Theses Attributable to Aristotle: introduction

March 30, 2021

Theses Attributable to Aristotle:  introduction

Lawgivers make the citizens good by inculcating good (habits) in them, and this is the aim of every lawgiver; if he does not succeed in doing that, his legislation is a failure.

—–Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, book II, chapter i, 1103b

            From the end of the 20th Century until now, I have seen a lot of division and confusion regarding our politics.  As a child I was largely oblivious to the existence or the end of legal segregation.  As a schoolchild I was part of the struggle over desegregation, and while I could observe the poverty of Black schools and desired that adults would fund all schools better, I was still a child and had little sense of involvement.  As I got older, I began to think more consciously about the relationship between myself and the nation I lived in, between the citizen and the state, the meanings of these terms and the mutual obligations entailed.  Without my quite being aware of it, these social questions that were affecting me, such as court-ordered bussing or draft registration, were parts of one larger question:  the relationship between the individual and the state. 

            Unknown to me at the time, the political parties were defining their different views on this question.  Race and the draft were the two issues that got people out in the streets when I was a child watching television.  We didn’t have as much discussion of things like “wealth gap” in those days, partly because it wasn’t nearly as big an issue; the wealth gap was a fraction of what it is now, and the middle class was strong and growing.  Both liberals and conservatives agreed that a citizen had a duty to vote, and devoted energy to train children to become citizens—-thought it is sadly ironic that there was still a lot of conflict and even violence over whether this citizens’ right and duty to vote should apply to nonwhites.

            My first introduction to philosophy was Walden, and I was particularly influenced by Thoreau’s essay “Economy.”  Thoreau presents his vision of human nature:  the ideal life is one close to Nature, eschewing luxuries, working enough to sustain life but little more, so as to allow ample leisure time for thought, writing and other pursuits to feed the mind and soul.  I don’t remember if I read his essay on civil disobedience at this time, but I still have the book I used and it includes that famous essay so I think I did.  Either way, I was already reading political philosophy at the age of thirteen, including critiques of consumerism and capitalism, representative versus radical democracy, and the general relationship of the individual to society.  Metaphysically and epistemologically, Thoreau is something of a mystic; the believed that God was literally in Nature and could be experienced directly by experiencing Nature, getting away from crowds and civilization.  In the woods, by his beloved pond, Truth gave itself directly to Thoreau.  In the bustle of society, in the ambition of politicians and the pressures to conform and in the strivings of empires, he found only falsehood and sin.

            I think the next major piece of political philosophy I picked up was Plato’s Republic.  Plato too is a mystic; Truth and The Good are transcendent reality, known directly by the mind open to receive them.  And also like Thoreau, Plato was something of an ascetic; he too thought luxuries and the pursuit of profit lead one into greater unhappiness and ignorance, while embracing simplicity in life allowed greater devotion to fullness of thought and spirit.  But whereas Thoreau politically was a cynic and almost an anarchist, Plato was anti-democratic, yearning for a Philosopher-King who would combine the philosophical insights of Athens with the rigid class distinctions and social discipline of Sparta.  In high school I didn’t really notice the disagreement, as I saw Plato’s republic as merely a thought-experiment expressing how reason should rule in the life of the individual; but as time has gone by I have come to see that Plato took this idea of enlightened monarchy seriously.  Plato is not an individualist; he yearned for a society with a wise division of labor, where those who were good thinkers did all the thinking and policy-making while those whose hearts turned towards business devoted themselves to producing and making money and left the running of society to the intellectual elite.  So while Thoreau is heir to Plato in many ways, politically he follows the example of Diogenes the Cynic, the fierce individualist, who rejected political partisanship and creature comforts alike in his pursuit of complete personal freedom. 

            Plato and Diogenes were both students of Socrates, but took different lessons from the teacher’s words and fate.  Which is best:  a well-ordered, stable society where everyone knows his or her place and strives to benefit the whole, or a society which is an aggregate of individuals, each striving to live out their own ideals and pursue their own happiness?  It seems to me that this is a conflict that occurs repeatedly in the history of thought, since it is intrinsic to the project of human social life in general.  China had Confucius and Chuang-Tzu; the Hellenistic Age had the Stoics and the Cynics; the Enlightenment had Hobbes and Locke; nineteenth-century America had the Capitalists and the Transcendentalists.  As societies grow beyond family-groups and clans, we’ve had to turn our brains to intentionally work out the relationship between the individual and the group, with some placing the emphasis on one and some on the other.  Does the individual exist to serve the group, and is the nature of the individual defined primarily as part of the group?  Or does the group exist to serve the individual’s needs, so that anything that does not nurture the individual is to be discarded?

            There’s been something of a resurgence of Aristotle in recent decades.  Alasdair MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum have been arguing for a return to virtue ethics, and a view of ethics as aiming for some sort of “good life,” some fulfillment of human nature.  On the other hand, political conservatives in the USA have promoted Aquinas and other Aristotelians, as well as Plato’s anti-democratic republicanism, not so much from any intellectual consideration as because they see both Plato and Aristotle as useful cudgels in their ideological war against “liberals.”  I’ve taught Aristotle as part of my Ethics classes for years, but only recently have I become interested in his political philosophy.  I believe he has much to say, and much that would defy the easy liberal-versus-conservative polarities we seem to love so much today.

            Aristotle’s Politics picks up about where Nicomachean Ethics leaves off. Aristotle’s ethics rests on his view that humans are rational animals, and thus not only have needs for basic essentials for life and desires for pleasant sensations while avoiding misery, but more essentially they need to live lives “guided by reason, or not apart from reason.”[1]  To attain this sort of life, one must cultivate habits that contribute to it; these are the virtues.  By contrast, habits that lead away from true human fulfillment (or “eudaimonia,” often translated “happiness”) are termed “vices.”  For Aristotle, the ethical life is a matter of cultivating virtues by acting virtuously, reinforcing those beneficial habits while avoiding acts that would tend towards vices.[2]  And in support of his linkage between morality, character and habit, Aristotle mentions that states themselves often employ legal codes that will shape the character of their citizens by using rewards and punishments to encourage good habits while discouraging bad ones.  For instance, we ourselves seek to be properly brave, neither too reckless nor cowardly, because if we are wise we know that hitting the virtue defined as the proper midpoint between these extreme vices will lead to our own true happiness; and societies seek to encourage bravery, industriousness and other virtues in citizens as a whole for the wellbeing of the community, so they use laws and other social pressures to encourage each individual to become a better person.  Aristotle would say that in doing so, the society is pushing the individual to become not just more socially useful, but also more personally happy.

            So even in his exploration of personal ethics and personal happiness, Aristotle sees an important role for the State.  This certainly distinguishes him from some ethical schools which have been important in American history, such as Transcendentalism; and it distinguishes him from some successors to Socrates, such as the Cynics and the Epicureans.  Today’s successors to Aristotle will likewise be less individualistic, but also concerned about the ultimate fulfillment of the individual; Aristotelians will not sacrifice the individual to the State as a Hobbesian would, since the individual’s happiness is the goal of the individual’s own activity.  Also unlike Hobbes, an Aristotelian will stress the character development of the individual, and stress the importance of cultivating the virtues.  Because of Aristotle’s view of the importance of both the individual and the group, it was natural that he would write both personal ethics and political philosophy, and base the second on the first. 

To be continued…..


[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, book I, 1097b22–1098a20

[2] Nicomachean Ethics, book II

Of Blood and Bullshit

January 14, 2021

Of Blood and Bullshit

            I am particularly interested by the fact that the Capitol Hill insurrectionists imagine themselves to be patriots.  One rioter was allegedly heard sobbing, “They’re shooting at us. They’re supposed to shoot BLM, but they’re shooting the patriots.”  Never mind that BLM never stormed the Capitol, that when rioters did attempt to storm government buildings they were met with far more force than the Capitol Hill insurrectionists faced, that BLM or Antifa never posed an existential threat to the nation, sought to overturn the normal functioning of the nation, or planned to seize and execute government officials, as the white supremacist rebels did.  It is a strange riot, a curious rebellion that, without a trace of irony, expresses outrage that its use of force is met with force.  They think they’re the heroes, that they’re the only patriots, that they are saving America. They expected the police to join them, the American people to either greet them as liberators or to slink away cowed, and Donald Trump to march up to the Capitol and reveal how their storming the enemy citadel would now insure his continued benevolent and completely successful reign for at least another four years.  Why?

            As Harry Frankfurt describes in his 1982 essay On Bullshit, there are lies, truth, and then this other sort of verbal action that is neither.  A truth-speaker says what the speaker believes to be true.   A liar finds the truth inconvenient, and instead speaks what the liar believes to be false.  And then there’s the bullshitter.  The bullshitter doesn’t care and often does not even know what is true.  Bullshit is disconnected from the entire true/false dichotomy.  The bullshitter is engaged with some other sort of activity.  Maybe it’s to impress or amuse (the “fish that got away” stories).  Maybe it’s advertising (“cats ask for it by name”).  Maybe it’s to win election (“My opponent is a socialist like they have in Venezuela who will destroy this country”), or to puff up one’s own ego or motivate one’s voters (“The only way I could lose this election is if it rigged”).  Whether the statement is true may not matter at all to the speaker; what matters is the reaction of the receiver.  The bullshitter seeks to manipulate rather than inform. 

            When everyone is sort of in on the joke, it doesn’t matter and, in fact, the BS might even be beneficial.  Imagine a coworker or friend who was always serious, who never exaggerated or speculated or dreamt; that would be pretty boring.  But if the hearer or reader mistakes BS for actual factual claims, then that receiver is deceived.

            Example:  “We’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it!”  When DT said that, everyone knew it wasn’t going to happen.  Many of his supporters on TV and elsewhere actually mocked “liberals” for treating it as a factual promise.  They said, “Liberals take Trump literally but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously——but not literally.”  Everyone knew and at least tacitly admitted that this was bullshit, but his supporters felt it was an honest expression of their desires and values.  But later, the line between bullshit and lying became blurred, as more and more people believed it was promise, a true statement of intentions with a realistic chance of fulfillment, when in fact it was never going to happen.           

            The “fraud” claims seem to be people believing the bullshit.  It was never impossible for Trump to lose a free and fair election.  As the COVID-19 response (largely another exercise in bullshit, or in DT;s terms “cheerleading” for the nation and “being positive” rather than being providing facts and warnings) faltered, losing became more likely.  But his followers took it as a statement of fact; he can’t lose, so if he does then someone cheated.

            As to DT himself, his “power of positive thinking” approach is that if he says it and convinces himself, it will happen.  So he inevitably believes his own bullshit.  He says what will please his audience (pure bullshit, since he neither knows nor cares whether what he says is true when he is saying it).  Then, since he said it, he is convinced that if he doubles-down, it will happen, whether “it” is a business making money for his investors, a loan being repaid, or a disease disappearing as if by a miracle.  He even argued in court, when suing Forbes for allegedly understating his wealth, that he is worth as much or as little as he feels on any given day; if he feels like he’s worth 10 billion he is, but if later he feels like he’s worth only 1 billion then now he’s only worth that.  So when he’s talking to banks about getting a loan and he feels like he’s worth 10 billion, he’s not lying; but if he’s talking to the IRS and feels like he’s about to go broke, that’s not fraud either.  Whatever he says, lo, it is so.

            At this point, what was probably somewhat self-aware bullshit has become full-blown self-deception.  Donald Trump long ago took Norman Vincent Peale’s philosophy to its illogical conclusion, that if he told himself something and kept positive then the world would conform to his wishes.  As he told others he couldn’t lose, he was telling himself that as well.  As the flatterers told him he couldn’t lose, he believed them; as the true believers sought to motivate themselves and others with an upbeat message, he believed them; and soon his world was echoing that message.  As to his followers, the collection of QAnon cultists, white supremacists and other far-right ideologues that swarmed into the Capitol, all the evidence and their public statements show that they too believe the bullshit.  They are not tethered to the rules of evidence or logic that restrict so many of us, but allow their minds to run free across fantastic battlefields, trampling the bodies of their enemies.  They are the Powerful, Righteous and Knowing, while those who spent their lives learning and serving are the Weak, sheeple who follow “experts” and “recognized authorities” and “science.”   But they are not sheeple; they are too smart to be deceived by people with years of research and years of public service holding them back.  Instead, they are bold and clever enough —- to believe absolutely everything they are told by The Strong Man, The Big Man, Donald Trump, whose many failures in business are never his fault, whose many divergences from reality only reveal his hidden knowledge and his subtle strategy, and whose very excesses and boorishness show that he is One Of Us even though he has lived his entire life literally isolated in a golden tower and has repeatedly stated his “racehorse theory” that he and his family are genetically superior to everyone except other authoritarian billionaires. 

That is why the putsch failed, this time.  As Harry Frankfurt said in On Truth, a society needs truth; not necessarily Eternal Truth, but practical, pragmatic truths, facts about reality and realistic plans given the limitations of reality.  You just can’t do anything unless you know what’s real and what’s reasonably plausible, what needs to be done and what you can do.  The Capitol Hill insurrection was a case of thousands of people believing the bullshit and acting on it.  The factual claims are nonsense; they’ve been refuted in over sixty court cases.  This election literally has been litigated and relitigated dozens of times, and the result is always the same.  At some point, any reasonable person has to accept reality.  But people who believe the bullshit have chosen to reject the rules of evidence and reason that they would apply to any other part of their lives.  The positive spin of Candidate Trump, engaging in a little harmless, standard trumpery that “we’re going to win this election,” metastasized into something more dangerous; from a little harmless bullshit to a major shitstorm.  Then, the bullshit that somehow storming the Capitol would “save democracy” by handing Trump the victory led them to a stupid and dangerous course of action.  There never was a realistic plan; there were just fantasies of revenge and victory.  The terrorists who attempted to kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan have since argued that they were never really serious; it was all just bullshit, guys being guys and talking big among themselves about how they’d like to “get” that authority they hated.  The Capitol Hill thugs were, in some cases, apparently doing the same thing:  bullshitting among themselves, then showing up for a rally to feel good, then following the crowd into the building, but with no realistic plan as to how this was all supposed to work or how it would accomplish anything good.  In fact, investigative reports state that they just assumed that at some point Donald Trump would stride onto the scene and tell them what to do next, set wrongs to right and win the day; while instead he was simply sitting in the White House watching on television, enjoying the chaos and the adulation of himself without any solid plan to give any orders beyond blocking law enforcement from getting any reinforcements from the Pentagon.  So once Pence, Congress and the physical Electoral College ballots escaped, the insurrectionists had nothing to do but wander around, loot and vandalize, post selfies and boast on social media, then leave.  Their delusional state is fully displayed in the fact that even after every member of Congress escaped and thus there was no way Joe Biden’s victory would not be certified, they still thought they’d won, that they were the heroes, and that the only future problems they might face were where they would display their Medal of Freedom.

