, even after years of unsuccessful foreign policy macho, all the Republicans were still trying to out-tuff each other in the most adolescent way? “I’ma double Guantanamo.” “That’s nothing you pansy, I’ma TRIPLE it, and I’ll torture the terrorists with my own hands.” Even as cynical as I’ve become, I was shocked at how histrionic the posturing was and nonetheless how enthusiastic was the response it got.
“Because I realize that the ‘big, scary government’ isn’t that scary when the people stay alert and stay involved – the heart of personal responsibility.
“So tell me, Sinbad, who’s terrified?”
Two words, Wisaakah: rhetorical device.
“But Sara’s point still holds, it’s acting like an adult which is important.”
Yes and no. The good news is that there are folks on both (all?) sides acting like adults, but the problem is that there are folks on both (all?) sides whose behavior is far less than stellar. Should we focus on the (alleged and highly questionable) pathologies or the policies?
“One can imagine…”
Indeed one can, writerdd. As Gelf so pithily puts it, one can easily imagine “generalizations that convert a political position into a pathology.”
“I have never met (or even heard of) a liberal or ex-liberal who has said the same.”
I suspect that’s due to a combination of confirmation bias and the crowd you travel in.
“Yes, Sinbad, one could. But at least the leftists try the sushi.”
That’s a good line, Hank. Kudos.
“And just kinda generally psychobabbling here, but you sound THREATENED.”
I wouldn’t have figured on Pharyngula readers havin’ a hankerin’ for telepathy. Had I the same proclivity toward you, I’d suggest PROJECTION.
“Next time, try a post with a little less high-pitched Pee Wee Herman ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ and a little more actual thought.”
Wow. That’ll make me straighten up and fly right. Yessiree. Good one.
“There’s something to this in a lot of individual cases, but I am always suspicious of generalizations that convert a political position into a pathology, whether I agree with the position or not.”
Given the response I’m getting, Gelf, you may not wish me to say so, but I think this is spot on.
“[Sara] forgoes discussing what’s wrong with the position in favor of speculating about what must be wrong with a person who would hold that position.
“It isn’t as if one has to look terribly hard to find similar ‘analyses’ of the alleged mental defects that lead one into liberalism.”
That was precisely my point (you just made it better).
Ah, but some prominent voices over there on the right have long since pushed it to another level with the assertion that liberalism IS a mental defect. Pffft. Not that that justifies lefties doing the same thing to converatism in retaliation, of course.
…
…
I notice Sinbad is doing the “reactive harvest” commenting, where he gleans through all preceding comments for juicy stuff he can spit back attacks at in one lengthy response, carefully ignoring the meat of whatever arguments are included.
Five bucks says he turns into a full-fledged troll in one month or less.
…
…
I apologize for intruding as I’m not a regular commenter on this site and am definitely out of my depth. But I wanted to address this point made above:
“I have never met (or even heard of) a liberal or ex-liberal who has said the same. ”
Perhaps I somewhat fit the bill. While I wouldn’t call myself an “ex-liberal” as such and my general political views remain mildly left of center, I have found myself becoming substantially less left wing over the last several years, which has had a lot to do with trying to reduce the amount of existential fear in my life.
In my case I was raised among and around the trappings of left-wing thought (I recall reading “The Nation” regularly before I was in high school, and spending much time as a child in activist offices), which led together with other factors (I live in a very liberal area of the country, went to fairly liberal-minded schools, etc.) to something of a total immersion in that way of thinking, probably at a time when I wasn’t equipped to handle the nuances of it.
In practice, that led to a lot of years of being terrified of stepping outside the acceptable dogmatic lines, because I had become convinced that my worth as a human being was entirely tied up in being on the proper side of various debates. As far as I could tell it was taken as given that virtually all Republicans were inherently sexist, racist, hateful people, and that to have sympathy with a Republican position was to endorse those things as well. Now, at 25, I’ve still never voted for a Republican (partly because my state tends to run awful or unserious people on that line), but I could see myself doing so under certain conditions- partly, perhaps entirely, because in reorienting my understanding of politics towards an issue-by-issue mode, I’ve lost some of my fear of being Ideologically Wrong.
So much for my personal experience/anecdote. I realize a story like mine is much less common than the one about the Texas good-ol’-boy above, but I tell it to make the point, I hope, that it’s not impossible to find motives of fear on both sides of the political aisle. What bothers me about the original linked article was that my own belief in similar arguments was a major contributor to the fear which helped keep me more liberal than I am today for a span of time. If you come to believe that other sides of an argument are so morally or psychologically sick that they inherently have no legitimacy, what other choice can you see? That train of thought may be (vastly) more common to bible-waving fundamentalists, but I don’t think it’s exclusive to them.
Thumbs down. Psych 101 insults may be an effective way to cut people down, but that doesn’t make them any more accurate than a cold reading.
Amateur, armchair psychoanalysis is pretty juvenile. When you try to apply the same analysis to tens of millions of people without, say, even speaking to them, then you’re really wasting everyone’s time.
