Impulse and Ideology

-->
conservatism, firearms, Religion, Social Issues, Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

Some guy at MSNBC argues that it makes “little sense” to call Jerad and Amanda Miller, the Las Vegas shooters, “right-wing extremists.”

He said right-wing extremists typically focus their anger on federal authorities, not local law enforcement officers like these.

“They weren’t the ATF, they weren’t the FBI. They couldn’t be seen as the representatives of a repressive government,” Levin told NBC News. “There are some militia group members who believe that the only valid authority is at the county sheriff level. In fact, many right-wing extremists love the police. They feel kinship to local law enforcement.”

So we’re just supposed to ignore the white supremacist literature, the shooters’ attempt to join the crew at the Bundy ranch and the “don’t tread on me” flag.

I wrote in my first post about the Las Vegas shooting that I doubted the shooters were working with the Bundy crew, who have decided only the federal government is evil. But the remarks at MSNBC reflect a basic misunderstanding of the connection between ideology/belief, whether political or religious, and violence.

This is something I spend a lot of time on in My Book, Rethinking Religion: Finding a Place for Religion in a Modern, Tolerant, Progressive, Peaceful and Science-affirming World, because I think understanding this connection and how it functions is critical to dealing not only with our ongoing domestic violence problem but also with understanding religious violence around the world.

My thinking on this issue is very much influenced by Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind. Very simply, Haidt makes a strong argument that our moral choices — including the choice to be violent — and our political and religious beliefs are rooted deeply in the subconscious. We are born pre-wired to interface with the world in particular ways, and this pre-wiring disposes us to leaning left or right, say, or determines whether we are likely to be dogmatists or open-minded. And, of course, the way we perceive, interpret and experience ourselves and the world also is very much influenced by cultural and other conditioning.

As we meander through our lives and bump into myriad phenomena, including religious and political beliefs and moral issues, all of this pre-wiring and conditioning and whatnot clanking around in our psyches churns up emotional responses. These include feelings of comfort and discomfort. We naturally want to affirm those things that make us feel good while denouncing the stuff that frightens or disgusts us. We then call on our rational minds to craft a narrative that justifies our feelings. These narratives are merged into our primary narrative, or personal myth, which is the ongoing story we tell ourselves about who we are and what the events in our lives might mean.

Another factor is what Buddhists call “mental formations,” or our states of mind, which can become habitual. This (in part) refers to the way some people tend to easily become defensive and critical, while others in the same situations are understanding and accepting. This also speaks to our basic orientation toward the world and whether we feel integrated with it or estranged from it.

By the time we are adults this wiring/conditioning “stuff” has become extremely complicated, and I doubt any two human beings who ever lived have identical inner stuff. But it’s important to understand that, ultimately, we are drawn to our beliefs and ideologies because of the stuff, not because it appeals to our rational mind. For this reason, what an ideology or political position represents to an individual on a subconscious or even metaphorical level is more critical than intellectual consistency.

This is what the guy on MSNBC doesn’t get. From their own words and actions, it’s obvious that right-wing anti-government rhetoric and the Bundy ranch drama resonated deeply with Jerad and Amanda Miller and represented something enormously significant to them, even if how they understood the “movement” differed in some particulars from most of the rest of the Bundyites.

More crudely, they wanted to kill police because they wanted to kill police, and in their minds the militia anti-government movement gave them permission, and even made killing police a righteous and praiseworthy act. They weren’t being logical, no. But does anyone seriously think the crew in the desert pretending to be at war with the federal government got there because of logic?

This is why the “he did it because of mental illness” excuse for Elliot Rodger didn’t fly for me. Crazy is a continuum, and we’re all on that continuum. None of us are entirely rational. Everyone feels a violent impulse now and then. But except for those who are demonstrably psychotic, we are capable of choosing to not act on those impulses. And Rodger was not psychotic. His writing was ordered and organized, even if the ideas he expressed were outrageous. This means he was rational enough to choose to not do what he did, as were the Millers. They all knew perfectly well they were breaking laws. Had they lived, it’s enormously unlikely they would have gotten off on an insanity plea.