And because they believed the bullshit handed them by Trump, Cruz, Giuliani, Hawley, Gaetz and other opportunistic politicians looking to gain popularity, people died, people were seriously injured, tax money that could have been used to defend the nation or fight the pandemic will be spent on cleaning up the mess, and many, many people who think of themselves as patriots are facing the real possibility of lengthy prison terms. 

The insurrection of January 6, 2021 is the natural culmination of a political party drowning in bullshit, incapable of engaging with reality in any meaningful way, incapable of solving real problems but well capable of creating them, only solving bullshit problems.  For three years the Bullshitter-in-Chief, DJ Trump, built walls to stop nonexistent caravans, subsidized farmers hurt by his trade war sparked by his misunderstanding of trade deficits, sabotaged the nation’s most reliable alliances through his incapacity to recognize a good deal when he got one while selling out to enemies because he can’t recognize a con, avoided prosecution only because he was President and then thought that meant he wasn’t a criminal who would land in jail the second he was no longer President so he continued adding to his future legal troubles, and finally got himself impeached for a petty shakedown of an allied nation and was again only saved by rank partisanship—-which his bullshit-addled brain turned into a pronouncement of innocence, leading him to repeat all his past mistakes.  He demands a favor in exchange for doing his job, then says it’s not a “quid pro quo” because he said “no quid pro quo;” I want a favor for a favor but don’t call it a “quid pro quo” and then it isn’t one.  That sort of evasion of clear meaning and clear logic is the hallmark of bullshit.  For three years, a reality TV star who’s production crew largely says was playing a part they created has confused his television role with real life, and further confused the selfishness of a family business conning marks with public service to better a nation, and bullshitted his way through. 

But as they say, “money talks; bullshit walks.”  Or as the pragmatic philosopher William James said, truth is what has “cash value.”  Truth is what works, what gets things done.  What works in the long run is what is true in the practical sense.  To update and expand on James a bit, bullshit may work in the short run, but ultimately it fails.  It can’t solve problems; it can only distract from them.  Bullshit, after all, isn’t even engaged with reality; it is oblivious to truth and thus oblivious to the real problems.  When COVID-19 hit, this political party could only respond one way:  bullshitting.  They covered it up, obfuscated, tried to build a wall which was as useless as the other wall they’d built, issued contradictory directions to states and other regional authorities and then told them they were on their own so they could hide behind the confusion they’d caused, all the while lining their own pockets by investing in stocks that would do well when the dam broke.  Which it did.  The President has said he deliberately downplayed the pandemic because he likes to be positive, rather than deal with reality.  His son-in-law and nominal head of the pandemic response has said they intentionally gave contradictory directives.  All this bullshit naturally made things even worse.  At the same time, the Bullshit President encouraged well-armed, poorly-educated paramilitary loyalists to blame the people trying to carry out those directives for all their real and imagined problems.  They prepared to and, in some cases, even killed others to defend their imagined rights against imagined threats, while all the time their real problems go worse.

The bullshit was walking, walking away rather than solving problems.  And finally, the problems became DJ Trump’s problems.  The pandemic he’d ignored and bullshitted was destroying the economic recovery he’d been left by his predecessor like a squandered inheritance wasted on a foolish prodigal son too vain to repent.  Hundreds of thousands of people were dead, millions more sick and unable to work, many crippled for life..  And people who were tired of the ineffective bullshit were looking to his opponent for real answers to their real questions.  But the Republican party, its information machines and candidates and operatives and paramilitaries and wealthy donors alike, are unable to produce real answers; instead they doubled-down on the bullshit.  They started screaming about fraud and undermining democracy itself even before the voting had begun, preparing to reject any result they didn’t like no matter how clear-cut.  And the ones with the guns and the lack of information or critical judgment, the poorly-educated paramilitary militias with their conspiracy theories and bullshit dreams of racial superiority, believed the bullshit.  They launched an insurrection, which has not yet ended, to try to overthrow the freely elected government of their nation based on the bullshit assertion that it was not elected.  They pursued strategies and tactics which could not possibly achieve the goals they wanted, because bullshit knows neither facts nor logic.  The bullshitters who had encouraged them in their delusions were shocked, shocked that anyone would act to save the democracy which the bullshitters had said was being destroyed, by trying to destroy the actual democracy and kill the actual elected representatives of the actual majority of voters.  Then the bullshitters do what bullshitters do:  they tried to bullshit their way out of the problem as they saw it.  This is a public relations nightmare for Republicans; someone believed their bullshit and created real-world problems while the Republican Party was engrossed in solving phony problems only.  So they made fact-free assertions, before anyone could possibly have any facts at all, that Antifa and BLM had been behind the insurrection.  Because that is what bullshitters do:  they bullshit.  They say whatever will help in the moment, and since they are unconcerned for truth they can speak instantly without having to wait for information.  They say, “I want no violence,” the same way they say “No quid pro quo”—-I want you to do this but I want legal cover so I’ll use words that contradict my clearly expressed desires.

In the meantime, the terrorist rebellion they’d incited with their bullshit, and which they continue to incite by sticking with their bullshit claims of fraud and their bullshit endorsement of racists and paranoids, of Proud Boys and QAnon, was left angered and hate-filled (since bullshit is great at stirring up passions) but without any clear direction or realistic goals (since that would require engagement with reality).  They may do a lot of damage; they are plotting mass murder, and no one really knows who will act on those plans and who is just bullshitting.  But they have no real strategy, no actual idea what winning or losing would look like, and absolutely no idea what they would do if they won or how they would solve the nation’s problems.  They only have their bullshit-fueled rage and bullshit-fueled dreams, dreams of vengeance and power and the magical end of all their problems.  And while their bullshit machines at FOX News and talk radio and the internet produce more bullshit, and their voter base drowns in bullshit and loses all sense of reality, the Republican leaders are incapable of offering useful ideas to solve the very real problems of the pandemic, of racial justice, of a floundering economy, and of a growing white nationalist insurgency.  They can only bullshit and hope that somehow the problems go away.

The bullshit has led to bloodshed, and likely will lead to more.  The bullshitters encourage and incite and protect the bloodshed, even as they denounce it.  They cannot do otherwise at this point; it would take too much self-awareness to change course.  They believe their own bullshit, or else simply cannot conceive of any alternative to bullshitting.  Pirro and Hannity and Jones and Dobbs and the rest cannot simply come out and start dropping truth, even if they know it; they’d lose their bullshit-addicted audience without gaining any new one from those truth-lovers, and thus lose all their power.  The demagogues like Hawley and Cruz and Gaetz are in the same fix; they have power over the bullshit mob only as long as they provide more bullshit, and will be cast aside in a second if they deviate from the established party line and thus lose any influence to stop the madness they started.  So the power in the Republican Party today can only be used to stop the solution of problems and to create new ones; it is incapable of being redirected to solve real problems since it is disengaged from reality.  The only real solution is for the nation to disengage from the Republican Party.  Some new, more pragmatic center-right party will emerge to fill the void, eventually; but until then there are only two sides to American politics:  the party that attempts to engage with real problems in the real world and looks for real solutions even if sometimes it misses, versus the party that attempts to avoid reality, that ignores truth, and which if it ever finds a real solution it is only like the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut buried under a pile of bullshit. 

What the Right Gets Wrong: about Idolatry

January 4, 2021

What the Right Gets Wrong:  about Idolatry

I the Lord your God am a jealous God

—-Exodus 20:2

            What is “idolatry”?  The Religious Right would say that such things as Santeria and Voodoo are idolatrous.  They combine Christian and non-Christian religious practices into one religion.  In the case of Santeria, more common in my native Florida, they sometimes quite explicitly rename and rebaptize the orisha of Yoruba sorcery as Catholic saints.  Although in the days of slavery there was an attempt to make the religion seem Christian to outsiders, its emphasis on animal sacrifice, spirit possession and other traditional African practices show that it is far different from the Catholicism of the Cuban plantation owners and masters. 

            Many in the Religious Right consider Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be idolatrous as well.  Both religions use images of Christ and the saints in worship, and Catholicism in particular has a strong emphasis on the saints as intermediaries who can receive prayers, intercede with God on behalf of the faithful, and even perform miracles to aid those who call on them.  All of this is abhorrent to Evangelical Protestants, and as a child I was often warned to be wary of those idolatrous Catholics.  Today however the Religious Right includes both Catholic and Protestant and they often set aside their theological differences in favor of political cooperation.

            Catholics and Orthodox, and maybe some followers of Voodoo and Santeria, would say that these saints or spirits are lesser beings than the Creator, even servants, and therefore it is no disloyalty to the Creator to pray to them.  Fundamentalist Protestants, on the other hand, reject all this imagery and iconography and ritual and prayer to intercessory powers, saying they are violations of the majesty of the One God.  God will surely smite such false worship, for the LORD is a jealous God.

            But many of the largest, richest Protestant churches, and the most powerful and celebrated preachers, are themselves idolaters.  The foremost example in the 20th Century was the Christian Nationalists.  In the 1930s a particularly odious example arose, the “German Christians.”  They sought to combine their primarily Lutheran heritage with the militarism and nationalism of Adolf Hitler. To them, any church that dissented from the rising political regime of the Nazi party was not only threatening the unity of the nation; it was rebelling against God, who established all nations and leaders and had chosen their nation to dominate all others as the foundation for the new Kingdom of God, the Holy Roman Empire reborn.  Not all Christians agreed with this mixing of nationalism and Christianity, however, and in 1934 a gathering of Reformed, Lutheran and United church leaders met in Barmen, Germany, where they approved and issued The Theological Declaration of Barmen.  Relying explicitly on Scripture for each of its main points, it argued that not only was this Christian nationalism theologically wrong, but that it was heresy.  In seeking to give the Church explicit political power, and in seeking greater union between Church and State, the German Christians were actually demoting the Church and turning it into an organ of the State (Barmen Declaration II, 5).  The Church should obey the Gospel alone, and not be swayed by allegiance to political movements (Barmen II, 3).  The declaration culminates with the final anathema, “We reject the false doctrine, as though the church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans” (Barmen II, 6).  While the German Christians argued that the Nazi state was a Christian nation and thus the protector of the Church, those now known as the Confessing Churches argued that this pretense really meant replacing Jesus with the State as the center of concern.  The Church was being seen and being used as a means to an end, that end being the unity and strength of the State, and in particular the strength of the ruling political authorities of the State. 

            The Religious Right would say that this happened in a foreign land; while those Europeans were easily deceived, the United States is a blessed nation, a Shining City on a Hill, and could never be lured into idolatry.  Or, they might go further and say the Germans were corrupted because they were socialists; after all, Socialism is right there in the name “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”  Sure, they fought Communists, first on the streets of Germany and then across Europe; but really they were Socialists just like Stalin and Hugo Chavez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  all Socialists, all exactly the same.  The Religious Right, on the other hand, are all Capitalists and thus love Freedom and are Good and Right—again, it’s there in the name “Right Wing.” 

            And because they are capitalists and capitalism is Good, many of them embrace a theology known as “The Prosperity Gospel.”  According to this theology, which has roots in the “power of positive thinking” of Norman Vincent Peale and more recently in such preachers as Jim Bakker, God wants all the faithful followers of his son Jesus to have “every good and perfect gift” (James 1:17).  Whatever you ask for, if you believe, you will receive (Matthew 7:7; Mark 11:24).  And so on, and never mind where the Bible hints that these are spiritual blessings (Luke 11:13); God knows you want nice clothes and a minivan and a good job and early retirement and three square meals plus a day, and God is good and wants you to have whatever you ask.  So just believe in God and Jesus, as the preacher tells you and describes them, and you will get all the worldly goodies you desire.  Believe in God and Jesus SO THAT you can get all the worldly goodies.  In the Prosperity Gospel, in the version of Christianity taught by chair of the spiritual advisory board serving Donald Trump, God and Jesus are there waiting for you to show up with your spiritual ATM card to withdraw cold, hard cash to buy everything you desire; or, if your credit runs out, it’s because you didn’t believe hard enough or obey your preacher closely enough.  Just as your worldly job is a means to an end, that end being your paycheck, so too does the Prosperity Gospel proclaim that if you work for God, He will give you an even bigger paycheck, and all this faith is the means by which you can attain worldly prosperity. 

            In Catholicism, we pray to the saints and to the Virgin Mother, who prays to the Father for us, who saves us from our sins, and that is called “idolatry” by the Evangelical Protestants.  In Evangelical Protestantism you pray directly to the Father through Jesus, and the Father will give you miracles and magic and fulfill your wishes for comfort and profit and even for power over others, and somehow that isn’t idolatry?  One prays to something that is not God to reach what is God; the other prays to God like a letter to Santa, making God the tool and prosperity the goal.  But of course, that’s Capitalism and therefore Good and therefore holy.  Right?