“I notice Sinbad is doing the ‘reactive harvest’ commenting, where he gleans through all preceding comments for juicy stuff he can spit back attacks at in one lengthy response, carefully ignoring the meat of whatever arguments are included.”
I notice Hank is doing the “passive aggressive” style response, whereby he writes *about* a poster rather than *to* a poster.
By the way, Hank, you’d have more credibility if rather than making an unsupported claim that I “carefully ingor[ed] the meat of whatever arguments are included,” you actually supported it. Novel concept, doncha think?
And if I actually did miss something important, I’ll be more than willing to respond.
You are surely correct. I am sometimes (quietly) dismayed with how narrow some of my liberal friends have become. They have their reasons, of course, but I fear they have become dogmatic in their demonizing and pathologizing of just about anyone or anything they perceive as being right-of-center.
I’ve often wondered if some men have to check a list each morning to see what they are allowed to think/say/enjoy…
Basketball but not soccer?
Line dancing but not ballroom dancing?
Growing tomatoes but not oregano?
And let’s face it – the men the article presents as being mature and virile (itself an example of precisely the thing the article is supposed to be decrying) were politically weak and impotent. Clinton was the strongest of them. The others – Kerry, Edwards – are pathetic.
Mostly unrelated tangent: the presidential candidate “debates” are not only absurdities but are misnamed. Nothing’s being debated. They’re presenting their policy positions in response to questions. Find the person who decided to call them ‘debates’ and kill them.
Someone mentioned the same things in this article COULD be said of a far leftist. I don’t think that because you can make similar claims of people with other world views negates the value of what is said. If anything, it demonstrates how fundamentalists on ANY side of the socio-political spectrum could think and act, be it on the left or right. Just because you see something on both sides of the political seesaw doesn’t mean that it’s okay, or inconsequential.
All you guys having a go at Sara…
She is not writing a study, other people have done that:
( http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Right-Wing+Authoritarian+politics+study&meta= )
Okay, she uses anecdotes but does her theory fit the data of the studies that have been done?
A quick check may have been in order before posting … or maybe not? Should all forms of argument be subject to the same rules of evidence? I’m not sure…
Phil from Adelaide, Oz
I wish the glib naysayers would read the materials at the Altemeyer link that Blake Stacey provided before blowing it off. Sara Robinson’s article may be somewhat speculative, but Altemeyer’s studies are quite robust. Moreover, since the authoritarians appear to include about a third of our fellow citizens, this is a subject of considerable importance.
The authoritarians are almost by definition right-wingers: rigid conformists, ridden by fear, bound by rules, slaves to their leader. They’re a distinctive type not often found on the left (unless you consider communist die-hards in the formerly Soviet territories leftists).
One result of reading Altemeyer is that creationists suddenly seem less surprising. And, sadly, PYGMIES+DWARVES loses a bit of its charm.
I’m not convinced of that, actually. Yes, several of those people were dragged down and torn apart publicly – but it took massive coordinated efforts to do so. Without not only the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies, but the media pushing and enabling them and burying the story of how their claims didn’t hold up even *after* it had been conclusively proven, I think that election might have gone rather differently. For example.
I find the view that losing makes you a loser… overly simplistic. (If we’re avoiding labels like “childish”.) In real life you win some and you lose some, and a record like 8-5 is pretty good. It’s the people who have explanations for why their losses aren’t real losses (“we would have won in Vietnam if the leftists hadn’t stabbed us in the back and forced us to run away”) that you have to watch out for.
In any case, strength isn’t a virtue. Using whatever strength you have for good is. Power for its own sake is not an admirable goal, no matter how successful someone is in pursuit of that goal. Sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they don’t; but winning was never what made them the good guys.
There is a disturbing element of the true Scotsman in the article’s attempt to define “real” masculinity and maturity, though. I agree that RWAs exist and I consider them a serious problem, but I’m not sure that this argument really advances much beyond name-calling. We can’t make the “little boys” go home; they *are* home. They live here, and since this is at least nominally a democracy, they vote here, too. What we need to do is encourage them to change those behaviors (grow up, if you like to put it in those terms).
Arguments about what is or is not really “pathological” or “juvenile” or “genuinely masculine” don’t advance much of a real purpose, IMO. RWA behavior is dangerous to us and to our society, and we may need to do something about it, but I don’t know if this article really brings us any closer to knowing *what* to do about it.
#38: I have read Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians, and I think it’s an important work; but Orcinus’s article doesn’t seem to add much to it besides pop psychology – entertaining and plausible-sounding though it may be. If there’s more to this talk about immaturity and stages of development than just psychobabble, by all means, show me the data. Until then it’s just handwaving. (Maybe this attitude is a result of my viewpoint outside the field – I want to see proof of things that the professionals learned years ago and now take for granted.)
Altmeyer’s ‘book’ is truly horrible: badly designed, with a loaded presentational structure and written in an interpersonal and anedcotal style.
