The Power Of Myth
Posted on October 13th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
An important part of the life of any tribe is its mythology, which is why self-described members of a political tribe are usually so keen to defend their myths from being debunked by skeptics. Casting doubt on these myths is seen as something that only an outsider would do, so whenever a putative member of the tribe questions a certain myth he necessarily risks being considered as an outsider and being accordingly ostracized. For example, Helen Rittelmeyer holds fast to the myth that the GOP is the more conservative party in the United States, for which there is vanishingly small evidence these days, and she finds Conor Friedersdorf’s lack of faith disturbing. To the extent that membership in a political tribe is premised not on policy issues but on the acceptance of shared heroes and narratives, political tribalism requires a certain abdication of critical thought and an indifference to history. The difficulties this creates for self-criticism and self-correction are obvious, but one of the reasons why political tribes insist on maintaining their myths is the same reason why any group does this, which is to give their allegiances greater meaning than they would otherwise possess. Another reason why political myths are so powerful and enduring is that they help to justify past actions that cannot really be justified and to cover over present actions that need to be forgotten.
Thus Lincoln “saved the Union,” when in reality he destroyed the Union and replaced it with something else, but the reality is too terrible and cannot be defended without endorsing a radicalism his admirers usually do not want to endorse. WWI, which was a bloody catastrophe from beginning to end, was fought, according to the propagandists, for the rights of small nations and to “make the world safe for democracy,” when it actually resulted in the ruin of many small nations and had nothing to do with protecting democracy. According to another popular myth, Reagan “won the Cold War,” the clearest example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in modern history. Of course, those most interested to promote this myth are among those who most bitterly opposed Reagan’s engagement and negotiations with the Soviets at the time–to credit Reagan with this accomplishment is to align themselves with him despite their previous opposition and to appropriate him for their own purposes later on. This is just one part of the Reagan myth, which has been built up and expanded over the last two decades as Americans on the right have become disgusted with Reagan’s heirs: they glorify Reagan in the past for much the same reason many glorify Palin today, which is their disgust with the last twenty years of Republican leadership. They can find something admirable only in the past or in very new figures. This is why I think there has been such powerful resistance to questioning the myth of Palin the champion of reform, because looking too closely at her record (or lack of a record) exposes the mythologizing for what it is.
Filed under: politics
Does this mean there’s hope for Mitt Romney, the Hero with a Thousand Faces?
The point about mythology shutting down self-criticism (or, really, any criticism) is by far the most important implication of David Brooks’s recent column, not that he really made it directly.
The current Republican Party platform isn’t so much a carefully reasoned political agenda, as a mythological pantheon of titanomachies and gorgons designed to elicit maximum emotional response without stopping to think at any point. The Earmarks are ravaging our nation! Iran must be bombed! The Surge has worked! Civil liberties are being used against us! (Intriguingly, global warming became a myth inside this mythos–the first instance of a meta-myth that I’m aware of.)
In fact, we can probably use the Campbellian mono-myth on Sarah Palin. Born into obscurity. Summoned to adventure by a wise old man. Trained by a bunch of warriors and philosophers. Fighting the monstrous Bill Ayers. An apotheosis – and, likely, a defeat. Followed by returning to the mundane world to share her divine wisdom among her persecuted followers, gearing up for the final battle. It’s been a while since I read any of that stuff, but it looks like all the elements are there.
Studying the creation of Bill Ayers from forgotten revolutionary to Public Enemy #1 in the space of a week would probably be interesting, too. There’s a hero myth; I’m not sure if there’s a villain myth.
In any event, I think what’s happened over the last 10 years is that we’ve increasingly been led by tribal shamans who recite the mythology rather than persuading people or addressing problems. When your witch doctor can no longer perform miracles, it’s time to kill the old one and get a replacement.
Hmmm. Maybe on one level, politics is simply the art of fitting present-day events and facts onto the models of arche-(and stereo-)types. They’re easily comprehended (and commonly used–how often do we hear about “Cinderella stories”?), which goes back to their lasting power in the history of the human mind. The problem, I guess, would be when they’re blatantly manipulated — where a tool for communication becomes a tool for re-creation.
Whoever develops the most compelling narrative wins, and a part of what makes a compelling narrative is its resonance with some mythic background. That’s been one of the most important keys to GOP dominance on the national stage since Reagan. The GOP, with a big assist from Madison Ave., has understood how to work the mythos angle in collaboration with promoting confusion about what the actual facts or reality on the ground might be.
All demagoguery depends on a certain talent or instinct for this, and the hapless Dems have failed because they don’t understand very well how this works. The best among them try to be rational and sane, if diffident, while the worst care only about playing the insiders’ game.