            No!  Idolatry is not whether you have an empty cross or one with the crucified Christ.  It is not whether you have no pictures in your church, or only pictures of Jesus, or pictures of all the saints.  Idolatry is when you make the ultimate reality, God, a tool of your own tiny ambitions.  As Kierkegaard put it:

If someone who lives in the midst of Christianity enters, with knowledge of the true idea of God, the house of God, the house of the true God, and prays, but prays in untruth, and if someone lives in an idolatrous land but prays with all the passion of infinity, although his eyes rest upon the image of an idol—where, then, is there more truth?  The one prays in truth to God although he is worshipping an idol; the other prays in untruth to the true God and is therefore in truth worshipping an idol.[1]

            Idolatry is, in a way, the natural default for the human-deity relationship.  It is the childish (in Kierkegaard’s terms, “esthetic”) understanding.  God is to be understood and used; God acts and thinks just like us, and can be flattered like us, grows cross like us, kicks ass like we imagine we would do if we were gods, and showers money, political control, fame, military might and everything else we imagine as “good” on those who please Him.  And since most of us live in a patriarchal culture, we imagine God as an older, rather stern male ruler.  We want, as Kierkegaard said, a direct relationship to God, one that is straightforward, where we know the rules and know how to work the rules to get what we want, like a teenager who knows that if he or she just gets good grades and isn’t arrested for drinking then Dad will give them a car next birthday.  What we don’t want is what Kierkegaard says is true worship:  to love God, to know that God is beyond all comprehension, to orient all one’s own personal ambitions and values around that idea of being utterly transparent in the presence of God, who wants to be in that relationship despite the fact that literally nothing one could do could possibly “earn” one a spot in Heaven.     The Prosperity Gospel is not “gospel” at all, in any meaningful sense.  It is not “gospel” in the sense of being a message about Jesus, who said that if you follow his way you’ll end up like him, serving God and loving unconditionally, with no place to lay your head, carrying your cross.  It is not “good news,” but just the old “works righteousness,” the old magical thinking, the old drudgery, where you do everything to try to follow the rules laid down by your taskmaster the preacher in the name of the boss in Heaven and, if you’re good, you’ll get a raise and maybe even a Christmas bonus.  And in the sense that we use “gospel” to mean “truth,” it is most assuredly not gospel.  It is just a way to make the rich comfortable since they can measure their virtue the way we measure our value to the company by our paycheck; and it is a way to humiliate the poor in the same way, while pacifying them that if they just obey their human taskmasters who claim to speak in God’s name, they too can earn a promotion.  It is idolatry, pure and simple. 

            The truth be told, however, idolatry is not confined to the so-called “Prosperity Gospel.”  It is central to the entire so-called “Religious Right.”[2]  Jerry Falwell Sr. described the USA as the last bastion for Christian mission and for worldwide evangelism.[3]  Without the United States, God would have no earthly basis for spreading the Gospel or for any of the other missions to feed the poor, bring medicine and other good works done by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Thus it is the duty of every Christian to support the U.S. military and American efforts to fight Communism everywhere.  While God may be able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here (Matthew 3:9) apparently God needs the U.S. Army, Navy and all the rest to guard and spread His kingdom.  And in exchange for doing the good work of God, God will give the U.S. security and prosperity.  What hubris!  No longer are Christians to regard themselves as mere unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10); instead we can expect a payoff in this life.  If the U.S. government fights legalize marijuana, fights pornography, upholds traditional heterosexual marriage and enforces other purity and behavioral laws, it can expect God’s blessing.  However, doing that stuff Jesus talked so much about—-feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and so on (Matthew 25:31-46; see also Amos chapters 1-8, Micah 3, Isaiah 3:14, Isaiah 5:8, Ezekiel 18:5-9, Luke 16:19-31, and the Epistle of James)—that would be too expensive, that would be “socialism” and take away from spending on the all-important military, and would reduce the poor person’s dependence upon the churches and thus might reduce their control.  What hubris!  What arrogance!  The Jesus who tells his followers to put away their swords, and assures them that he could call upon twelve legions of angels (Matthew 26:52-53), but who tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36) needs the USA to carry out his purposes; and the God who could do all this needs the nation so much that He is willing to bargain with its leaders that if they’ll enforce this strict moral code (much of which is nowhere in the Bible) while leaving the private sector to decide whether or how to care for the poor (though the prophets said rulers would be judged by how the poor were treated) then God will provide worldly success and prosperity to the nation.  This is little more than the Prosperity Gospel for nations instead of for individuals; and it is just as idolatrous. 

            We don’t have to take my word, or Niebuhr’s word for the claim that nationalism is a form of idolatry, a betrayal of true and faithful religion.  The prophet Jeremiah dealt with much the same thing, in the final days of the kingdom of Judah (Jer. 7).  His book, which seems to have been dictated by him directly to his scribe Baruch, describes the sins of the rich and powerful as they plotted and blundered their way to destruction by the Babylonian army.  There was plenty of straight-up idolatry, the sort that literalists denounce, with people praying to the Baals even at shrines set up in the temple of YHWH.  But along with this, Jeremiah condemns as equally bad the social sins, such as oppressing the resident immigrant and the poor, stealing, perjury, and adultery.  But the people who did these things felt safe and had no desire to repent, because the temple of YHWH was there in the city and God needed that temple, the last one left after the ravages of the Assyrian and Babylonian armies.  Speaking to the faithful church-goers, the people entering the Temple to worship the true God, Jeremiah says, “Do not trust in these deceptive words:  ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’” (Jer. 7:4).  Only if you repent of your sins, Jeremiah tells them, can you or the nation be saved.  But they did not repent, either of their crimes against the poor or of their combining of worship of YHWH with foreign deities.  And in the end, God allowed the city called by God’s name, the throne of David, and the Temple built by Solomon to honor the one true God to be destroyed—undoubtedly to the astonishment of those firm believers in Israelite exceptionalism, convinced as they were that God needed them and their nation and that thus they could bargain with God.  They were sure that if they agreed to offer sacrifices in the Temple then the LORD would simply look the other way while they robbed and oppressed the poor.  And as the prophet Amos made clear, it is not just the one who breaks the law to rob the poor who will be punished; even the powerful ones who creates unjust laws and profit from them are damned (Amos 2:8). 

            The one who denies food to the poor, or beats up a gay person, or imprisons an immigrant, or despises a different race, or burns down a mosque so that God will see and be pleased and reward them is exactly the same spirit as the one who cuts out a child’s heart as a gift to some god or demon so the sun will come up and the crops be plentiful.  It is human sacrifice, nothing more:  I will sacrifice this other person’s liberty, dignity, even their life so that some powerful spirit being will grant me power and success.  Falwell’s claim that feeding the hungry is a sin if done by a governmental agency but a virtue when done by individuals or churches is, at best, nonsense:  what else is the government for, except to carry out large-scale projects that many people need but that no one individual can achieve alone?  More likely it is not so much confusion and nonsense as it is that old-fashioned sinful evasion of God’s will, pronouncing human precepts as the divine will (Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:6-8, among others).  It is wrong, Falwell says, to allow a government to do God’s work of justice and care; it is holy to stop the government and leave it to your own will—if you decide to get around to it.  This is idolatry in its purest meaning:  self-worship.  The true worship of the true God is much harder and more troubling:  to care for those God cares for, the poor, the immigrant, the one without family to help (Psalm 146:9, James 1:27 etc.); and to do it knowing that no matter how much you give, it does not earn you anything extra (Matthew 20:1-16) since everything you have was a gift from the start. 


[1] Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, v. 1; edited and translated, with introduction and notes by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1992) p. 201

[2] For a more detailed yet accessible discussion of this, see James Comey, “Reinhold Niebuhr and Jerry Falwell:  the Christian in Politics;” https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/1116/ (The College of William and Mary, 1982), pp. 78-115

[3] Comey, p. 60

GOP Politics Are Killing Wisconsin Democracy, and Wisconsinites—and they’re coming for you!

October 12, 2020

GOP Politics Are Killing Wisconsin Democracy, and Wisconsinites—and they’re coming for you!

“Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort.”

—–Amartya Sen

            U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the states as “laboratories of democracy.”  In our federal system of government, the states have considerable autonomy from the national government, and can implement many policies as chosen by their own voters and governments .  If something works at the state level, the nation may well implement it later; if it fails, the state can reverse course more quickly while the nation avoids the misstep in the first place.  In this analogy, Wisconsin’s health system is the frog in Ang Lee’s Hulk

            For decades, the Republican Party of the United States of America has expressed deep misgivings about democracy, and has sought to both legally restrict the ability of citizens to vote and to more informally discourage the majority of people from even trying.  The more informal, or even illegal methods they have adopted have included intimidation by “poll watchers” to threaten and harass legal voters, stealing absentee ballots in North Carolina, repeatedly purging voter rolls of thousands of legal citizen voters who live in primarily Democratic areas, and so on.  In Wisconsin, the GOP is carrying out its grandest experiment yet.  In 2010 they gerrymandered the state so thoroughly that even though 53% of Wisconsinites voted for the Democratic Party, 64% of the seats in the state legislature went to Republicans.  Democracy, rule of the people and by the people and for the people, is dead in Wisconsin, at least on the state level.  Instead, they have minority rule.  Republican politicians even admit that they are not representing the majority and see no need to do so; they only want to enact the desires of the “conservative voters” who sent them.  The disproportionately white, rural, and less educated minority will dictate to the more diverse, more urbanized and more educated majority, with little knowledge of or interest in the needs of the majority of the citizens. 

            Wisconsin has thus become the laboratory for the grandest experiment in democracy possible:  what happens when you abolish democracy?  What happens when you take the national priorities and policies of the Republican party, to reduce voter participation and weaken democracy itself in order to defeat the Democrats, and carry them out more ruthlessly than has been possible previously?  There are many states where the Republican party gerrymandered themselves an overwhelming majority in the legislature when the electorate was in fact only marginally Republican in the 2010 reapportionment period, but Wisconsin locked in not just a dilution of the will of the people, but its utter subversion.  We get to see what would happen across the nation if other states, and the nation as a whole, follow Wisconsin’s example and allow Republicans to replace functional democracy with the sort of “managed democracy” employed by Putin and other 21st century autocrats.  And the result of that experiment has been a disaster, not just for Wisconsin but the nation as a whole.

            Wisconsin has had the worst response to the COVID-19 pandemic of any state in the nation.  To be more accurate, they have had no state-wide response at all.  The only actions by the Wisconsin state legislature and Republican-dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court have been to block any attempt by the Democratic governor to implement common-sense policies such as those enacted by neighboring states.  The state legislature seized control of the state’s pandemic response, and then basically shut down.  As a result, Wisconsin’s coronavirus numbers are climbing higher and faster than anywhere else.  Wisconsinites are sickened, some injured for life, and others dying because the Wisconsin Republican Party cares more about scoring political points over the governor than they do about actually governing the state.  They grabbed the wheel, popped open a beer to celebrate, and promptly passed out and let the car careen over a cliff.

            None of this should have surprised anyone.  It was all explained by the Nobel-prize winning work of Amartya Sen decades ago.  At a time when many economists were looking towards centrally-controlled markets like China and the USSR as the way of the future, Dr. Sen’s research showed how political structure, more than GDP alone, could foster the well-being of citizens.  His study of the Bengal famine of 1943 showed that the problem was not food production.  There was enough food, but the poor couldn’t afford it.  The colonial government could have helped them, but chose not to; they were appointed by the British Empire and were answerable to the Crown, not the Indian people.  Even when cultures and GDP were similar, as in Costa Rica and Brazil in the 1970s, life expectancies could vary by ten years or more; in Costa Rica the government was answerable to the people, while Brazil at that time was ruled by a military junta.  In a functional democracy, the government must keep the people’s support, and must listen to them quickly when their bellies grumble.  Colonial powers, military strongmen or other oppressors are generally deaf to the cries of the suffering; they have other priorities.  So while other economists were looking at the Chinese Communist regime with the hope that the country’s rising GDP would lead to greater freedom and a more humane government, Sen argued (and had the statistics to back up his claim) that this was backwards; democracy in fact drives economic development, and has other benefits for the citizens even beyond material prosperity, which leads to health, the elimination of widespread hunger, and so on. 

            When the Republican Party in Wisconsin turned its back on democracy, it likewise turned away from sound government that responds to the needs of the citizens.  Instead, it became a mechanism for the rural minority to rule over the majority.  Since epidemics hit urban areas first and filter into rural, less populated areas more slowly, the Republican base didn’t see any need to address the coronavirus pandemic.  The suffering it caused was far from their farms, and the people who were infected were strangers to them even though they were fellow Wisconsinites.  As the GOP politicians themselves said, they weren’t there to represent or worry about all Wisconsinites or even about the majority of them; they were only elected to serve the interests and desires of their conservative base.  This meant out-of-state billionaires like the Koch brothers, and the social conservatives who see the more liberal, educated and diverse populations of the cities as cultural enemies and intellectual contagion.   Better to keep their moral and mental purity, and let the virus finish off their opponents for them.  Just as drug use was only treated as a public health problem when opioids ravaged the white rural and non-college educated base of the GOP, so too COVID-19 was treated as a problem of the corrupt Democrat cities, and the Wisconsin state legislature is perfectly pleased to let the virus ravage people who didn’t vote for them in the first place.  It’s callous, short-sighted, even stupid, but it’s also perfectly natural, a pattern repeated across the globe and throughout history.  The more democratic a government, the stronger its commitment to free and fair elections, widening access to the ballot box, to rule of law and fighting corruption, to free markets not dominated by either excess regulation or to monopolies and cronyism, and to a free press keeping the people informed, the better its response to crises affecting the people. 

            The GOP Wisconsin experiment in extreme gerrymandering, voter suppression and pandering to billionaire donors and populist ressentiment has led to the result which even a passing understanding of political and economic philosophy predicted:  a government with no interest in actually governing, no motivation to take notice of the needs of the people it governs, with disastrous impact on the health and life expectancy of the people.  In the name of economic prosperity, the GOP rejected one of the primary drivers for true prosperity, namely democracy, and now the Wisconsin economy is hamstrung by the sickening of its consumers and work force.  What is worse, the public health infrastructure is nearing collapse, with the state already preparing to open a massive field hospital to handle the ever-increasing load of coronavirus patients. 

            Wisconsin’s Republicans have shown the nation the inevitable conclusion of Republican policies for the nation, if they are allowed to continue pursuing the strategy they mapped out in 1980 of relying on voter suppression instead of voter recruitment.  Just as Gov. Brownback in Kansas showed the utter idiocy of Republican economic theories by nearly bankrupting his state, the Wisconsin GOP has shown the moral and functional bankruptcy of GOP politics.  Republicans were not always “the Stupid Party,” as Bobby Jindal named them.  The Republicans I went to college with in the 1970s were, by and large, intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic and committed to the freedom of the individual expressed through voting.  That party is largely dead, and is not coming back anytime soon.  If and when Donald Trump, his family, his cronies, and his enablers have all been removed from power, and true, responsible conservatives return to lead a pragmatic conservative party, then it will be safe to vote Republican again.  Today, and next year, and likely for some years to come, the only way to protect the economy, the public health, and the security of this nation is to vote against every Republican candidate from the Presidential candidate down to county clerk, until they get the message that even conservative voters want responsive, responsible government committed to democracy and the public good.