But what Rodger and the Millers had in common was that they had seduced themselves into believing that their impulses were righteous and justified. And this is where public rhetoric and hate-group subcultures really do get people killed. Within the misnamed “men’s rights” subculture, talk of violating and killing women meets with social approval. Women as a class are perceived as evil and dangerous; violence against women is therefore justified, even heroic. Likewise, the right-wing anti-government rhetoric permeating American society can make killing government officials seem justified, even if some are a little hazy about the distinction between state and federal government officials.

I don’t think extremist right-wingers are inherently more prone to violence than extremist left-wingers. But at this moment in American history, the “extremist” Left is the fringe of the fringe, and it is absent from mass media. I’m not even sure it has much in the way of an internet presence. The applicable political spectrum here goes from a liberal/progressive Left that is well within the mainstream of American political traditions to a Right that stretches deeply into the tin-foil-hat section of the Twilight Zone.

And while you can find individuals on the Left expressing violent impulses, on the Right it’s not just individuals; it’s major media personalities and politicians serving in high-level state and federal offices. It’s coming from positions of authority, in other words.

This is why public rhetoric has consequences (see, for example, Paul Waldman, “How much does right-wing rhetoric contribute to right-wing terrorism?“). We’ve been having this conversation since Columbine, and the hate-speakers on the Right simply refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for the ongoing right-wing domestic violence. I have no solution to this impasse. I fear it will have to get worse before it can get better.

But this is why splitting hairs over whether the Millers were truly “right-wing extremists” because they killed local cops instead of federal BLM agents is stupid.

I’m seeing the same misunderstanding among western “Buddhalogists” in academia. There is a faction of western religious studies professors who are combing through Buddhist doctrines to find the “cause” of the Buddhist violence against Muslims in Burma, and some other places. And they are “finding” it by misinterpreting scriptures and even projecting meaning into scriptures that just plain isn’t there; I walked through an example of this in My Book.

The plain fact is that the violence violates everything the Buddha taught. The impulse is not coming from Buddhist teachings, but from racism and jingoism, and it’s being fueled by political expedience. “Buddhism” is not just a religion to the majority in Burma; it’s part of their ethnic and national identity. And a faction of monks has been cranking out rhetoric that justifies violence as “defending Buddhism.” So in spite of what it teaches, Buddhism has become a symbolic permission slip for violence in Burma.

And weirdly, in America, “patriotism” has become a symbolic permission slip for sedition. Looking for logical reasons for this is a fool’s errand.

Share
10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. c u n d gulag  •  Jun 16, 2014 @2:02 pm

    “And while you can find individuals on the Left expressing violent impulses, on the Right it’s not just individuals; it’s major media personalities and politicians serving in high-level state and federal offices. It’s coming from positions of authority, in other words.”

    And there’s no one who loves and listens to people in positions of authority more than right-wing Conservatives.
    Authoritarian followers will blindly follow their Authoritarian leaders, anywhere.

    We lefties tend to question authority, not blindly follow it. We may follow it, or not. Or do so for awhile, before dropping out, depending on what’s happening.
    And I think that’s one of the most major differences between righties and lefties.

    OWS was almost a perfect example of this.
    Few if any figures of authority, but a lot of sharing and communication.

    Right-wingers could never conceive of something like OWS without some Rush, or Glenn, or Sean, or other Authoritarian media or political figure as the head.

  2. Mike G  •  Jun 16, 2014 @3:15 pm

    Corporate media Calvinball: No act of violence can be blamed on the right wing if the perpetrator has ANY political views or actions that are not considered part of the right wing.
    In the case of the Vegas shooters:
    Dozens of right-wing views and actions + a marijuana bust = not right wing.

  3. Some guy  •  Jun 16, 2014 @6:33 pm

    Rodger was not psychotic. His writing was ordered and organized, even if the ideas he expressed were outrageous. This means he was rational enough to choose to not do what he did, as were the Millers. They all knew perfectly well they were breaking laws.