Phil:
It is the fact that studies do exist that is most troubling. Politically motivated “scientific studies” demonizing a group of people with a particular demographic trait have appeared frequently enough throughout history that we should all be suspicious of them. Studies that psychoanalyze a political affiliation tend to be not much different in content and intent from studies claiming to prove that people of particular races and religions are necessarily inferior.
You may argue, and I readily admit, there’s a chance the particular studies you googled up might be completely objective investigations with no political motivation whatsoever, but I would respond by asking how you would know the difference with enough confidence to rely on them.
Once again, my own experience does indeed tend to support this assessment in many cases. It doesn’t take a lot of reflection to expose a great number of right-wing “tough guys” as merely loudmouthed cowards. However, I regard even my own anecdotal experience (much less my own sense of visceral satisfaction) as insufficient to make me comfortable with a likely ersatz study cooked up to make a simple insulting observation sound as if it has the weight of “science” behind it. It seems harmless now, but under the right circumstances people have been known to start pogroms on the basis of crap like this.
Gelf: You appear to have the same ‘anecdotal’ experiences as many others here. So my question to you, is…
When you see something that appears to be a duck.
and others report that they too see what appears to be a duck.
and many others also report (anecdotaly) that they’ve observed similar creatures…
Do you conclude “yes, that’s probably a duck”
or do you say – “I have no idea whether or not that is a duck and I’m appalled that you would think so”
ALL of our observations lead us to associate such extreme authoritanian behaviors with fear.
Your approach is simply “god of the gaps” translated to this argument.
I agree with your comment that “pogroms” have resulted from similar ‘anecdotal’ characterization supported by ill-founded psuedo-science. That does not deny the validity of our observations in this case, does it?
I don’t see *anyone* here making the statement that *all* macho behaviour is RWA’s seeking ‘accomodation’ for internal hidden (perceived) weaknesses.
However I *do* see people making connections between observed macho posturing (republican candidates, and good ol’ boys both) and “fear” to admit any weakness.
This apparent correlation *may* be entirely co-incidental and unconnected. If so, I have not seem a compelling mechanism described. The *studies* you poo-poo (politically motivated or not) at least attempt to study the mechanism. If you discagree with these – then I’m sure a few opposing views can easily be found funded by right-wing think tanks.
The Haggarts of this world continue to provide confirmation of this “bias”. You are entitled to your opinion. As are we.
I’ll stay on the side of evidence on this one. There certainly *does* appear to be a solid correlation than excessive macho posturing results from internal fear.
“However I *do* see people making connections between observed macho posturing (republican candidates, and good ol’ boys both) and ‘fear’ to admit any weakness.”
If the only conclusion we were asked to draw from the piece were that macho posturing is often fear based, I doubt you’d hear much reaction. But there are at least three major problems here. (1) The article wants us to draw the conclusion that Republicans are terrified and emotionally immature — if they’d simply grow up they’d think like “us;” (2) The article fails to consider the possibility that the behavior under scrutiny might be based less on the psychology of the politico being observed and more upon how that politico perceives he needs to act to get and stay in power; and (3) It fails to consider or see the macho posturing on the Left (remember Kerry and the war-buddy reunion, the documentary mini-epic, the talk of lessons learned patrolling the Mekong Delta on a gunboat, shooting guns and playing hockey or, most famously, Dukakis sitting on a tank).
Sinbad: (1) The article wants us to draw the conclusion that Republicans are terrified and emotionally immature — if they’d simply grow up they’d think like “us;
I think not. My take (biased, possibly) was that the article suggested the republican candidates were dominated by this mindset.
Now as *you* suggest – this may be “audience pandering” on the part of the candidates – to act *tough* because that’s what the electorate *want*. And as you also state, correctly, this is not something to which the ‘left’ is immune.
However, Dukakis’ tank episode is often credited as being a significant factor if the failure of his campaign, and Kerry was up against W – the machoest macho man east, west, north, or south of the pecoes.
Conversely – the extreme macho behaviors of the republican candidates are (almost without fail) seen as entirely normal and expected, and certainly (from a media perspective) as perfectly ordinary. Given the extremely poor approval ratings associated with the war, and of the incumbent president re such behaviour, it is also extremely puzzling that such behavior should be seen as “engaging” or “suitable” for a presidential candidate.
The cases cited are not (IMHO) comparative.
Pretty good points there, Sinbad, but regarding point (3) I do see a difference between the macho posturing of, say, Dick Cheney, and the recollections of a guy (Kerry) who’d actually been to Vietnam because he’d signed up to go out of a sense of duty to his country, and had seen more than a little combat there.
You’re right to point out that the piece fails even to “consider” the posturing on the other (left) side, but I humbly suggest that a rebuttal that starts with Kerry might be getting off on the wrong foot.
“My take (biased, possibly) was that the article suggested the republican candidates were dominated by this mindset.”
Even this conclusion wouldn’t be too controversial within proper context and with proper regard for the pandering explanation. In general and anecdotally, the Republican base cares more about perceived “strength” than the Democratic base and the “strength” ideal is one cultural and moral standard the Republicans typically hang their collective hat on (remember Arnold and the “girlie men” comment?). Thus the pandering idea makes the most sense to me though the article doesn’t go there.
“However, Dukakis’ tank episode is often credited as being a significant factor if the failure of his campaign….”
Indeed it was, raising the obvious “What in the world was he thinking?” question. Of course, his and Kerry’s macho posturing focused on the general election campaign, where the Democratic base is less the focus of attention.
“…and Kerry was up against W – the machoest macho man east, west, north, or south of the pecoes.”
True again, and his behavior was designed to undercut that, especially since Kerry (like the elder Bush versus Dukakis) was an authentic war hero.
“Conversely – the extreme macho behaviors of the republican candidates are (almost without fail) seen as entirely normal and expected, and certainly (from a media perspective) as perfectly ordinary.”
Yup, but not (I would suggest) as a matter of pathology (see below).
“Given the extremely poor approval ratings associated with the war, and of the incumbent president re such behaviour, it is also extremely puzzling that such behavior should be seen as ‘engaging’ or ‘suitable’ for a presidential candidate.”
I think you’ll looking at the wrong metric. The Iraq war *is* a disaster in every respect. But the next president is going to have to be very (and authentically) tough and strong to succeed in the war on terror. In my view, that war is real and will continue for the foreseeable future irrespective of what happens in Iraq. The election is entirely the Democrats’ to lose, but real strength will still be required and the public, more out of common sense than any pathology I think, will recognize that. Moreover, political symbolism remains vital (cf. Biden’s ridiculous mistake during the youtube debate of suggesting that gunowners are mentally ill).
The Left tends to make the same mistake that Thomas Frank makes in What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. It shouldn’t be news that Americans of most political persuasions aren’t that far apart on matters military and economic. Yet the Democratic base (and elite) wants to see the dissatisfaction with the Iraq situation as indicative of a cultural shift — in my view more wish fulfillment than reality. Moreover, the Democrats will continue to ignore and dismiss cultural issues to their peril. The bottom line (IMHO) is that the political Left in America is dramatically out of touch with the moral and religious base of the electorate. The majority of Americans are conventional traditionalists (even though — and if — writers like Sara see that as somehow pathological). So long as the Democrats continue to fail to grasp that simple reality and refuse to figure out how to deal with it honestly and adequately, they will continue to have to play catch-up, even while ostensibly in control of the political landscape. The Democrats shouldn’t lose the upcoming presidential election, not by a long shot, but they easily could.
“You’re right to point out that the piece fails even to ‘consider’ the posturing on the other (left) side, but I humbly suggest that a rebuttal that starts with Kerry might be getting off on the wrong foot.”
That Kerry had a far more authentic basis for the posturing doesn’t alter what happened or why it was perceived as necessary. Indeed, had Kerry emphasized those (real) strengths during the primaries, his general election campaign would have stood a better chance (though, ironically, his primary campaign would have likely suffered). Cheney and the younger Bush (as with Dukakis) need the posturing especially *because* they have less authentic basis for it. But it’s posturing either way.
Sinbad – I think we’re generally in agreement (and I agree that I, in common with most others, read the piece with my own special ideological blinkers in place)
However to focus on pathology -v- normality.
you state quite categorically that The majority of Americans are conventional traditionalists.
I don’t disagree. But I do think there is a huge difference between the traditionalist “manly man” and the extreme macho posturing that we have seen, and that we’re discussing in this thread.
You also say that the political Left in America is dramatically out of touch with the moral and religious base of the electorate.
I would *tentatively* agree that America’s heartland is fundamentally more religious than most democrats are willing to admit, and that democrats do not seem to be comfortable with this.
However – I do *not* agree that this somehow detracts from the commentary here or in the article. I stand by my statements earlier that, pandering notwithstanding, the republicans are (apparently) more aligned with the *extreme* macho mindset. And I also stand by my armchair analysis of the prevalence of that mindset as a result of ‘fear’ versus a calculated stance.
I do agree with you that the democrats are not capitalizing on their political opportunities vis-a-vis their current position in the houses, and the obvious failures of our incumbent president.
I am sometimes glad that I am denied the right to vote (not yet a citizen) – since I would be extremely torn by current behaviors of both major parties and their candidates, and would be sorely tempted by the third option on the ballot – NOTA – although I would really really *hate* to not positively exercise my right to vote (not having it makes me extremely pissed at those who *do* have it and fail to exercise it!)
Relative to what? There’s a distribution of traditionalist attitudes. It seems to me that most politicians are much more traditionalist than most people I know, but I’m not going to claim that my social circle is representative of the country. Beware of drawing conclusions from your everyday knowledge, because your social circle probably isn’t representative of the country either. Without some real research on the prevalence of traditionalist attitudes, I don’t think you can make this kind of claim.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The next president is going to have to be very and authentically *smart* to succeed against terrorism (which isn’t really a war). You can have tough and strong subordinates, but if you’re not smart yourself, smart subordinates don’t help much. You can’t tell which ones are honest, or choose between them when they disagree. And you’re unlikely to attract or select smart subordinates in the first place if you’re not smart (except maybe a few smart, dishonest people seeking to manipulate you).
Terrorism is not going to be defeated by hauling your fist back and giving it a big old punch on the jaw. It’s more complicated than that, and as much as people hunger for simple solutions, the simple solution is often just plain wrong. Terrorism is fundamentally a violent form of covert ops, and it’s intelligence and counterintelligence efforts that will keep it at bay if anything does. (Note I don’t say get rid of it. Terrorism is almost as old as humanity; only the name and some of the weapons are new.)
That’s a job for smart sneaky people, not Rambo. He’ll just get fooled into invading the wrong country.
Sinbad: Nice analysis there (#46) and your points are compelling to say the least. With regard to #47, you could well be right on the money, but it seemed to me that Kerry pumped up the volume in the runup to the general election more as a response to the relentless Rovish (and necessary, for the GOP) tearing-down of his legit credentials as a decorated vet.
Dude, you’re on a roll here, making a lot of sense (at a glance, anyways – heh). Looks like our Hank was way off the mark in his assessment of your trollishness. Uncharacteristically off the mark, I should say, for Mr. Fox is generally pretty damn sharp, and fair-minded to boot.
“I, in common with most others, read the piece with my own special ideological blinkers in place….”
“But I do think there is a huge difference between the traditionalist ‘manly man’ and the extreme macho posturing that we have seen, and that we’re discussing in this thread.”
I agree. Because the political bases of the two parties are so polarized, whenever the crucial focus is the party base (as in the primary season), party reps need to be almost cartoon characters. For example, with abortion, Republicans can’t be seen as anything other than an extreme pro-lifers and Democrats as anything other than extreme pro-choicers even though the data I’ve seen suggests that most of the public has a more nuanced position. That’s why I think the time is ripe for a real third party. Neither base will like it and it won’t be easy (cf. Nader and Perot), but it can and *should* happen.
“I stand by my statements earlier that, pandering notwithstanding, the republicans are (apparently) more aligned with the *extreme* macho mindset. And I also stand by my armchair analysis of the prevalence of that mindset as a result of ‘fear’ versus a calculated stance.”
I don’t disagree re the alignment but I doubt the “fear” element as a matter of pathology while granting the idea that macho posturing is often fear-based.
“Relative to what?”
That’s always the question, no?
“There’s a distribution of traditionalist attitudes.”
Yup.
“It seems to me that most politicians are much more traditionalist than most people I know….”
They at least want to be perceived that way.
“[Y]our social circle probably isn’t representative of the country either.”
It isn’t. I live in conservative suburban SoCal and my professional circles (law and financial markets) aren’t any more representative.
“Without some real research on the prevalence of traditionalist attitudes, I don’t think you can make this kind of claim.”
I base my views on my own anecdotal evidence (as we all do) but also on studies and analysis I’ve read. I’m willing to be shown to be in error, however.
“No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The next president is going to have to be very and authentically *smart* to succeed against terrorism (which isn’t really a war).”
I didn’t mean to suggest that tough and strong were exclusive attributes.
“You can have tough and strong subordinates, but if you’re not smart yourself, smart subordinates don’t help much.”
I think you’re too Dubya-focused, but if “smart” can also be seen as a kind of street smart and people smart, I’ll generally agree. Smarts surely help but Carter was as smart and as decent a person as any president in my lifetime yet a singular disaster. Reagan was far from a rocket scientist, but in my view very effective given his goals and objectives (not that I expect agreement here).
“Terrorism is not going to be defeated by hauling your fist back and giving it a big old punch on the jaw. It’s more complicated than that, and as much as people hunger for simple solutions, the simple solution is often just plain wrong. Terrorism is fundamentally a violent form of covert ops, and it’s intelligence and counterintelligence efforts that will keep it at bay if anything does. (Note I don’t say get rid of it. Terrorism is almost as old as humanity; only the name and some of the weapons are new.)”
I agree.
“That’s a job for smart sneaky people, not Rambo. He’ll just get fooled into invading the wrong country.”
I generally agree but don’t think the Administration was fooled in the least. As several books have made clear (e.g., Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine), the Administration was planning to invade Iraq from the get-go and long before 9/11. But it wasn’t to avenge Daddy (he and Dubya were never close and the elder Bush inner circle — e.g., Scowcroft — was consistently ignored) or even for oil. The idea was to plant a real Democracy in the Middle East both as a beacon and as an infection so as to undermine both Islam and the anti-U.S. totalitarian regimes there. It was a silly idea, especially in retrospect, even though a more than decent goal. It failed to comprehend the strength and dedication of the opposition, the “touchstone” status that American troops in the Middle East would provide and the need for international support. It was also poorly planned and overestimated the the effectiveness of the U.S. military. Unmitigated disaster.
“[I]t seemed to me that Kerry pumped up the volume in the runup to the general election more as a response to the relentless Rovish (and necessary, for the GOP) tearing-down of his legit credentials as a decorated vet.”
That was surely part of it, but if the Kerry campaign wouldn’t have focused on that issue without the attacks upon him then it was even more incompetent than I thought, and that’s saying something.
“Dude, you’re on a roll here, making a lot of sense (at a glance, anyways – heh). Looks like our Hank was way off the mark in his assessment of your trollishness.”
Be careful, Kseniya. Once everyone understands that I’m both a Christian, Evangelical even, and someone who usually votes Republican (I’m highly biased in favor of free markets, for example), I expect to be kept on the troll list. I like to think I’m up to the challenge, though. Thanks for the kind words.
Sinbad:
Well, sure, but you may be setting up a false dichotomy here: I didn’t say that the Kerry campaign wouldn’t have focused on it otherwise, only that the focus got more intense as a result of the constant smearing coming from the other side.
Anyways…
I pretty much agree with you on Iraq. Long before 9/11, the plan was to depose Hussein and put a US-friendly regime in place as part of the larger neoconservative foreign-policy agenda of ensuring the security of American interests abroad – however, it’s important to recognize that having access to (and perhaps some measure of control over) one of the world’s largest oil reserves was and is an essential part of that agenda, given the extreme strategic importance of energy in general.
Maybe that’s what you meant, for the popular claim that we went in there to “steal” the oil strikes me as simplistic and somewhat hysterical. It is true, however, that US oil companies would (and may still) stand to profit immensely from a friendly US-Iraq diplomatic relationship, a fact which is also an important piece of the USA-Iraq puzzle.
(Evangelical, you say? Oh my.)
I meant what I said, and I meant what I said about Hank, too. I can easily see you two agreeing and disagreeing on all sorta of things with a minimum of potshotting. (Is that a word? Potshotting?)
P.S. Speaking of Iraq, and markets, one of the most wryly amusing things to come out of this whole Iraq disaster was W’s indirect assertion that Socialism was alive and well – in Iraq. That was when he assured the world that the oil of Iraq belonged to “the Iraqi people.”
I had to wonder what “the people” of Alaska and Texas thought about that. Heh.
“Well, sure, but you may be setting up a false dichotomy here: I didn’t say that the Kerry campaign wouldn’t have focused on it otherwise, only that the focus got more intense as a result of the constant smearing coming from the other side.”
Maybe we can suffice it to say that the Swiftees made the vital need so incredibily obvious even the clueless Kerry campaign realized it needed to pump up the volume.
“I pretty much agree with you on Iraq. Long before 9/11, the plan was to depose Hussein and put a US-friendly regime in place as part of the larger neoconservative foreign-policy agenda of ensuring the security of American interests abroad – however, it’s important to recognize that having access to (and perhaps some measure of control over) one of the world’s largest oil reserves was and is an essential part of that agenda, given the extreme strategic importance of energy in general.”
It would certainly be useful, but I think it was secondary.
“Maybe that’s what you meant, for the popular claim that we went in there to ‘steal’ the oil strikes me as simplistic and somewhat hysterical.”
Yup.
“It is true, however, that US oil companies would (and may still) stand to profit immensely from a friendly US-Iraq diplomatic relationship, a fact which is also an important piece of the USA-Iraq puzzle.”
Sure. That we’ve still gotten nothing out of Iraq in that respect too is simply another measure of our failure.
“(Evangelical, you say? Oh my.)”
Yup. I gave up atheism about 30 years ago and still think Christianity offers the best model of truth.
When will the dogpile start? Not tonight, at least. I’m headed out.
“I meant what I said, and I meant what I said about Hank, too. I can easily see you two agreeing and disagreeing on all sorta of things with a minimum of potshotting. (Is that a word? Potshotting?)”
I have no idea, but I like it.
“Speaking of Iraq, and markets, one of the most wryly amusing things to come out of this whole Iraq disaster was W’s indirect assertion that Socialism was alive and well – in Iraq. That was when he assured the world that the oil of Iraq belonged to ‘the Iraqi people.'”
I agree.
“I had to wonder what ‘the people’ of Alaska and Texas thought about that. Heh.”
They can buy stock, can’t they…?
G’night.
tony:
“Yes, that’s probably a duck.” Likewise, when I see a right-winger espousing incredibly cowardly positions under the apparent delusion that doing so angrily makes his cowardice manly, I draw the appropriate conclusion.
I do not, however, indulge in convenient and personally gratifying generalizations that permit me to lazily dismiss entire positions via the conclusion that people who hold to those positions have a globally identifiable error in their judgment. This is the only purpose served by psychoanalyzing adherents of a political position.