SOURCES

Editorial.  “Cries of Voter Fraud Should be Aimed at Those Committing It:  Republicans.  Las Vegas Sun, July 16, 2020.  https://lasvegassun.com/news/2020/jul/16/cries-of-voter-fraud-should-be-aimed-at-those-comm/

Blue, Miranda.  “Seven Times Conservatives Have Admitted They Don’t Want People to Vote.”  Right Wing Watch:  a project of People for the American Way September 24, 2015.  https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/seven-times-conservatives-have-admitted-they-dont-want-people-to-vote/

Lambert, Jonathan.  “Good News about Democracy:  It’s Good for your Health.”  NPR July 4, 2019.  https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/07/04/738477296/good-news-about-democracy-its-good-for-your-health?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr

Rauch, Jonathan and David Wittes.  “Boycott the Republican Party.”  The Atlantic. March 2018.  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/

Romano, Andrew.  “Wisconsin is Battling America’s Worst Coronavirus Outbreak, and Wisconsin’s Broken Politics are Partly to Blame.”  Yahoo! News October 10, 2020 https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-is-battling-americas-worst-coronavirus-outbreak-and-the-states-broken-politics-is-partially-to-blame-143650745.html

Paul, Shantosh.  “Eclipsing Dissent and Democracy.”  The Economic Times, April 4, 2020.  https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/eclipsing-dissent-and-democracy/

What the Right Gets Wrong: about the Antichrist

September 17, 2020

What the Right Gets Wrong: about the Antichrist

 

Historians say that America is an apocalyptic land. The Puritan settlers saw their struggle to tame the wilderness as an apocalyptic struggle, and later saw the hand of Satan at work against them not only among the natives and the wild beasts of the forests but also among their own neighbors. During the American Revolution pamphlets proclaimed King George III as the Antichrist. The Shakers believed that the Messiah had in fact returned, as a woman, their founder Ann Lee Stanley. Jumping ahead a few decades, in the early 1840s William Miller claimed to have deduced the exact date of the Rapture, through numerical calculations based particularly on the prophecies of Daniel. Around a half million people were sitting on hills in 1843 waiting to see Christ return—-this at a time when the entire population of the United States was only a few million, so it was close to 1% of the population by my count. Their conviction was so strong that, when Christ did not return, some went mad. Most returned home, to their unplowed fields and derisive neighbors. The event is known to history as The Great Disappointment.

But while thinking about the Rapture and the Antichrist has been an important part of American religion and even politics at times for even longer than we’ve been a nation, it was only in the 20th Century that this thinking became really systematized and mass marketed. In the 1920s a series of religious tracts, called The Fundamentals, was published and distributed freely to promote a socially conservative, biblically literal, and morally strict interpretation of Protestant Christianity in opposition to the godless and hedonistic culture of the Roaring Twenties, with its speakeasies, its flappers, and the devilishly seductive sounds of the saxophone. This was the beginning of what we today call “Fundamentalism.” And perhaps because the apocalyptic portions of the Bible are so clearly not “literally true” in any literal meaning of the word “literally,” Fundamentalists have been drawn to, even fixated on precisely those passages. A truly literal reading of the Revelation of John would look like a Godzilla movie: “I saw a giant beast with seven heads and ten horns standing by the sea,” and so on. The problem is that Daniel, Revelation and other apocalyptic writings, Jewish and Christian, Scriptural and extracanonical, were written using symbols, even code, which the faith community could recognize and understand but to outsiders would seem to be gibberish. An obvious example is where Jesus is described as a white-haired man with a sword coming out of his mouth; the unhistorical depiction of him as old symbolized his timeless authority while the sword symbolized the power of his words. Furthermore, apocalyptic writing is not linear; it is often depicted as a vision or dream, and like a dream it tends to skip around. There are two different descriptions of the end of the universe in John’s revelation alone. But the Fundamentalist Protestants were determined to find a single, literal interpretation for all these different prophecies, written by different authors centuries apart, as a response to the materialist scientific narrative they feared was taking over the culture. Ironically, in their desire to refute the scientific world view which they saw epitomized in Darwinism, they wound up accepting much of the scientific standard of “truth.” Prior to this time, most religious thinkers even in the Epistles had seen Scripture as both historically and symbolically true; and the symbolic was often viewed as more important. St. Augustine didn’t doubt the reality of either the history presented in the Bible nor its future predictions; but he believed the bare historical facts were far less important than the allegorical and symbolic elements, the spiritual realities revealed in these historical claims. For modern Fundamentalism, the strategy of confronting science with Scriptural “superscience” meant that the emphasis fell on the literal, historical claims, while the spiritual import was overshadowed. Augustine didn’t doubt that there would be a Rapture, but thought it far more important that you consider that you would meet God, whether in a thousand years or next Tuesday or both; so he didn’t seek to decipher the timeline. Fundamentalists have drawn out elaborate charts and maps of the coming end times, trying to identify some historical event or person as prefigured, making predicting the Rapture like an apocalyptic meteorological forecast: a prediction of coming facts whose value lies entirely in giving an accurate account of coming conditions so one can plan one’s activities for tomorrow. The result is that the more they focus on the “literal” truth and the coming factual events (which constantly change as one Rapture after another blows by) the less they focus on the things Jesus and the prophets said actually matter to God: to act justice, love mercy, walk humbly before God (Micah 6:8) and to give food to the hungry, to visit those in prison, and to welcome the alien (Matthew 25:31-46).

“Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)

 

The first error of the Fundamentalists was to think of “the” Antichrist. John writes that there are many antichrists; when we see someone acting and speaking in a way the opposite of the Gospel, we know that person acts from the spirit of Antichrist. As another Scripture says, “by their fruits you shall know them.” When someone praises violence and revenge, that is the spirit of Antichrist.(1) When someone says that anyone foolish enough to go overseas to help fight Ebola deserves to suffer and should receive no help, that person speaks from the spirit of Antichrist.(2) The typical Fundamentalist approach to finding “the Antichrist” is to look for “signs:” events or facts supposed to be associated with the Antichrist as described in apocalyptic Scriptures. He’s supposed to be a great leader, so they look for a politician, particularly one whose political pronouncements differ from theirs (since obviously the Antichrist will be a self-proclaimed “liberal” and not a professed “conservative” trying to deceive anyone). He’s supposed to be a world leader, so they look at the United Nations as the “world empire” and its Secretary General as its “emperor,” regardless of the fact that the United Nations lacks both the power and the cohesion for such a task. Rather than entertain the “liberal” suggestion that Daniel was writing about Antiochus, and John of Patmos writing about Nero, and that their words speak to us today by describing general traits of evil and the promises of God to overcome it, they insist that the “literal” Antichrist must be a single present or future “ruler”—-no matter how strenuously they must interpret and allegorize the Scriptures to find this “literal” truth!

Fundamentalists with their “Thief in the Night,” “Left Behind” and The Late, Great Planet Earth have turned the Antichrist into a mythological monster or boogeyman fully as much as Hollywood did with “The Omen.” In doing so, they turned themselves from participants in God’s work into the audience. They expect to be watching safe from Heaven while the “bad people” who mocked them suffer torments galore. And what is the dividing line? What is the distinguishing characteristic of the good versus the bad, the saved versus the damned? It is not, primarily, whether they loved their neighbor as themselves. In “Thief in the Night” the main character is a churchgoing Christian who never does anything harmful to others, but she isn’t a Fundamentalist. She doesn’t expect a literal return of Jesus. In “Left Behind” one of those “left behind” is a young pastor whose entire congregation and senior pastor have vanished, leaving him because he didn’t believe hard enough. The problem is that the apocalyptic scriptures clearly describe the suffering of the faithful, but the Fundamentalist theology states that the faithful will be raptured away, safely and painlessly escaping the torments so gleefully and intricately described. To reconcile these claims, the Fundamentalists posit a third group, the good-but-not-good-enough, who will suffer because they refused to fully embrace Fundamentalist theology but who were basically good Christians and thus will get another chance, after they’ve been tortured and persecuted for their faulty theology.

The Antichrist is an expression for the power of evil and rebellion against God. It is literally “anti-Christ,” the opposite of Christ. The Fundamentalist theology too often turns the Antichrist into a thing, an external threat only. To oppose the Antichrist it is said to be necessary to believe in the literal reality of the Antichrist, but not necessary to act like Jesus or to follow His teachings. Jesus said, “You cannot serve God and Money,” (Matthew 6:24) but in the Left Behind Theology you can be rich beyond the dreams of avarice, so long as you have an intellectual conviction that the Antichrist will come and then Jesus will return. Jesus said, “Blessed are you who are poor,” (Luke 6:20), but in the “Left Behind” Theology your poverty counts for less than nothing. A liberal or liberation theologian who believes that Jesus loves the poor and calls us to love the poor, that sort of Christian the Left Behind Fundamentalist will declare is either damned to Hell with the Antichrist or, at best, doomed to endure the Tribulation before finally being allowed to join the “right” Christians who escaped all the trials by simply having a belief. A Prosperity Gospel preacher who says the poor are cursed, that they lack faith in God and therefore God is denying them material wealth while the rich are the most blessed and Godly people, that one the Left Behind Fundamentalist believe will accept as a fellow Christian and, if he or she merely says “I believe the Rapture is coming” that one will be raptured away and escape all the trials and tribulations that John and Daniel said the faithful would face. By turning the Antichrist from a spiritual danger and into a monster, the Fundamentalists have bled all the life out of the Gospel. They have made the Gospel safe for middle-class and rich people who want to be saved like Christians without either living like Christians or even admitting, humbly and repentantly, that they have failed to live as Christians and must rely on God’s gracious promise to count them as Christians anyway.(3)

To further protect themselves from having to actually live like Christians, the Fundamentalists who embrace this theology fundamentally altered the Biblical teachings of the Rapture. Eschatological scriptures, whether Daniel, The Revelation of John, the War Scroll of the Essenes or some other canonical or extracanonical writing, are written to people who are suffering persecution. The faithful are suffering. Thus, when the writer describes the future, the faithful will suffer. The one blessing is that the suffering will end, with the victory of good over evil. “And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.” (Matthew 24:22) The only mercy for anyone, faithful or faithless, is that the misery will end; but until that time we will all suffer together.

But in the Left Behind myth, only those who are “left behind” will suffer. The “good” people, the ones who affirm the literal truth of their teacher’s interpretation of the most obscure and controversial scriptures, will be raptured away, like passengers bailing out of a crashing plane and now floating gently to safety, watching with glee while those mean, wicked people perish in the fireball. Jesus may have said that the faithful are saved by showing love, particularly for the poor (Matthew 25:31-46), but for the Fundamentalists salvation is largely an intellectual matter: you accept certain facts and you are “saved,” while if you don’t then you are doomed no matter how much love, generosity and humility you have shown in your life. And conversely, one who accepts these salvation facts as presented can be a pretty prosperous and morally mediocre person, at best living up to the standards of middle-class respectability and perhaps not even that, perhaps even a very rich and powerful ruler just like the ones who persecute the faithful but avowing the right facts or at least giving lip service to them. You might even be a billionaire who has been accused, convicted or even confessed to a wide range of frauds, crimes, threats, sexual assaults, a braggart and a cheat, and be hailed by the “Left Behind” believers as “Chosen One” and “King of Israel” and other messianic titles. After all, the actual Christ, the humble, forgiving, weak, loving Jesus is hard to imitate, and it takes real faith to trust that figure to protect and save you; but the new messiah of the new gospel, the Prosperity and militaristic and lip-service gospel, who has all the worldly strength and worldly success, is easy to trust and easy to imitate, and many are those who find him (Matthew 7:13-14). So we find that richest, largest churches line up to proclaim Donald Trump as their messiah, literally, and see no contradiction between their Christian commitments and the lord they choose to shepherd those dreams——a lord who seems incapable of remembering even the simplest Biblical scripture, but instinctively quotes the Book of Satan.(4)

By changing “antichrist” from an adjective to a proper noun, from a spiritual to a political enemy, Evangelicals have inoculated themselves from the danger of ever having to take the threat of evil seriously. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28), but so-called “Evangelicals,” literally “Good-News People,” created a theology where a worldly, objective, particular political leader would be the greatest danger they had to face; and a worldly political leader can only kill the body. So a supposed future murderer and tormentor of the body became the greatest possible danger, and thus the greatest possible good became a strong man, a leader who would have the worldly power to beat that bad guy at his own game; and it was all fine if the protector and savior demanded that Christians sacrifice their ideals, their commitment to love their neighbors, the poor and the oppressed, and instead embrace lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride by embracing a savior who for years openly boasted of his indulgences in all of them.(5) But the person who would actually seek God, whether you call yourself “Christian” or “Muslim” or nothing at all, will be the one who gives up looking for and fearing future boogymen, and worries more about those who already threaten to destroy the soul.

1 Donald Trump: “When someone attacks me, I always attack back…except 100x more. This has nothing to do with a tirade but rather, a way of life!” Twitter 7:56 AM · Nov 11, 2012; compare “Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!” Book of Satan, III

2 Donald Trump: “The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences! Twitter 8:22 PM · Aug 1, 2014; compare Matthew 25:36.
3 See Søren Kierkegaard, Practice in Christianity
4 “Man is the most vicious of all animals, and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat;” Donald Trump, People, Nov. 16, 1981 (https://people.com/archive/in-the-manhattan-real-estate-game-billionaire-donald-trump-holds-the-winning-cards-vol-16-no-20/ compare “Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his ‘divine spiritual and intellectual development,’ has become the most vicious animal of all!” The Nine Satanic Statements, https://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-statements/ . Also compare Donald J. Trump Twitter @realDonaldTrump
When someone attacks me, I always attack back…except 100x more. This has nothing to do with a tirade but rather, a way of life!
7:56 AM · Nov 11, 2012

Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!
—-Book of Satan, III, 7.
5 “The seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these “sins” as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.” – Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Thoughts on September 11, 2020

September 12, 2020

September 11, 2020

 

 

I’ve tried to comment or reflect on the state of the world every year at this time as my personal 9/11 remembrance. This year I’ve been struck by a campaign ad Sen. Mitch McConnell is running against his challenger, Amy McGrath. The ad begins with an audio recording of her comparing the feeling she had when Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 election with the feeling she had after the 9/11/2001 terror attacks. The ad goes on to mock and attack her for this feeling, saying it shows she’s “wrong for Kentucky.”

As I wrote to Mr. McConnell, I agree the statements by McGrath are unfair. It really is unfair to compare Osama bin Laden to Donald Trump. Bin Laden killed around 3,000 Americans through his terror attacks and triggered an economic downturn. Donald Trump lied repeatedly, and continues to lie to the American people about the COVID-19 pandemic, because he has money in the stock market and doesn’t want to say or do anything that might cause stock prices to decline. Through his active sabotage of our nation’s efforts to defend itself against the threat of the coronavirus, he has killed more Americans than Osama even dreamt of. People who know about infectious diseases say that if we had responded reasonably, such as following the playbook President Obama left for a national pandemic response, we could have avoided up to 80% of the deaths we have suffered.[1] Even taking the more conservative 70% other models have suggested, that means roughly 135,000 American dead due to Donald Trump and his Republican party’s choice to hide the truth from the American people, to encourage suicidal behavior and to rely on fantasies and wishes rather than science, and to call on the moral, spiritual and intellectual dregs of “Christian leaders” to wrap this self-serving sacrifice of the lives of Americans and welfare of the nation in the swaddling cloths of Prosperity Gospel and Christian White Nationalism, and lay it in the manger as the new savior. If “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands,” then it is also true to say, “Osama has slain his thousands, and Donald his hundreds of thousands.” And of course, it isn’t even Autumn yet; wait until we really get into the holiday travel-and-party season with millions of Americans still firmly convinced that COVID-19 is just a Democratic hoax.

Osama also never undermined Americans’ trust in their electoral system. He didn’t tear the states apart, as he wished; in fact, he brought them together and forged the strongest sense of national unity we’d seen in a generation or two. Donald, on the other hand, invites foreigners to hack our elections, attacks the legitimacy of the election without evidence before it has even taken place, deliberately pitted states against each other to compete for medical supplies to fight COVID-19, encourages armed terrorists to murder Americans in the name of white supremacy, defends Confederate rebels and promotes conservative pundits who call for a “second Civil War,” calls peaceful protesters who take a knee at a sporting event sons-of-bitches and traitors, and promotes literally insane conspiracy theories about a worldwide conspiracy of Satanic-cannibal-pedophiles with (according to some) colonies in space. Osama would have been overjoyed if he had caused even half as much chaos and strife as Donald has.

McGrath is also unfair to compare Osama to Donald because Osama never faked bone spurs.

Osama also hoped to bankrupt the United States. This is something he could never accomplish on his own; he needed the incompetent acquiescence or the connivance of American politicians. He found both in the Republican party. First, GW Bush took over a country with a balanced budget on its way to paying off its national debt, and immediately threw it into deficit spending that didn’t stimulate the economy or improve national infrastructure but did help billionaires get richer. By the time he left office, his reckless deregulation of the financial institutions and feckless management of the economy had led us to the Great Recession. After eight years, President Obama had, despite Republican efforts to sabotage the national recovery, managed to put the country back on the path to fiscal solvency. Trump and the GOP wrecked that in one year, running up the greatest deficits the nation had ever seen with no other purpose than to enrich the rich while depleting Social Security, Medicare and other programs the poor and the middle class rely on. Now we are in an economic mess that makes the Great Recession look pleasant by comparison, because Donald refuses to protect the health of the people, the health of the nation’s infrastructure, or any other element of a sound economy. He does a passable job with the Stock Market where he and his golfing buddies like to make money, but that’s the full extent of his economic attention. Again, while Osama only promised, Donald delivered.

Those who were filled with dread in November 2016 have seen their worst nightmares come true—-or to be fair, maybe their second-worst nightmares, since (so far) Dolt45 hasn’t gotten us into a nuclear war so only the West Coast is burning and not every American city. And Mitch McConnell says I should vote for him because he stopped the impeachment, which would have removed an incompetent, treasonous and mentally unstable president* and replaced him with his hand-picked successor, Vice President Pence, who at least has experience botching an epidemic and thus might have had a clue what not to do. Somehow, if this election is to be decided over whether McGrath overreacted to Trump’s election or McConnell failed to react to Trump’s actions once elected, I don’t see how any reasonable person could hesitate to vote straight Democrat in every election from President to County Clerk, until the current Republican Party is disbanded and replaced by a competent center-right party.[2]

Mitch McConnell made sure that when a major crisis hit this nation, we would be led by the most incompetent, stupid, short-sighted and selfish person imaginable. The only response this blithering idiot has to the pandemic is to try to distract us by fanning the flames of race hatred and oppression, because he’s not only stupid and neurotic, he’s also racist. McGrath apparently had the foresight to realize in 2016 that putting a self-absorbed racist idiot at the helm of the ship of state would inevitably lead to us finding an iceberg to hit. Clearly, she is the wiser of the two candidates. Thank you, Mr. McConnell, for running a campaign ad that so clearly lays out the choice in this election, and why you are so terribly unfit for office.

[1] Isaac Sebenius and James K. Sebenius, “How Many Needless COVID-19 Deaths were Caused by Delays in Responding? Most of Them;” STAT June 19, 2020 (https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/19/faster-response-prevented-most-us-covid-19-deaths/)

[2] Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes, “Boycott the Republican Party;” The Atlantic March 2018 (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/)

A Response to Bergson’s “Laughter” (pt. 3)

August 19, 2020

III. Conclusions

 

The derivative nature of aggressive humor: Bergson’s theory is that laughter is intended as a social sanction. We mock the person who has fallen into habit and “mechanical” behavior, particularly when that has reached the point of impairing the person’s functioning as a living and social being. Self-deprecating humor is derivative of this; for example, I might tell a joke about my absentmindedness as a way of chiding absentmindedness itself, and thus all others who fall into my habitual failing.

Toddlers show us humor that is neither self-deprecating nor aggressive; it is simply without a strong sense of self-consciousness at all. There seems to be an innate desire to provoke laughter in others, and the young child will do whatever gets a laugh. It is only later, when we develop a sense of shame and thus an immediate tendency to try to hide our flaws, that we can consciously choose to violate normal standards by intentionally calling attention to our faults in deliberately “self”-deprecating humor. Humor is one of the ways we bond with one another. We share a laugh the same way we share a hug, or a compliment, or a snack, or our ancestors shared a session of grooming: social actions giving pleasure to another and thus strengthening social bonds. Aggressive humor, using humor not just to strengthen some bonds but to break others and to exclude some person from our fun, is what is derivative.

Because of course, as Bergson shows, some humor does chide or punish the socially deviant or harmful person, either to pressure that one back into society or to utterly exile. But the fact that something can be used aggressively does not mean that is its primary use, or even a worthy use. Children laugh together, but at some point they learn to laugh at another, most usually without regard to whether that causes pain. And as we mature and begin struggling for dominance among ourselves, humor becomes another weapon, first to tease and bully an individual and then to bully a group, or even a race. The ability to communicate gives us the ability to lie; likewise the ability to laugh gives us the ability to mock.

Sex, Death and More: “Oh Death, where is thy sting?” asks the prophet and the apostle; and while it may be faith that promises full victory, it is laughter that provides the first defense for many.[1] We often laugh at things that are the most important to us, because they are so frightening and/or tempting. The internet search to find the funniest joke in the world found a death joke; and here it is:

 

Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, “My friend is dead! What can I do?”. The operator says “Calm down. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guys says “OK, now what?”[2]

 

One of the oldest jokes I know, from the Vikings, is also a death joke, or more accurately a joke told at a death. Several men planned to kill a famous warrior and sent one of their group to scout ahead and see if their quarry was home. When the scout came back they asked, “Well, is Bjorn home?” He replied, “I don’t know if Bjorn is home, but his ax certainly is,” and fell over dead. I’ve read that a lot of Viking humor was like that: dark and violent. Death was a constant threat, and they dealt with it not only with the promise of Valhalla but also by making light of it. If you can laugh, it isn’t as terrifying.

Maybe that’s why there are so many jokes about sex. Sex is a prime motivator for much human activity, to say the least. Our nation spent the last several decades spilling more sweat and treasure to research impotence cures than preparing for the next pandemic. The TV show “Ally McBeal” used to refer to the penis as “the dumbstick.” This reflects several things about sex, most obviously that it’s funny. Much of the show’s humor revolved around the ridiculous situations characters got into because of sex, or the ridiculous sex they got into because they were such characters. Second, men and women seem to both agree that men are particularly controlled by the dumbstick. And for men, this seems to be psychologically problematic; they want sex and they are fascinated by it, but also somewhat afraid of the lengths they will go to and the risks they will take for it and in particular afraid that they are being manipulated by the women around them. The sex drive is powerful, and that power makes it frightening. Sex itself is also powerful. If God is that which creates ex nihilo, then sex is the closest thing we humans have to divine power: the ability to literally create life, so that two become three or more. The genders generally find each other mysterious and at times bizarre, but also indispensable and attractive; and this in itself generates tension. And often we relieve this tension with humor, sometimes good-natured and sometimes seemingly barbed.

There are also a lot of jokes about poop, something that is quite the opposite: repulsive rather than attractive, something we seek to be rid of rather than pursue, and which is the very opposite of creation, the waste products of life. It is not “important” in the way either sex or death is, but no one who has seen the beans scene in “Blazing Saddles” can be ignorant of the comic potential there. I’m not a big fan of scatological humor myself but I find it fascinating that it even exists.

All three of these are generally somewhat “taboo” in adult “polite” conversation. In different ways, all are psychologically powerful. And often, when something is “unmentionable” but also unavoidable, we use humor to discuss it more obliquely, taking the sting out. Bergson might say that each of these brings something “mechanical” to a human life, something controlling rather than controllable by the individual, and it is that tension between the lively expression of the individual and the universalizing and irrational aspects of life that provokes laughter. My hypothesis is again to look at the child. We learn to speak before we learn what things are supposed to be unspeakable. Children blurt out whatever strikes them in the moment, often in ways that would be judged wildly inappropriate for an adult. Sometimes this is because of the child’s ignorance. One story goes like this: Sally wouldn’t stop eating acorns, so her parents told her that if she didn’t stop she’d become very fat. One day in the park Sally saw a pregnant woman and said, “I know what you’ve been doing!” The humor relies on the fact that the child does not know; what would be merely gross if spoken by an adult is funny when said by a child who does not understand. My grandson finds farts hilarious, particularly if they come from an adult. When he loudly said “Uh oh!” when someone broke wind, it was funny because he understood what had happened but not that we don’t usually talk about it; “polite” conversation just tries to ignore it. At some point, a child is going to unconsciously voice some double-entendre, or announce some fact with a directness unforgivable for a serious adult, and the adults around will laugh. The child may have no idea what is funny but will still want to be part of the fun, and will want to repeat it. We thus learn what topics those around us regard as funny, and also (a little or a lot later) learn which topics we are not generally supposed to just discuss directly when making “small talk” or “polite conversation.” Some of us learn to discuss this topics more indirectly with humor, simultaneously raising the tension by presenting these taboo topics and releasing it through laughter. Others may memorize jokes to share about these topics, so as to be able to share laughter with each other even if one lacks the creative wit to create humor oneself.

I suspect (though I know no way to test this) that comedians are allowed more leeway in society precisely because there is something childish in humor. Whether a professional comedian or “the life of the party,” some people are particularly good at raising serious or even taboo topics in a way that evokes laughter, and we react in a way analogous to the way we react to a child saying something otherwise inappropriate: “Well, the tyke didn’t really mean it, so it’s okay.” The child can’t really mean it, since the child lacks the discernment; the comedian likewise doesn’t mean it, because he or she is only a comedian and therefore not “serious.” But sometimes the comedian “crosses the line” and says something the audience finds so repulsive that no humor can excuse it.[3] Gilbert Gottfried notoriously derailed his career with a tweet comparing the Fukashima nuclear disaster to a Godzilla attack. At that point it didn’t really even matter if the joke was funny; it was “too soon,” too painful, and no amount of humor was able to deflect attention from the human suffering. But generally Gottfried is able to say what would otherwise be terrible things in a way that provokes laughter rather than outrage. The successful comedian may say something that is taboo, or insulting, or otherwise generally not what we’re supposed to say, but does it in a way that evokes laughter; and that laughter seems to cause us to take it as “only a joke” even if we simultaneously see real truth in what is said. It is similar to the way we can “laugh it off” if a child says something true but also unmentionable; we sort of treat the comedian as not really “serious” even when we say, “Still, you know, she’s got a point.”

Maybe we allow comic discussion of topics that we avoid seriously discussing because in some way we take the adult comedian as in some sense a child, and give the comedian a similar leeway to speak the unspeakable—so long as it is accompanied by laughter. Without laughter, we remember that we are listening to an adult and judge by adult standards.

Humor and humility: Bergson claims that art aims to capture the individual reality or liveliness of its object. Too often our “utilitarian” concerns cause us to see everything as a tool, raw material, or obstacle to fulfilling our own desires, instead of seeing things and people as realities independent of ourselves. Art aims to break the dominance of utilitarian thinking by presenting its object apart from all functionality. The goal of a still life is not to sell apples or to stimulate the appetite; it is simply to present the viewer with the beauty to be found in a simple bowl of apples, existing for its own sake. Bergson says that comedy, by contrast, does not depict individual unique realities but instead depicts stereotypes and generalities. A good drama can be named after a particular person, such as Othello or Hamlet, and the drama’s quality will largely depend on how well the playwright presents the particulars of the protagonist’s personality. We want the dramatic protagonist to be “believable,” to seem like a real person. A comedy by contrast can be named for a type or generality: “The Jealous One” in Bergson’s example, or perhaps “The Jerk” to cite a more recent example. The comedic protagonist does not have to be “realistic;” in fact, that can get in the way of the comedy, particularly if it leads us to have too much sympathy for the character. It is more than enough if the comedic character is sketched in broad strokes, so we can recognize the type and the “mechanism” that is being lampooned.