    You could could say the same thing about Breivik, or McVeigh, or Hitler.

    The “normal” conscience is repelled by these killers and wants to think of them as “insane”. Which they are not.

    Maybe we need a new word for people who deliberately choose to believe crazy, hateful, dangerous shit… “Foxites”…?

  4. Swami  •  Jun 16, 2014 @7:23 pm

    Well, I’m not known for my heavy thinking, so when I see 2 police officers gunned down in an ambush and the Gadsden flag draped over their remains I have to assume that the message the killers are intending to send is that same message that was incorporated into the flags original design.. tyranny will be met with death. Evidently those policemen represented some form of tyranny in the killers mind. Or they wouldn’t have tied the symbol to the act. There’s no evidence to the contrary.
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

  5. maha  •  Jun 16, 2014 @7:46 pm

    You could could say the same thing about Breivik, or McVeigh, or Hitler.

    Yes. Even psychopaths can choose to behave themselves, at least if they decide it’s in their own best interest. The only time “mental illness” is an excuse is if the perpetrator is genuinely psychotic. I think most of the time people who are otherwise “normal” just get sucked down some ideological rabbit hole that gives them permission to act out their worst impulses.

  6. erinyes  •  Jun 16, 2014 @8:08 pm

    Indeed.

  7. MH  •  Jun 17, 2014 @11:18 am

    I think you’re being unfair to psychotics here. Psychosis affects your beliefs and perceptions of what’s going on around you, yes, but it’s not about impulse control. Someone experiencing psychosis may have violent impulses but they’re still just as capable of resisting them as anyone else. When they do commit acts of violence as a result of psychosis it’s because their illness is making them believe they’re in a context where that violence would be appropriate not because they can’t help themselves.

    I mean, if the CIA really was persecuting them and everyone around them was cooperating with it, and God actually did come down and tell them that it was absolutely necessary that they kill one of them then that wouldn’t necessarily be an unreasonable reaction. Psychosis is inherently irrational, yes, but it’s not the sort of thing that causes people to just snap unpredictably and fly into a violent rage in circumstances that other people would shrug off. Presenting it that way is the sort of thing that reinforces some of the stigma against mental illness.

  8. maha  •  Jun 17, 2014 @11:49 am

    Psychosis affects your beliefs and perceptions of what’s going on around you, yes, but it’s not about impulse control

    I didn’t say psychosis was about impulse control. Learn to read.

    When they do commit acts of violence as a result of psychosis it’s because their illness is making them believe they’re in a context where that violence would be appropriate …

    Yes, exactly, which is why every now and then the badly named “insanity plea” is appropriate. If a person is genuinely psychotic and does something violent because in their confused mental state they believed what they were doing was all right, then they really can’t be held accountable for it. What I wrote in the post is that EXCEPT FOR psychosis, “mental illness” is no excuse for violent behavior. The article is addressing the violent behavior of people who are NOT psychotic.

    Psychosis is inherently irrational, yes, but it’s not the sort of thing that causes people to just snap unpredictably and fly into a violent rage in circumstances that other people would shrug off. Presenting it that way is the sort of thing that reinforces some of the stigma against mental illness.

    And if I had written that I would be a really bad person, but I didn’t write that. Stop projecting and go get your self-righteousness fix somewhere else.

  9. MH  •  Jun 17, 2014 @12:04 pm

    Everyone feels a violent impulse now and then. But except for those who are demonstrably psychotic, we are capable of choosing to not act on those impulses.

  10. maha  •  Jun 17, 2014 @12:10 pm

    “Everyone feels a violent impulse now and then. But except for those who are demonstrably psychotic, we are capable of choosing to not act on those impulses.”

    OK, I can you how you could interpret the piece the way you interpreted it, but you’re still projecting.



    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me


















    Support This Site





    site design and daughterly goodness

    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile