When former Vice-President Al Gore wrote his critical analysis of American thought in 2007 who could have known that three years later the "assault on reason" he described would be in full bloom. In his book, Assault On Reason Gore argues that rational thought in our political and social arenas is being sidelined by more emotional string pulls: fear and faith.
Gore summarizes reason as the ability to measure and compare all ideas -- to give each notion a fair hearing and discard those that don't make much sense for society and us as individuals -- it is the concept of the "Marketplace of Ideas." John Stuart Mill is widely cited as the founder of this philosophy. And, it is the bases for what we in America call "Freedom of Speech." In the end, rational people will eventually dismiss any use of bad ideas and bad policy.
But what happens when those making the decision on which ideas to keep and discard are not rational, at all. What happens then?
We might just find out, on election night this November. Even a cursory glance across the country at the caliber of candidates running for elected office this year will give anyone a plentiful basket of examples of irrational thoughts being presented within the marketplace.
One candidate believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional because in his view it wasn't an attempt to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, it was an intrusion on private enterprise. Another candidate believes not only is unemployment insurance unconstitutional -- but so is the minimum wage and any regulation that hinders businesses from abusing employees to maximize their own profits. Yet another candidate believes the Second Amendment provides citizens the right to use firearms to remedy Congressional votes they may disagree with. Another example is the view held by a number of candidates that birth control pills in essentially murder.
On any other day one might be able to ignore these positions as extreme and outside the mainstream of rational thought. But not this time. A number of these political candidates have not only won their political party's often partisan primary elections but are competitive if not leading in general election polls. These once so extreme views that they could be firmly be called on the fringe have landed in the middle of the road and could end up with a seat at the policy making tables on Capitol Hill.
How have these ideas become acceptable in the marketplace that Mill so grandly described? Quite simply because rational people are no longer deciding what stays and what goes. Fear -- fear of loss of livelihood in the form of unemployment and foreclosures; fear of a changing world -- a world that is smaller, less white and more competitive with our children is the predominant reason. But faith -- our retrenching into our own religious ethos and people's ability to use that faith to influence our motivations -- is fogging the lens as well.
In short, Mill counted on people to act rationally for the marketplace of ideas to work. He miscalculated that rational thought was more powerful than emotion.
Emotional responses to political decisions have historically had disastrous conclusions. The rise of Nazism in Germany, the imprisonment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, the reversal of post-Reconstruction laws given rise to Black Codes and Jim Crow. History is full of examples of how irrational people have conducted irrational actions.
Another example came into the light this week. Susan M. Reverby, professor in the History of Ideas and Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Wellesley College uncovered a two year experiment conducted by U.S. government paid doctors to infect Guatemalans with Syphilis from 1946 to 1948. The reason the U.S. government purposely gave scores of Guatemalans an infectious disease? To test how penicillin works in the human body.
If this story sounds familiar, that's because it is. The same doctor Dr. John Cutler was also one of the lead researchers in Tuskegee, when the government decided not to treat African-American men who already were infected with syphilis even though for 40 years the men thought they were getting the best medical treatment possible.
Both of these incidents have garnered an apology from the United States government. Secretary of State Hiliary Clinton when the Guatemala Test was made public called the experiment unethical, saying "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened."
That is the right stance, but it doesn't address the real issue. Why did it happen?
When rational thought is dismissed, when the assault on reason is so effective what occurred in Tuskeegee, Alabama and Guatemala is inevitable. A decision based on reason and not fear would have prevented these experiments.
And that brings us to a question for those in the electorate who still hold a residue of reason; who they themselves are afraid of how the economy is functioning and how the world is evolving; who they themselves say a little prayer for the safety of their futures and their children's future; but, somehow can still see things rationally.
If you don't protect our futures from the assault on reason, what will be the incident the government will have to apologize for next?
Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary every week. Please feel free to leave a comment and check back next week.
Comments