But this claim that comedy is rooted in social structures depends on Bergson’s prior claim that humans are the only animal that laughs, or is laughed at; and scientific evidence indicates that this claim is wrong. Other animals have humor, small children have humor, and the essence of humor is much more basic and fuzzy than Bergson suggests. Laughter is a reaction to something that gives joy, and often what gives joy by virtue of being funny. We say “it’s funny because it’s true,” meaning that something seems funny because it expresses or reveals a truth in a surprising and generally oblique way. No one laughs if you simply state that men and women often do things differently; but entire comic careers have been based on comically stating specific different reactions of men and women, or the comedian and his or her spouse. But we philosophers don’t need to visit the comedy clubs to see this saying illustrated; we have our great hero, Socrates, the world’s first stand-up philosopher, who went down in history for his use of irony to reveal the absurdities of the social assumptions of his day and the presumptions of its leaders. Chuang Tzu also used humor to raise epistemological or metaphysical points.

Just as humor can be self-deprecating or self-aggrandizing, friendly or aggressive, so too it can be revelatory, falsifying or neither. Racist humor is aggressive and relies on false stereotypes, intending to dehumanize its target. Python’s “Banker Sketch” is closer to Bergson’s ideal; it relies on stereotypes not merely to dehumanize the target but also to rehumanize. One can see that sketch and laugh at those rich snobs, or see oneself in the Banker and resolve not to be like that. The joke that makes us laugh at ourselves, or at one of our idols, can be supremely revelatory. If art is supposed to reveal truth by presenting its object outside our usual framework of desires and tools, then humor can do so by presenting to us ourselves. We immediately perceive the world in orbit around ourselves, with everything either a tool or an obstacle. We can step away from that solipsistic perspective when we are caught up in our appreciation of beauty or harmony, in art or music; but we can also do so through learning to laugh at ourselves, and thus learning humility.

Why do authoritarians hate humor? As The Doctor said, “the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don’t change their beliefs to fit the facts, they change the facts to fit their beliefs.”[4] Authoritarians want authority over everything, including—-especially—-true and false. They want to be able to control others, by forcing them to accept the despot’s version of reality or, failing that, to at least force them to act as if they do. And they don’t want to be challenged, and any independent truth-claim represents a challenge to their power.

Despots can use humor to reinforce falsehoods or to undermine truth, and often do. They use racist and ethnic humor to dehumanize The Other and give their followers an inflated sense of self-worth which derives entirely from being on the good side of the despot. This is not essentially different than the actions of the schoolyard bully who humiliates one kid to put fear into the others that if they don’t laugh at the victim, they could be next. It is more dangerous, and more wicked since an adult should have a moral sense, but the social mechanics are identical. But humor can turn against the despot too. Humor exposes our pretensions.   As Bergson points out, the gap between empty ceremony and human life is particularly funny. President Ford fell down once due to a knee he injured playing football, and Chevy Chase made an industry out of his “Gerald Ford impression” pratfalls. The physical humor itself was funny because Chase could do the seemingly unnatural without injury and then shout, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!” but the idea that the President of the United States is a mere human being subject to gravity and fleshly weakness like the rest of us added another layer of comedy. That was part of the social function of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Roasts, which used be a major yearly event. The President of the United States, and other powerful leaders, would allow himself to be laughed at, and would even join in the laughter. The President would respond with humor at the end, but only when he had shown he could take a joke and make a joke at his own expense could he make one at another’s. An authoritarian cannot stand to be laughed at, because an authoritarian does not want to be merely human; he or she must seem like a mortal god. Someone made a comment about President Xi being round and chubby like Pooh Bear, and now pictures of Winnie the Pooh are illegal in China. The authoritarian doesn’t mind being hated, but cannot stand to be laughed at, because when we laugh at anything we cease to fear it,—at least for a moment,

Humor also, as we saw, is a mechanism for social bonding. Authoritarians want to be the only center of social groups. Just as romantic love becomes a rebellion unless it is yoked to the authoritarian in a State-sanctioned marriage, so too when a group begins to laugh together they become a potential center of power. There is nothing so infuriating to an oppressor as the sound of the oppressed laughing among themselves; it means they’ve found joy that the oppressor did not control. If they can feed their own spirits and find joy in life without the permission of the authoritarian, what other rebellion might they find possible? Authoritarians always attempt to control anything that feeds the spirit, that brings joy to the lives of the people, whether it be art, or religion, or knowledge, or sex, or humor.

Epilogue

There is no virtue more beneficial than a sense of humor, and no divine gift more blessed than laughter. When we are overtaken by the goodness of life, and our whole being overflows with joy, we laugh. When the terrors and griefs of life threaten to overwhelm us, we laugh at our fears and cut them down to size. When our own egos threaten to outrun our capacities, we laugh at ourselves and again learn humility. When self-important leaders seek to humiliate and subdue us, we laugh at them and remember that they are mortal, the same as us. Gratitude and contentment, courage and endurance, humility and confidence, are all boosted by a proper sense of humor. And, it makes you laugh! What other virtue can say all that?

[1] Hosea 13:14; 1 Corinthians 15:55

[2] Alva Noë, “What is the Funniest Joke in the World?” NPR March 7, 2014 (https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/03/07/287250640/what-is-the-funniest-joke-in-the-world)

[3] Sometimes the joke simply falls flat and the audience doesn’t think the comedian is funny or even trying to be. One notorious example of this comes from the 2016 presidential campaign, during the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner .[3] Traditionally part of the event has long been a roast, presenting opposing candidates the chance to trade some good-natured barbs with one another. It is not surprising that sometimes this gets a little close to the bone, but Trump took his routine to such an extreme of negative directness that the audience of polite Manhattan society began to boo and even heckle him. He didn’t so much make a joke that Hillary was corrupt as simply say, “She’s so corrupt you should vote for me; and she hates Catholics too.” At one point Trump said to Clinton, “I don’t know if they’re booing you or me,” and someone in the audience shouted back, “You!” Years later commentators pointed to this as one example of Trump’s lack of a sense of humor. He may say things that some find funny, but he is said to fundamentally lack two elements of genuine comedy: the ability to take a joke about himself, and the ability to tell a joke about another in a way that even the target has to admit is funny.

[4] “The Face of Evil,” Doctor Who

A Response to Bergson’s “Laughter” (pt. 2)

May 23, 2020
  1. Objections to Bergson’s Theory

But what if Bergson’s initial claim, that humans alone are “the animal which laughs,” is completely wrong? Studies indicate that apes, and perhaps all mammals “laugh” in some form.[1] Several species of mammals have been observed making distinctive “happy noises” when play-fighting, and have been observed tickling and enjoying being tickled. Scientific studies of non mammalian humor are rarer, but I am aware of several apparent incidents of humor among parrots. My wife’s black capped conure enjoys peek-a-boo, and even says something that sounds a little like “Peekaboo” when popping out from hiding. Another pet owner says her parrot calls the cat using their owner’s voice, then barks like a dog when the cat appears. Another friend told us one day her parrot requested to be sprayed with a mist bottle: “Showie? Showie?” When she got the bottle to give her a shower, the bird hid. As soon as she put it down, the bird again asked for a shower. It seemed to be a variation of the game humans play when they offer something and then pull it back. But the most elaborate story I heard was from my late father, about his African Grey named Smokey. As he told it:

 

 

When Smokey got lonely he’d call for me using (his wife) Debbie’s voice, or he’d call me using her voice. We would call down and ask, “Is that you?” and if we didn’t get an answer we’d know it was the bird. One day I was upstairs and I heard my wife calling, “Waite! Waite!” I called down, “Honey, is that you?” After a few seconds, I heard more insistently, “Waite! Waite!” So I rushed downstairs, Debbie was no where to be found, and that bird laughed at me——-IN MY VOICE!

 

 

The most human-like humor probably has come from Koko, the sign-language using gorilla, who engaged in puns and who once tied her human companion’s shoelaces together and then gave the sign for “chase.” One common element of all of these is some degree of social awareness. This is particularly seen in the parrots and Koko, who engaged in some sort of linguistic or communication-based humor. These relied on physical or audible signs which the animal knew would give a predictable response; sometimes the animal seemed to enjoy frustrating the response, while at other times the invited response was part of the payoff for the animal, but always there was some social reasoning involved. In the tickling or rough-housing behaviors, the “laughter” seems to be a signal that everyone is enjoying it and it’s not serious. For example, among rats there’s a certain sound made when rats of roughly equal sizes play-fight, but when one is much larger it apparently becomes a lot less fun and the rat-laughter ceases.[2]

I personally don’t think of tickling as “humor,” but more as one of a range of laughter-producing stimuli. Some people laugh due to some neurological condition, and scientists can evoke “laughter” from rats by electrical brain stimulation as well as by tickling their tummies. Among animals, we would say it seems more like “humor” when it is playful, “all in good fun.” Laughter is an expression of pleasure, and humor the art of provoking laughter in others. Humor would seem to require empathy, in that either knowing when the other is trying to be funny rather than threatening or knowing what the other will find funny requires some sense of how the other is likely to perceive things. A sense of humor may be a subcategory of the sense of the other as other. If Bergson is wrong about his view that humans are the only animal that laughs or is laughed at, that would in turn suggest that humor may be part of intelligence. Any animal can perceive when its needs are met and find some sort of pleasure in that; as Beethoven’s 9th symphony states, “even the worm can feel contentment.” The more sophisticated the brain, the more joy and more varieties of joy the animal can feel; and at some point this becomes what we would recognize as “humor.”

If Bergson is wrong about humor being the property of humans alone, then it seems likely that he is mistaken about his claim that it is purely intellectual and opposed to feeling, since his claim about the intellectuality of humor derives from his belief that it is strictly human. The claim that humor is social is less obviously dependent on either of the other two principles; but I think we have already seen good reason to try again and see if we can develop a theory of humor from a different starting point.

The humor of nonhumans is an interesting area of study for scientists, and they can derive truths that fit all reasonable definitions of objective truth; but the experience of nonhuman animals is so alien to us that it is of limited philosophical use. Children, on the other hand, are a much better source of data: in many ways more animal than person, or animal moving towards full rationality and personhood, and much easier to observe and to interrogate. Bergson’s considerations are based almost exclusively on the experiences of adults; where he does consider children at all it is in reference to the theory he has developed in reference to adults.[3] But if we are looking for the source of humor among adults, where better to start than with the source of adults themselves—that is, children?

Babies laugh. It is true that we begin able to cry from birth, but must discover how to laugh; and perhaps this says something about our condition in the world. But still, babies laugh; and they do not so much “learn” to laugh as they do discover the ability. They don’t learn to laugh by imitating adults, as they learn so much else; if they did, they would first laugh when the adults were laughing and would try to laugh at those things. Rather, the laughter of a baby seems to be a spontaneous expression of joy. Something makes the baby happy, and the baby laughs. If tears are the instinctive response to deprivation, then laughter seems to be the expression of something even greater than the contentment when all needs have been met, and satisfaction overflows. Is this social? Babies seem to smile trying to imitate the smiling faces around them; perhaps they laugh because they are happy to have those around them. But I don’t think so. I’ve seen my two-year-old grandson laugh like a mad hatter at something which was funny only to him: the picture on his watering can. For the first several days that he had this new toy, he would stop, look at the picture with its bright colors and smiling sun, and laugh. Why? I don’t know. But I doubt it was because, as Bergson might say, it made him think of a human who was behaving mechanically. Children generally don’t distinguish sharply between what is living versus inanimate. Piaget tells a story about a child who picked up a rock and put it with the others because it looked lonely. His sadness and subsequent desire to help the lonely rock was no different than my grandson’s laughter at his watering-can; and neither was moved by “ANY ARRANGEMENT OF ACTS AND EVENTS … WHICH GIVES US, IN A SINGLE COMBINATION, THE ILLUSION OF LIFE AND THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION OF A MECHANICAL ARRANGEMENT.” (caps Bergson’s)

Pain is reflexive. You hurt; you grab your knee, roll around, scream obscenities and loudly proclaim that you’ve broken the fornicating joint. A baby is hungry, or in pain, or has some other need; the baby cries. There is no thought; it is purely animal. Any creature that cares for its young has an instinctive way for those young to signal they are in need, and some sort of instinct of adults to respond; though parenting is also leaned, so knowing how to respond effectively is something that is taught or modeled for many animals, particularly us. This begins to point towards Wittgenstein’s observations about pain-behavior.[4] We do things reflexively, instinctively, in reaction to pain, At some point in our lives, though, we develop a social sense, and begin to realize that others act as we act and assume they, too, feel pain, based on their actions. Unless we are psychologically damaged, psychopaths or narcissists or whatever, we care; as Hume said, the instinct for sympathy seems to be as primordial as the instinct for competition. Even the person who doesn’t “feel another’s pain” still finds use for knowing what hurts others and in signaling his or her own pain as well, even if only to deceive and manipulate them. Pain-behavior and pain-language has uses in society; so we learn to interpret one another’s pain-behavior and to respond more effectively, we learn to signal more effectively so we receive useful help (or perhaps to hide our pain from real or supposed enemies), and so on.

Laughter can be understood as joy-behavior. Babies laugh and, according to some scientists, some animals laugh; so it seems to be an instinctive response to something more than mere contentment. But laughter is social in a way pain is not. We like to see others happy. The instinctive response to a smile is to smile back; behaviorists say the smile evolves initially out of the primate fear-signal of baring the teeth, becoming a signal of “I am not a threat to you” and then evolving to a more positive “I like you; I am a help to you, and I hope you feel the same.” It causes a feeling of joy to see another smile or hear another laugh. My father loved to tell the story of when I was an infant in one of those bouncy-chairs they hang from door frames. So, picture the baby, too young to walk but aware of his environment and the people. He’s bouncing up and down on the spring when, suddenly, he stops and pulls his ears. It’s such an absurd thing to do that his parents laugh. The baby sees that they laugh, and he likes that, so he does it again. And again. And now it’s not unexpected so it’s a lot less funny to the adults, but the child knows only that everybody laughed and was happy and that felt good.