Allow me to extend the ubiquitous duck analogy: We have a link to a story that runs something like this: “Digby has said birds are indecisive whiners who migrate every time they don’t like the weather. Dave notes that most birds don’t have penises. I have a different theory about birds: things that look like ducks are ducks, and migrate because they are ducks.” The link, posted by a man with a proud invertebrate bias, reads, “Sara takes apart the four-limbed flocking migrators of the chordate phylum.”
In the response thread, some people note that the post suggests nothing but bad conclusions. Other people are jazzed, because they’ve found something that plays into their biases: “Yeah, I know these vertebrates, and they are, like, so indecisive. And flocking? Don’t get me started. They just can’t help it. Spines suck.”
Somebody notes briefly that unlike most birds ducks actually do have penises.
Some people note that the original post was so poorly constructed as to promote exactly this sort of confusion, but it uses big sciencey words so as to try to sound significant, and some people buy into that. “You admit you’ve seen a duck,” some note, “so what’s your problem?” One person notes that he can google for “duck study” and get results that may or may not have been authored by people with an axe to grind against any of ducks, waterfowl, birds, vertebrates or animals.
Someone notes that not even all waterfowl are ducks and is accused of No True Scotsman fallacy.
Someone else is accused of inventing a “god of the gaps” because he resists overgeneralizing from the fact many people have seen ducks. From the fact that many people have seen ducks, the critic seemingly infers that most things people see are ducks; even that sightings of nonducks are so rare that we should question their existence.
Ultimately nothing interesting has been said about anything, but people with an emotional desire for bad things about [animals/vertebrates/birds/ducks] to be true support it vociferously because they can read into it something that they want to hear.
You want me to admit that aggressive right-wingers with daddy complexes exist? You got it. I did so right from the start. The problem I have is when people want to extend a fairly uninteresting observation to support their more generalized biases and claim that something scientific supports them in this. It isn’t science if you aren’t working scrupulously to eliminate your own personal biases from the process.
Sure, they can buy stock, but that’s a far cry from saying they own a piece of it by sole virtue of their living within the borders of the political entity beneath which the oil resides. (Whew, ugly sentence.)
Re: Dogpiling, well, you know, there are a few Christians who post here regularly and who are highly regarded by most of the regular correspondents. Bible Literalism and Fundamentalism don’t fly too well here, if only because it’s so closely allied with the promotion of young-earth creationism and other forms of willful ignorance. If you think that second half of that sentence betrays a profound and heretical bias on my part, then I predict you will have a rough time here, but somehow I don’t think you do. But what do I know? Nuttin’. :-)
“Potshotting?”
How about potshooting?
Hi Kseniya —
“Sure, they can buy stock, but that’s a far cry from saying they own a piece of it by sole virtue of their living within the borders of the political entity beneath which the oil resides. (Whew, ugly sentence.)”
Apologies. My intended snarkiness should have been more obvious.
“Re: Dogpiling, well, you know, there are a few Christians who post here regularly and who are highly regarded by most of the regular correspondents.”
That’s good to know, but I just commented on the silly Condell video above for a bit of Friday fun and expect an onslaught. ;)
“Bible Literalism and Fundamentalism don’t fly too well here, if only because it’s so closely allied with the promotion of young-earth creationism and other forms of willful ignorance.”
I don’t think it’s so much willful ignorance as philosophical predisposition trumping all. For a similar view from the other direction, note Lewontin’s famous statement:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.” (Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997)(emphasis in original).
“If you think that second half of that sentence betrays a profound and heretical bias on my part, then I predict you will have a rough time here, but somehow I don’t think you do.”
You can’t be a heretic without being a wanna-be believer so I suspect you’re safe.
Sinbad,
Your suspicion may or may not be true. I suppose if I’m not a heretic, then I must be an infidel. Might as well flip a coin…
Regarding Lewontin, that’s an interesting statement worthy of contemplation, but due to lack of time all I can offer at the moment are a few simple (simplistic) questions:
I’m wondering about this phrase, “[…] no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”
Do you think – or do you think Lewontin intends it to mean – that the existence of counterintuitive and mystifying explanations reveals a flaw in the method by which they were obtained? There are many details of reality that are far beyond the capacity of our brains to correctly intuit. There’s been no selective pressure to evolve a brain that can intuitively grasp quantum mechanics or the vastness of space (for example).
Surely Lewontin is not arguing against materialism on the grounds that it can produce results that are difficult to comprehend. Is he implying, via Occam, that the simplest explanation for things (Godditit, e.g.) may in fact be correct?
BTW I think you’re wrong to characterize energy concerns as “secondary” in the big picture of neoconservative foreign policy. The continuing availability of relatively inexpensive oil is so essential to “American interests” that it’s nearly inseparable from the concept of protecting and advancing those interests at home and abroad. In that light, I might even be tempted to rank all other considerations – be they ideological, political, or theological – as secondary, but it’s a pretty tight weave and it’s hard to tease out any single thread.
It remains significant that we haven’t invaded any unfriendly countries that don’t have a zeusload of oil underground.
Anyway… I guess that’s a minor quibble, seeing as how we’re in very close general agreement on the topic.
Gotta go. Happy Friday!
Gah… I realize not only that Lewontin’s comment is more nuanced than my questions about it, and I may have completely misunderstood where it is he’s coming from (lack of context, and all) but anyway. My relatively low IQ and limited education will cause me to stumble from time to time. Onward and upward. :-)
Hi Kseniya —
Lewontin was a Gould colleague and co-author — ardent materialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
I think his point is that the materialist presumption trumps all and if evidence points in another direction, one should ignore it and hope for further evidence later to show that the presumption was and is correct.
“I think you’re wrong to characterize energy concerns as ‘secondary’ in the big picture of neoconservative foreign policy. …It remains significant that we haven’t invaded any unfriendly countries that don’t have a zeusload of oil underground.”
That’s an interesting circumstantial point and and your broader position makes intuitive sense, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s so. I’m perfectly willing to be shown otherwise though.
“My relatively low IQ and limited education will cause me to stumble from time to time.”
Your “aw, shucks” routine won’t fly with me, mister. ;)
Gelf:
I agree with your entire post. And I also agree that I’m never goring to eliminate my bias completely. But I *do* strive to eliminate my bias whenever I can – especially when that bias may have an effect on my analysis of [insert source here].
Regardless — everyone posting here is posting based on their ‘opinion’ and that is necessarily informed by their bias.
Some of us are way more successful than others in mitigating that bias. I am an egg in this regards! At least on a ‘social’ site like this I seem to relax my standards more. I *know* it happens. I *know* it sometimes results in confirmation bias, and others… but I *know* I’ll continue to do it.
I *do* appreciate it when I’m called on it, though! Thanks (to you & to Sinbad, and others). We *need* a diversity of views, otherwise it’s just a rant, not a discussion!
“I agree with your entire post.”
You’re right, Tony. Gelf’s post is spot-on.
“Thanks (to you & to Sinbad, and others).”
You’re welcome, but no thanks are necessary. It has been a good discussion all around.
The “Aw, shucks” thing isn’t meant to be a smoke screen. I believe I’m on the lower end of the IQ and education scale here. If I qualify for Mensa it’s by a whisker (not that I particularly care about that, but it’s a benchmark) and I don’t have a bachelor’s yet. I should by this time next year, though, unless the world ends. Also, speaking of whiskers, the “mister” title is a little off-target. :-p
I may have overstated the energy/neocon agenda thing, but I think it’s interesting that in a single stroke we smacked down an already-emasculated Hussein while providing all the motivation and time needed for that nutjob in N. Korea to ramp up his nuclear program. The whole “axis of evil” thing has a self-fulfilling stench to it now, but that’s all part of the larger plan too, isn’t it?
Ok, now I have to jump over to the Condell thread and see how that’s playing out. I’ll pack some Bactine, just in case.
“The ‘Aw, shucks’ thing isn’t meant to be a smoke screen.”
I don’t mean to suggest inauthenticity on your part.
“Also, speaking of whiskers, the ‘mister’ title is a little off-target.”
It was a bit of movie parody and not meant to convey gender, but point taken.
“I may have overstated the energy/neocon agenda thing, but I think it’s interesting that in a single stroke we smacked down an already-emasculated Hussein while providing all the motivation and time needed for that nutjob in N. Korea to ramp up his nuclear program.”
Iraq offered a plausible cause (continued WMD violations after sanctions), a seemingly easy target and a perfect location. North Korea wasn’t nearly so attractive.
“The whole ‘axis of evil’ thing has a self-fulfilling stench to it now, but that’s all part of the larger plan too, isn’t it?”
The “larger plan” is now pretty well shot to Hell.
“Ok, now I have to jump over to the Condell thread and see how that’s playing out. I’ll pack some Bactine, just in case.”
I haven’t seen nearly the action I expected, but PZ did call me a dufus (the first time I’ve heard that since about 3rd grade, circa 1963) and a troll in another thread so I’ll always have that to remember fondly….
I don’t mean to suggest inauthenticity on your part
Well, dang! You should have! :-b
No, not really, but I honestly do feel pretty good about the way my brain works, though it’s by no means extraordinary and I do lack credentials, experience… lessee, what else… critical-thinking skills, formal training in logic… The list is long.
The “mister” thing gave me a grin, because it’s one of my favorite idioms and I’ve used it on more than a few occasions. “Listen, mister… Watch it, mister…” and so forth. However, I think this was the first time I’ve ever been addressed that way, though the similarity between Kseniya and Kenya has led quite a few people online to deduce I’m an African man.
Да нет! Меня зовут Ксения, это мое имя, я украинка-американка!
Yup I saw that your comment on the Condell thread didn’t generate a lot of replies. The thread has already aged-out of the Recent Posts list over on the left sidebar, sooo… that may be that.
3rd grade, 1963, hmmm, I guess that makes you just about the same age as… ummm… as PZ!