'The Extremists Are Coming; The Extremists Are Coming!'
by Butler Shaffer
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice! And . . . moderation in
the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater, in speech
written by Karl Hess
A recent discussion on the Fox Business channel, amongst John
Stossel, Stuart Varney, and Judge Andrew Napolitano, has raised, once
again, the empty charge directed at libertarians: "you are being an
extremist!" Such words are always offered in lieu of a substantive
analysis of the position advocated. That both Albert Einstein and
Jeffery Dahmer could be labeled as "extremists," by virtue of how far
their thinking deviated from some norm, provides us no basis upon
which to evaluate their thinking or conduct. Intelligent minds would
ask: by what criteria do you judge these men; what are the
implications of what each is doing or saying? That so many scientists
who contributed to the development of our understanding of the world
had to endure such criticism, should cause us to insist upon a
standard of evaluation that rises above the simplistic thinking
presently in place.
These three men were debating the wide-ranging NSA surveillance
practices recently revealed by Edward Snowden -- whose actions have
led statists to label him an "extremist," among other charges. When
Judge Napolitano insisted that the government should be required to
adhere to Fourth Amendment standards and procedures, Varney -- the
moderator of the program -- began accusing the good judge of "extremism."
But how does one define "extremism"? Is there a standard by which we
can make intelligent distinctions, or is the word only intended as a
polite form of name-calling? Words are but abstractions and require
interpretation, no matter how certain we feel that our subjective
sense allows us to overcome the difficulties that often attend
defining them. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous
admission to the difficulty of defining "pornography" nonetheless led
him to conclude "I know it when I see it." Does Mr. Varney's charge
of the good judge being an "extremist" amount to anything more than
his stating a preference for his preferences?
Explanations for the inability of people to employ a reasoned
analysis in their thinking are to be found in institutions of
learning. One criticism directed at the government schools is that
they do not do an adequate job teaching students how to pass the
tests such systems use to evaluate themselves. In this sense, schools
-- including universities and graduate schools -- are more in the
business of certifying their students to the next level at which they
are to perform than helping them learn to become independent thinkers
capable of engaging in principled, factually-supported analysis. In
performing this certification role, schools engage in the circular
process of certifying themselves. "See, 83% of our students passed
the test that we taught them how to pass!" In law schools, this helps
to explain the preoccupation with bar exam results.
When a school system's emphasis shifts from helping students learn
how to think, to teaching them what to think, the dumbing down
process is well under way. The principal failure of the education
system is not reflected in the fact that most students cannot
identify the kinds of information easily found in a Google search,
but that they cannot analyze the meaning of such empirical data. An
honor student may correctly answer that the Hundred Years War was a
series of 14th and 15th conflicts between England and France; that
same student may give you a blank response to such follow-up
questions as what were the causes or the consequences of this war?
Persons who were educated in the rote methods of the
institution-serving schools, tend to be very weak in the skills of
intellectual analysis. Being unable to intelligently evaluate a
particular proposition, they may resort to public opinion polls, or
the pronouncements of a recognized authority for direction. They may
also fall back on the "extremism" charge when confronted with a point
of view they are otherwise unable to analyze.
The contrast between these two approaches is evident from Judge
Napolitano's discussion with Stuart Varney. The judge's criticism of
the NSA's ubiquitous, unconsented surveillance of everyone was
grounded in principles from which he reasoned. He quoted the Fourth
Amendment, which has a narrowly-focused exception to the general rule
that people should be "secure . . . against unreasonable searches and
seizures," an exception that requires the government to go to court
and seek a warrant against specific persons, at specific locations,
identifying the specific items to be seized.
In making this argument, the judge is being accused of engaging in
what is rarely taught in modern schools: the art of implicit
thinking. It is not just that the state is engaged in actions wrong
in themselves, but that the acceptance of such behavior can lead to
even more serious consequences. If Uncle Willie drinks a quart of
Scotch every day, cirrhosis of the liver is implicit in his habit.
Does this mean that he will develop this disease? The study of chaos
tells us "no," that outcomes associated with complex systems are
unpredictable. It does mean, however, that his addiction will greatly
increase the likelihood of his developing cirrhosis. As such, on the
first day that Willie consumes his quart of Scotch, he should
understand that the destruction of his liver is implicit in what he
is doing, and not just assume that each additional day stands on its
own, unaffected by what has preceded it.
If, on one occasion, a police officer brutalizes a harmless
individual, does that mean that a police-state has arisen? No, but
intelligent minds should recognize that such totalitarian
consequences are implicit in such an act, and should respond
accordingly. I am reminded of that powerful scene at the end of the
movie, Judgment at Nuremberg. Judge Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy)
has been called to the jail cell of the Nazi judge (played by Burt
Lancaster) who has just been given a life sentence for his crimes.