We are hard-wired to want others to smile at us. Thus, laughter is even more social than tears. We feel sad when others are sad, as a rule, but we don’t want to feel sad so we either try to help or try to avoid them. And we feel happy when others are happy, we get a little shot of dopamine when someone smiles at us or laughs, and we are thus encouraged to try again. Babies and toddlers do what seems to get them smiles and laughter and approval from adults. As we get older and come to value peers more than the opinions of elders, we want to get them to smile and laugh. And thus comedy is born, from the joy-behavior of the baby and the toddler up through the class clown, the life-of-the-party, the raconteur, and all the other varieties of amateur comedian (it is worth remembering at this point that the word “amateur” is derived from “love;” the amateur comedian is one who strives to be funny for the love of the laughter). As we get older and the society we engage in becomes more sophisticated, we need to learn what is funny to those around us, and thus humor becomes increasingly rooted in the shared cultural values and meanings of the comedian and the audience.

Bergson treats the adult as the type, adult humor as the defining standard of the comic, and examines childhood humor (such as toys) under those categories. I wish to start with the child and the child’s experience with laughter, and see what we can discover about the adult’s humor. But still, I must face the question: why does the adult laugh at the child? When asked, adults often have no more answer than “it was so absurd.” The baby bounces, grabs his ears for no reason, and the adult laughs. Other times we laugh because the child says or does something that is quite appropriate, though the child has no idea why. My grandson had been experimenting with a new phrase: “Not yet.” When asked if he had done something, rather than saying “yes” or “no,” he would sometimes answer “Not yet.” Last week he was sitting between my daughter and me on her sofa and she asked, “Did you pee-pee your pants?” He answered, “Not yet.” Everybody laughed, and then he laughed too though his laughter seemed a little forced. It seemed to me that he had no real idea why everyone was laughing but wanted to join in; the adults were laughing because it sounded as if he were planning to wet the sofa, but didn’t really. If they had really thought he intended to soil the furniture they wouldn’t have laughed; they would have rushed to get a diaper on him. What he said was funny because it wasn’t true, but could have been; it wasn’t a non sequitur. Sometimes the child is apparently trying to be funny, and succeeds. When my daughter was verbal but still in diapers, I got up with her one night to change her and thought she felt warm. I got the thermometer and found she had a fever. I said, “Congratulations! You are one sick puppy.” She said, “Arf!” In short, when we laugh at babies, it seems to be for a variety of reasons: sometimes because they say or do something that seems very “adult,” other times when they do something that seems like it was an attempt to be “adult,” other times when it is just absurd but struck us as funny.

Perhaps there really is nothing more to it. The baby laughs because he or she is happy; why must the adult have any other reason? I haven’t done a survey, but I suspect most widely-spoken languages have different words for “funny” versus “pleasant” or “makes me joyful.” It does appear that there is an intellectual component to “funny.” For example, people who are particularly good at mental tasks like estimation also prefer more complex jokes.[5] We often use similar language about humor and play; for example, people who disapprove of humor may say it is “frivolous,” or say “quit clowning around,” while those who approve may say the joker is “fun” and “playful.” We even refer to “word-play” for a particular sort of humor. Perhaps, just as some sorts of play are fun because they provide a physical challenge and the pleasure of using one’s muscles, other sorts of “play” are pleasurable because they challenge and stimulate brain cells and neurons that needed a little exercise. Most humor requires seeing something from two or more angles simultaneously; even the pratfall has to both appear to be a fall but also appear to not actually cause harm (unless the laugher is a real jerk, which is another issue).

I know of no culture that does not have some concept of physical play, such as racing or jumping competitions or other “non-serious” physical activities. While there are cultural variations (“Waddya mean I can’t use my hands?”) the concept itself is pretty universal. Humor seems to have more cultural variations. A 2002 study surveyed 1.5 million people from 70 different countries, asking them to submit jokes they thought were funny and then to evaluate what jokes they thought were funny. In total, 40,000 jokes were graded, and some cultural differences did emerge. Americans (and Canadians) seemed more drawn to jokes that implied a certain aggression or put-down than were other cultures; for example:

 

Texan: “Where are you from?”

Harvard Graduate: “I come from a place where we do not end sentences with prepositions.”

Texan: “Okay— where are you from, jackass?”

 

Europeans were said to be more likely to enjoy surreal humor:

 

A German Shepherd went to the telegram office, took out a blank form, and wrote: “Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof.”

The clerk examined the paper and politely told the dog: “There are only nine words here. You could send another ‘Woof’ for the same price.”

“But,” the dog replied, “that would make no sense at all.”[6]

 

They were also said to like jokes about death, like this one from Scotland: “I just want to die quickly and peacefully like my grandfather, and not screaming in terror like his passengers.” And it makes sense that humor would be strongly affected by culture. Humor is social, and anything social is at least partly learned. The capacity for humor and the instinct to want to make others laugh may be universal and innate, but every comedian knows you have to “read the room.” Any group is going to have learned patterns of behavior, standards of what is acceptable, utterly serious, titillating and so on. The lead researcher, Dr. Richard Wiseman, also noted that, in addition to cultural differences, there were simply different reasons for something to seem funny, saying, “Also, we find jokes funny for lots of different reasons. They sometimes make us feel superior to others, reduce the emotional impact of anxiety-provoking situations or surprise us because of some kind of incongruity.”[7] And how humor is used or appreciated varies between cultures and particularly between East and West, despite physiological and psychological factors that appear universal.[8] This affects even how adults will perceive a child’s humor, which in turn would affect what the child learns and become a self-reinforcing cultural trait. A Westerner is likely to consider a humorous child to be clever, creative and social, so the child’s early attempts to provoke laughter are likely to be rewarded; but a Chinese is more likely to see such behavior as disruptive and unsocial, so the child will get less positive reinforcement.

At a minimum, then, this sort of pragmatic, genealogical approach to understanding humor has several advantages over Bergson’s approach based more on the structures of society. It accounts for children’s humor and for nonhuman humor, areas Bergson neglected in the first case and didn’t recognize in the second. It is able to accommodate the well-known cultural variations in humor as instances of generational transmission, while still also accounting for the universality of humor as a phenomenon. This approach does not rule out the validity of Bergson’s theory entirely, but it does contradict it at some points and expand the range of humor it is able to discuss. One thing it does not do, which Bergson does, is attempt to define what is “funny.” Many things are “funny” to one person and not to another. This is not that unusual; taste would seem to be a biological reality and important to the survival of the individual, yet one person or culture may enjoy a taste that another finds bland or even repulsive. Perhaps too “funny” is one of those fuzzy concepts, with multiple related meanings, so that philosophy will never be able to find a universal theory of the comic. That does not mean, however, that philosophy need remain mute on the subject; there is still much philosophy can learn from examining humor and much to discover about its implications.

[1] Joseph Castro, “Do Animals Have Humor?” LiveScience Nov. 6, 2017 (https://www.livescience.com/60864-do-animals-have-humor.html) see also Peter McGraw and Joel Warner, “Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor? New Evidence Suggests All Mammals Have a Funny Bone;” Slate March 26, 2014 (https://slate.com/culture/2014/03/do-animals-have-a-sense-of-humor-new-evidence-suggests-that-all-mammals-have-a-funny-bone.html)

[2] McGraw/Warner

[3] Laughter, chapter II, sect. I

[4] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, third edition, 286-312

[5] John von Radowitz, “Revealed: The Funniest Joke in the World;” The Guardian October 3, 2002 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/03/3)

[6] Alva Noë, “What is the Funniest Joke in the World?” NPR March 7, 2014 (https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/03/07/287250640/what-is-the-funniest-joke-in-the-world)

[7] “Revealed”

[8] Tonglin Jiang, Hao Li, Yubo Ho, “Cultural Differences in Humor Perception, Usage and Implications;” Frontiers in Psychology January 29, 2019 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123/full)

A Response to Bergson’s “Laughter” (pt. 1)

May 21, 2020

A Response to Bergson’s “Laughter”

 

 

  1. Bergson’s Theory of the Comic

There has been relatively little written by philosophers about humor. We have Aristotle’s discussion of tragedy in the Poetics, and we have discussions of beauty, but not much sustained discussion of humor. Wittgenstein said it was possible to write an entire philosophy text consisting of nothing but jokes, but he never wrote such a book. And there have been many forays of philosophy into humor. I heard Steven Wright tell a joke about burglars breaking into his house and stealing all his stuff and replacing everything with exact duplicates. Police were baffled. A few years later, my professor told me that Wittgenstein had asked once what it would mean if someone thought people were stealing his stuff and replacing everything with duplicates, and I concluded that Wright must have gotten the idea from Wittgenstein. Steve Martin majored in philosophy, famously saying, “I studied just enough philosophy to fuck me up for the rest of my life.” Woody Allen’s comedic writings were littered with references to Kierkegaard, among others, and Craig Ferguson frequently mentioned Kierkegaard on his television show. Most recently and notably would be NBC’s “The Good Place,” a series that featured four deeased souls trying to avoid everlasting damnation by posthumously learning to be “good,” largely by taking classes on moral philosophy. But while comedians talk humorously about philosophy a lot, philosophers more rarely philosophically analyze the concept of humor.   The most famous sustained philosophical treatment of humor is Henri Bergson’s Laughter: an essay on the meaning of the comic.[1] I would like to use this as a starting-point to philosophically discuss comedy, to see if more recent studies and other perspectives might lead us to additional insights.

Bergson writes, “The first point to which attention should be called is that the comic does not exist outside the pale of what is strictly HUMAN.”[2] He claims that only humans laugh, and that when we laugh, we laugh at other humans or things that in some way remind us of humans. A landscape can strike us funny because it looks human in some way: “the brook sounds like it’s laughing; but the old tree looks sad.” Or, he says, a hat may seem funny, but only because we know some person chose to make it look that silly, intentionally or not. Thus, Bergson says, humans are not only animals that laugh, but also animals that are laughed at.

He further writes, “Here I would point out, as a symptom equally worthy of notice, the ABSENCE OF FEELING which usually accompanies laughter.”[3] To feel strongly about something is to take it “seriously;” to laugh at something or someone is to step away emotionally and find the comic; “for laughter has no greater foe than emotion.” Bergson thus sees laughter as a rational phenomenon; a society of purely intellectual beings would have no tears, but might still laugh, whereas a society of very sentimental and emotional beings would have no concept of laughter or the comic. To be able to laugh is to stop feeling strongly about the object of one’s laughter. I recall an incident on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, the day naturalist Steve “The Crocodile Hunter” Irwin was tragically killed while diving with stingrays. He was a beloved personality worldwide, and even Stewart seemed to be grieving. His interview for that show was fellow comedian Norm MacDonald, and they began talking about the death of Mr. Irwin. MacDonald began musing about two crocs sharing the news: “You remember that guy who used to poke us all the time?” asks the first croc.

“What about him?” asks the second.

“He died. He was killed!”

“Really! Who got him?”

“Man, you don’t wanna know. Some fruity fish!” (At this point the audience, including Stewart, were laughing uncontrollably.)

“Please don’t make me laugh at this,” said Stewart, unable to stop.

For a few moments, the sadness that everyone was feeling, the sense of loss, was annihilated as they laughed about the absurdity that a man who had brought joy and knowledge to millions by his capturing and training of enormous saltwater crocodiles (some of the most massive and dangerous predators alive) should have been killed by a fish that is generally so harmless that tourists dive with them regularly.

Bergson’s third preliminary observation is that while the comic is a realm of intelligence rather than emotion, “This intelligence, however, must always remain in touch with other intelligences.” The comic has a social dimension. This is why, he says, a group of travelers may laugh among themselves as someone tells a story which an outsider finds either incomprehensible or merely unfunny; the third party lacks the frame of reference. Even when we laugh to ourselves, it is as if someone else were telling us the joke, or we imagine telling it to another. Bergson concludes, “The comic will come into being, it appears, whenever a group of men concentrate their attention on one of their number, imposing silence on their emotions and calling into play nothing but their intelligence. “ Comedy must be human, it must be aimed at the mind rather than the emotions, and it must be social. Having established these elements, Bergson moves on to ask what it is, more precisely, that catches our attention, that “strikes the funny bone,” and makes us laugh.

Bergson argues that the comic element emerges when humans behave “mechanically” rather than in a human, rational fashion. He paradigm is absentmindedness. The absentminded person acts on habit even when it is inappropriate to the circumstances, or forgets what he or she was doing or saying, or forgets where something is or confuses two things. One of my professors said he resolved to quit smoking the day he suddenly realized he had a cigarette in his right hand, a cigarette in his left hand, and was struggling to light a cigarette. He also regularly walked around with shirts with holes in the pocket because he had put a lit cigarette in his shirt pocket again. If we saw that in a movie, it would be hilarious; and Bergson says the reason is that it is so funny is that in that moment what was most human about this absent-minded professor was that he lost the intelligence that defines the human and became a sort of zombie or automaton. His reason failed him precisely because of that other human trait, his character, as if his mind was undermining itself; and we are amused by the fact because we observers are employing our intelligences to spot the incongruity and to note its failure.[4] Likewise, Bergson claims the comedy of the pratfall is when the body betrays the person; his intellect sought to walk down the street, but he stepped on a banana peel or got splashed by passing car. Or, when we see a character in a play put acting absurdly because he or she is overwhelmed with jealousy or some other emotion, we again see the rational person ceasing to act rationally and instead being pushed along by outside forces, like a leaf in the wind, except that the leaf and wind are both elements of the jealous one’s own personality. Similarly, we treat society as a person, and may laugh when we see the entire collective society engaged in absurd and “mechanical” activity, Bergson says. Social ceremonies are important to social cohesion and as expressions of collective values, but when divorced from that context and just seen as actions they can quickly become comic, Bergson says, “from an ordinary prize-distribution to the solemn sitting of a court of justice.” During the waning days of the Cold War my father went with a group of doctors to visit Russia and learn about their achievements in eye surgery. While there, he was given a medal in a public men’s room by the attendant, apparently for “marksmanship.” To the Soviets, any expression of approval by the Party was meaningful, both because of the power the State had to do one good or ill, but also because it was an expression of one’s social worth as a productive member of society. Russians were frequently given these rather cheap medals for minor achievements, and someone must have thought them meaningful. To an American, however, getting a medal for not pissing on the floor seemed like a joke, and if it wasn’t an intentional joke then it was a joke on Soviet society as a whole.