In the political arena, mythos always trumps logos, so think the challenge that lies before us is to develop a ‘true’ mythic narrative, a narrative that connects the dots in the real world but which nevertheless has imaginative resonance and that calls upon what is most noble, or at least decent, in the American character. For whoever develops the most compelling narrative that explains who we are and where we’re going wins, and there is as much potential for a truly ugly narrative to arise as a decent one.
The smart money, given what we’ve seen recently of what has become of the American character, would be on an ugly narrative emerging before a decent one. In the short run a lot will depend on whether Obama is the man for the moment or whether he is just another Dem cipher, but he has the rhetorical capability to be something special should he be capable of rising to the occasion.
The one thing that can be said of the man is that his political opposition has a tendency to self destruct to clear a path for his advancement. Whether his continued advancement will be for good or ill is an open question, but he presents the most interesting possibilities. I am very curious to see how this movie plays out.
As you know, Daniel, I share a significant measure of your disillusionment with the Republican party, but one can take disillusionment too far.
Helen Rittelmeyer holds fast to the myth that the GOP is the more conservative party in the United States, for which there is vanishingly small evidence these days,
Joe McCarthy and Jesse Helms were Republicans. Henry Wallace and LBJ were Democrats. These are not accidental party identifications, nor can one find much political commonality between the former pair and the latter. I do not doubt that one could search out some distortive counterexamples if one were determined to do so, but if you seek a real, current myth, try the undead canard that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.”
The party of Calvin Coolidge is no doppelgaenger for the party of FDR.
As for Ronald Reagan, all things considered, this fine and courageous man ought to be regarded as the greatest American president since George Washington. We shall not see his like again.
So, yes, you are right. I subscribe to the myth.
Howard
Arguably until FDR, and even through the FDR and Truman years, the Republicans were the predominantly progressive party. I am not speaking of the entire sweep of the latter half of the twentieth century. I am talking about the last decade. Cite an example of how, particularly by your standards as a self-described economic nationalist, the GOP is actually the more conservative party today. What have Republicans *done* in the last decade that earns them this designation?
Do you really want to argue that there are significant, meaningful differences between the nominees on most issues? What are the meaningful differences on major policy questions between Sen. Mortgage Bailout and Sen. Bank Bailout? Whatever differences there are, I’d say they might be worth a quarter rather than a dime. Of course, one does have to adjust for inflation over the last few decades.
Daniel:
Arguably until FDR, and even through the FDR and Truman years, the Republicans were the predominantly progressive party.
Correct. A nineteenth-century conservative would have preferred the party of Grover Cleveland to the party of Lincoln.
I am not speaking of the entire sweep of the latter half of the twentieth century. I am talking about the last decade.
Fair enough.
Cite an example of how, particularly by your standards as a self-described economic nationalist, the GOP is actually the more conservative party today.
Rats. Politically, today’s GOP is wired perfectly backward when it comes to tariffs, as you say. On no other issue is the GOP more accurately labeled “the stupid party” than on the issue of trade.
Cite an example? Answer: the U.S. Senate’s June 2007 cloture vote on s.1639, the amnesty bill. Even in the Senate, whose Republicans are less conservative than the House’s, the Republicans provided only 12 of the 46 votes for cloture (one of the 12 was John McCain).
What have Republicans *done* in the last decade that earns them this designation?
Congressional Republicans have not done nearly enough.
Do you really want to argue that there are significant, meaningful differences between the nominees on most issues?
No, I do not want to. Even the incoherent John McCain apparently does not want to. He would rather run against his own party.
What are the meaningful differences on major policy questions between Sen. Mortgage Bailout and Sen. Bank Bailout? Whatever differences there are, I’d say they might be worth a quarter rather than a dime.
The nominees are not their parties.
Of course, one does have to adjust for inflation over the last few decades.
Good point!
Thanks for the platform and the reply.
HJH
What is this supposed to mean?
“Thus Lincoln “saved the Union,†when in reality he destroyed the Union and replaced it with something else, but the reality is too terrible and cannot be defended without endorsing a radicalism his admirers usually do not want to endorse.”
Is this the Thomas Delorenzo, Ron Paul, James Kennedy, and Pat Buchanan gospel, or something new?
It means that a Union of sovereign states was turned into a consolidated government of what became effectively a single nation-state. Our system ceased to posses the same federal character that it had prior to the war. The war caused radical political transformation in the relation between the center and the states. To the extent that all of the aforementioned people agree with this, I suppose you can say that this is also their view. You can regard this as a desirable or necessary development, or you can, as I do, regard it as a terrible loss of an important part of our constitutional order, but I don’t think that sympathizers or critics can deny the radical break with the political system we had before the war.
Sorry I wasted my time, and took you seriously.
I just noticed your link to the League of the South “a neo-Confederate hate group.”
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=79
I’m sorry you take anyone seriously who labels LOTS a hate group.