The convicted judge tells Judge Haywood: "Those people, those
millions of people. . . I never knew it would come to that." Judge
Haywood replies: "it 'came to that' the first time you sentenced a
man to death you knew to be innocent." This is a poignant example of
"implicit thinking." If you doubt that one atrocity, indulged in and
sanctioned today, does not have implications for the future, ask the
ghosts of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka -- and the
hundreds of other Nazi concentration camps -- whether critics of such
systems were being "extremists" for warning of the likely
consequences! A more dramatic expression is to be found in Judge
Haywood's explanation of the court's ruling at the end of the movie.
His words may help us to understand the implications of the present
behavior of the American state.
http://movieclips.com/9Z2Lz-judgment-at-nuremberg-movie-judge-haywood-explains-his-ruling/
Implicit thinking requires a standard by which to judge the propriety
of one's actions. Judge Napolitano used language from the
Constitution as such a standard, but other principles could be
employed as well (e.g., the inviolability of the person or property
of individuals). Having a norm by which to measure one's response to
state action is a necessary means for engaging in an intelligent,
reasoned analysis. Without such a principle, one is left with
frenzied ranting, name-calling, or empty rhetoric such as accusing
another of "extremism."
How does one learn this art of implicit thinking? It is evident that
such skills will never be a part of the curriculum of government
schools. Their job is to condition young minds in the establishment
mindset, a purpose wholly inconsistent with the development of
critical thinking. There is nothing so annoying to the state's
conditioning academies as children who keep asking questions. The
word "why?" -- and the independent thinking that underlies it -- is a
constant challenge to a system that has no standards that would
appeal to curious minds. The child who persists in questioning what
is being taught may soon be labeled "hyperactive" or having an
"attention deficit disorder" and be subjected to therapies or drugs
to overcome his or her resistance. The words of the late Steve Jobs
come to mind, in discussing his response to elementary school: "I
encountered authority of a different kind than I had ever encountered
before, and I did not like it. And they really almost got me. They
came close to really beating any curiosity out of me."
How does one help children develop the skills of implicit thinking,
and avoid the indoctrination that trains one to become a
servo-mechanism of the corporate-state? In his 1976 book, The Uses of
Enchantment, psychologist Bruno Bettelheim discussed the importance
of fairy tales in helping children deal with the kinds of fears that
are so much a part of growing up. In the course of reading and
finding meaning in such stories, children would experience the kind
of emotional development necessary to the well-lived life.
I believe that such stories -- and the processes of questioning that
accompany their reading -- can help children learn to think
implicitly. Fairy tales are often presented in terms of
black-and-white contrasts: the consistently "good" guy up against the
"villain" who is beyond the possibilities of rehabilitation. The
purpose of making such sharp comparisons is not to make children
aware of how people necessarily behave in the world, but to provide
standards with which to evaluate human conduct. Are all children as
sweet and innocent as Hansel and Gretel, or as loving and considerate
as Little Red Riding Hood? Are step-mothers all mean? Hardly. These
stories are not offered as psychological or sociological studies, but
as clearly defined criteria by which to make judgments.
One of my favorite children's stories is The Little Red Hen, but I
detest those modern corruptions of the tale in which the Red Hen
gives in to all the free-riders and allows them to share in the
product of her labors. There is an important lesson for children to
learn from Ms. Red Hen, which goes far beyond the modern
simple-minded standard of "niceness" that seems to limit the judging
of human conduct. The story informs children of what, in a
welfare-dominated world has long been forgotten: not only are there
consequences to our actions, but precursors for the attainment of
what we enjoy. The bread that the Red Hen produced -- and the
moochers now want to enjoy -- came about only through her willingness
to incur all of the costs necessary to create the bread. This is the
meaning of Milton Friedman's now classic observation: "there's no
such thing as a free lunch." Someone had to incur the costs of providing it.
Implicit thinking has no relevance absent a clear standard by which
to evaluate our thinking and behavior. In order to live as
intelligent adults, children must learn to explore the importance and
meaning of principles that transcend the immediate circumstances they
confront. In the turbulence of a world that is redefining itself into
fundamentally new social systems and practices, our thinking -- and
judgments -- must undergo major transformations. If we are to survive
-- and I believe that we will -- we must walk away from such school
playground rhetoric as "if you're not with us, you're against us," or
"America: love it or leave it," or "you're being an extremist." As
Einstein observed: "We cannot solve our problems with the same
thinking we used when we created them."
http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer273.html
--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