In much the same way, it is humorous when a person is swallowed up by his or her official status and seems unable to respond humanly. Bergson tells the story of custom-house officials rescuing survivors from a shipwreck, and then asking them out of habit, “Do you have anything to declare?” Or sometimes humor arises when someone filling a social post doesn’t quite succeed in hiding his or her all-too-humanness. There’s nothing very funny about an American not being able to sing our national anthem; it is notoriously difficult. But when Donald Trump, standing as the Head of State at a public event, seems to not know the words or has to be reminded by his immigrant wife to put his hand over his heart, it becomes funny because while it is one thing for an ordinary person not to know the words or to neglect to cover his heart, it’s quite another when the nation’s leader is standing publicly as the representative of the national spirit and seems to be, in fact, only a rather mediocre citizen.

Another source of comic contradiction, says Bergson, is when the body betrays the mind.[5] This can happen when the body lacks the proper human suppleness, and seems too rigid and mechanical—or, I suspect, when it seems too supple. Monty Python’s “Ministry of Silly Walks” sketch is a good example of both physical and social humor. There is a great deal of comedy that comes from John Cleese, who is particularly convincing when playing a stuffy judge, businessman or government bureaucrat, meets with someone who is trying to invent a new silly walk, and the two of them talk as seriously as if a would-be engineer were applying to patent a new car engine; but when you add his physical gyrations and contortions that seem to go beyond what a human body should do or be capable of doing, it becomes hilarious.[6] As Bergson says, sometimes it is funny simply to be reminded that a person has a body, particularly when the body is not supposed to be relevant. This is likely why everyone thought it was so funny when, during the very first telephone hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, we distinctly hear a toilet flush.[7] In the 1960s society was so squeamish about reminders of physicality that All in the Family could regularly get big laughs by simply having an off-screen toilet flush. But when this reminder of our universal physicality occurs during one of the most solemn of our social rituals, a meeting of the Supreme Court, the juxtaposition of the almost otherworldliness of the situation with the very earthy event is humorous.

Chapter II of Bergson’s essay largely develops this line of thought and extends it to verbal humor. Just as he has said that contradictions between a subject’s humanity—that is, his or her autonomy and rationality—versus physicality or mechanical behavior, so in verbal humor there is a conflict between the human, the rational and/or the moral versus some other, more physical or automatic implication. I think one example would be confusing “greatness” as in a great man or Great White Shark. As Bergson writes, “The rigid, the ready—made, the mechanical, in contrast with the supple, the ever-changing and the living, absentmindedness in contrast with attention, in a word, automatism in contrast with free activity, such are the defects that laughter singles out and would fain correct.”[8] Bergson sees this same sort of automatism at the root of both physical and verbal humor, from the pratfall to the pun to the most witty social satire.

The essay’s third chapter deals with the comic element expressed in character. Since, Bergson says, we started with the comic as a human and social phenomenon, we were already pretty close to character to begin; we need now only return to the original source of humor, which is humanity. After all, as he said earlier, humans are the only animal that laughs and, essentially, the only animal which is laughed at, since whatever we laugh at is only funny insofar as it reminds us of the human. Furthermore, we laugh as what does not essentially move our emotions, since emotions such as love or pity are undermined by humor. So, what sorts of character or person would we laugh at, and under what circumstances would we laugh at another?

Drawing on his earlier discussion, Bergson claims that we can laugh at another only when we do not feel any emotion towards the other. To some extent, we have to depersonalize the other in order to laugh at him or her. Furthermore, what makes the neighbor funny is some behavior reminiscent of a machine: behavior that is unnaturally rigid, inflexible, seemingly preprogrammed, unresponsive or out of sync with the actual circumstances. Thus, the most comic character is one that is not a real person, but more of a type. We have to feel as if we know this person, or know them well enough, but not to sympathize with them. Thus, the more depth with which the character is depicted, or the more backstory, the less comic he or she is likely to be. The knowledge we need of the character must be superficial. Thus, neither great monologues nor bold actions are comic, but rather gestures. A gesture can flow naturally from the character and reveal what sort of character lies at its root, but for all that is relatively meaningless. The NBC series The Good Place illustrates this idea quite well. The series is about four people who have died and find themselves in the afterlife, which turns out to be a planned community resembling a crossbreeding of Beverly Hills and Disneyland Main Street. Our first introductions to the characters are through gestures rather than statements or conscious acts. When Eleanor can’t remember the name of anyone she’s talking to or anything that person is saying, or when she steals shrimp at a party so she can take them home and scarf them later, we can see she is a completely selfish person. When Tahani compulsively drops names with sentences like “This is as upsetting as the time when my friend Kanye got in a fight with my good friend Taylor over my best friend Beyoncé,” we instantly know that she is obsessed with everyone knowing how important she is. The comedy of the show is largely driven by the flawed, shallow characters of these people, and their reflexive behavior. And as a result, they are also fairly unlikeable; and this is not good for a television series that wants repeat viewers. Thus, sometimes the writers give us flashbacks showing how someone’s horrible parents or toxic friends led them to become the sort of silly, incapable person they are now. This gives the viewers reason to sympathize with the protagonists and to want to see them struggle and overcome their obstacles and hopefully become better people; but these moments are rarely funny. Bergson would say this is exactly as it should be and as his theory predicts: we can sympathize with the protagonists or we can laugh, but we can’t do both at the same time. At best, we can alternate between the two. The funny moments are where we see them as The Social Peacock, The Antisocial Egoist, and so on, and see them saying and doing things quite mindlessly which reflect and flow from these types.

From what we have seen to this point, it is not surprising that Bergson sees something aggressive in comedy.[9] Bergson says that there is always a social element to comedy; we laugh at others, and among ourselves, so laughing defines the group of laughers versus those who are laughed at. We laugh at some sort of rigidity which marks the other as eccentric and not naturally fitting into society. Bergson likens it to a kind of hazing or “ragging,” which at its best is meant to gently chide the object of the laughter into coming to his or her senses, seeing that he or she has become laughable by becoming unnatural and mechanical, and thus perhaps waking up to the need for a more spontaneous, natural and aware life. This can happen when we mock the other as falling into a type, allowing some character trait, usually a vice but possibly a virtue, to cut one off from social life. [10] It is the unsociability of another that provokes our laughter, rather than the fault per se, so that even a virtue can become laughable or a vice, if it provokes violent emotion such as anger, is not. Sometimes the “type” is not a character stereotype at all, but a social one.[11] Every profession has its own standards, patterns of speech and thought, values and in short is a subculture within the wider society. Mocking these different groups can be a way to call them to account when some member of the profession begins to think his or her group is superior or self-sufficient. One example that seems to particularly reflect this sort of humor is Monty Python’s “Merchant Banker Sketch.” The Merchant Banker, busy extorting fees and concessions from a “Mr. Victim” seeking a loan, is approached in his office by a Mr. Ford who is collecting money for charity. Try as he might, The Banker cannot grasp this concept:

 

 

 

Banker: No, no, no, I don’t follow this at all, I mean, I don’t want to seem stupid but it looks to me as though I’m a pound down on the whole deal.

Mr Ford: Well, yes you are.

Banker: I am! Well, what is my incentive to give you the pound?

Mr Ford: Well the incentive is to make the orphans happy.

Banker: (genuinely puzzled) Happy? You quite sure you’ve got this right?[12]

 

 

Any normal person understands the idea of charity, but the Merchant Banker is not “normal;” he describes himself as “very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rich,” while introducing himself with “Er… I forget my name for the moment but I am a merchant banker. “ He is literally so caught up in his job and his wealth that he cannot understand anything else. Bergson would be pleased by this satire. At the same time, this is only funny because the Banker is unsympathetic but also nonthreatening; his exaggerated miserliness and abuse of others renders him unrealistic, so while his type is recognizable and seen as deserving a good drubbing, he is not personal enough to evoke genuine fear or anger.

To summarize, Bergson sees comedy as uniquely human and thus rational, aimed at the head rather than the heart, and primarily as serving a social function of (usually) gently punishing unsociability which results from an undue rigidity or mechanical behavior in another.

[1] Henri Bergson, Laughter: an essay on the meaning of the comic posted July 26, 2009 (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4352/4352-h/4352-h.htm)

[2] Laughter, chapter 1, sect. I

[3] Laughter

[4] Laughter, chapter 1, sect. II

[5] Laughter, chapter I, sect. III

[6] Monty Python’s Flying Circus, BBC1, season 2, episode 1 (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqki)

[7] “Listen: Toilet Flushes as Supreme Court Holds Oral Arguments by Teleconference;” NBC News NOW May 6, 2020 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0bUtTvdCU)

[8] Laughter, chapter II, sect. II

[9] Laughter, chapter III sect. I

[10] For example, in The Good Place there is a character, Chidi, who is a moral philosopher and terribly indecisive. The audience is shown that he was unnaturally indecisive even as a child, but now his anxiety has been exacerbated by his morality itself. Faced with a simple question like whether to have a blueberry muffin for breakfast, he worries about the treatment of farm workers, what various schools of philosophy would judge to be better or worse, and becomes paralyzed. As a result, he makes everyone who cares about him miserable, not through any malice or immorality but by an excess of virtue: he is too thoughtful, too afraid of causing offense or violating his duty, and thus constantly offends and annoys and fails to do his duty or anything else.

[11] Laughter chapter III, sect. III

[12] “The Merchant Banker,” 2014 MontyPython.net (http://www.montypython.net/scripts/merchant.php) video here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2u4ggn

Poor, Distractible Donald: Impeachment, Pandemic and Hoaxes

April 25, 2020

Poor, Distractible Donald: Impeachment, Pandemic and Hoaxes

 

 

Senator Mitch McConnell, among others, claims that the reason the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States is so serious, and the response to it so inadequate, is because the impeachment of Donald Trump was such a distraction that the government was unable to do any better. Therefore, it isn’t because the Trump Administration is incompetent, or Donald Trump himself is incompetent, or that the entire Republican Party is incompetent; it is because the Democrats were so partisan and unpatriotic that they chose to launch an impeachment investigation of Trump’s attempts to extort political favors from Ukraine. Is there any truth to this?

First, let’s set the timelines out so we can compare them. This is a summary of three separate timelines: one on the impeachment inquiry, one on the COVID-19 pandemic and the last more specifically on Trump’s comments regarding the pandemic. Other information has been included as indicated.

2014: Hunter Biden begins working at Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company.[1]

2016: Victor Shokin, the Ukrainian top prosecutor, is removed for corruption, due to pressure from then Vice President Joe Biden, as well as the European Union and even some Republican senators. Although he later claims it was because he was investigating Burisma, in fact there were no anti-corruption investigations of Burisma until after Shokin was replaced. This is in fact one of the reasons for his removal.

January 13, 2017: A week before taking office, Donald Trump’s incoming administration was briefed on the dangers of a possible global pandemic, including both the fact that it could be even worse than the flu of 1918 and that it was a matter of “when” more than “if.” According to Politico and others, the future presidential advisors and Cabinet members seemed “uninterested.”[2]

May 2018: President Trump disbands NSC committee planning for a future pandemic.

August 2018: President Donald Trump approves military aid to Ukraine, accepting the reports of his administration’s intelligence agencies, diplomatic corps and economic advisors that Ukraine was working to crack down on the corruption that had long been a problem there.

April 2019: Alex Azar, HHS Secretary, together with Tim Morrison, special assistant to the President, warned about the possibility of a pandemic. Azar said the danger of pandemic is what keeps them awake at night.

May 9, 2019: Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney with no official government status, announces that he’ll be investigating Hunter Biden and his role at Burisma.

May 16, 2019: Ukraine’s Prosector General announces that an ongoing investigation has found no evidence of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Burisma.

July 25, 2019: Despite having already been assured by officials in the Ukrainian government that Hunter Biden was not involved in any corruption, President Trump tells President Zelenskiy of Ukraine that he wants “a favor:” that Ukraine should publicly announce an investigation of Hunter Biden for corruption, an investigation that will also implicate Trump’s political rival Joe Biden.

July-August 2019: Trump Administration pressures Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation of Hunter Biden, despite Ukraine’s previous investigation finding no corruption. The White House and Republicans in Congress are later shown to have been involved in this pressure campaign, which included threats to hold up all aid to Ukraine including defense aid essential for its national survival.

through September 2019: Trump and his administration alternatively admit and deny that they threatened to hold up aid to Ukraine in order to pressure Zelenskiy into investigating Hunter Biden. Leaks of whistleblower complaints, etc. reveal more details, some of which Trump initially denies.

September: House launches impeachment investigation.

September-December 2019: Witnesses testimony, from top U.S. diplomats, foreign policy advisors, intelligence officers and military advisers, contradicts Trump claims, detailing his pressure campaign against Ukraine and affirming that he was not interested in the results of the investigation or whether it showed any actual investigation; Trump only cared that the investigation be announced so that the Biden name would be tarnished. Trump and his aides refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, not due to “executive privilege” but simply because they said the Executive branch outranks the Legislative branch. This led Congress to consider a new possible article of impeachment: obstruction of Congress. In December the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment: “obstruction of Congress” and “abuse of power.”

Late November-early January: U.S. Intelligence becomes aware of spreading virus in China, holds extensive briefings throughout intelligence and military agencies, culminating in a detailed briefing for Trump in early January.[3]

December 31, 2019: First case of what will later be called COVID-19 reported to World Health Organization in Wuhan, China[4]

January 18, 2020: Trump’s advisors, including HHS Secretary Alex Azar, attempt to convince him that the epidemic in China is serious and the Chinese government is covering it up. He is uninterested, even interrupting the briefing to ask when he can lift the ban on fruit-flavored vaping products. For the rest of January, his staff and advisors attempted to convince Trump that COVID-19 was a serious threat to the nation and to his reelection, but he refused to believe them. Instead, he accepted reassurances from the Chinese government, following a pattern of rejecting the advice of his own intelligence agencies and advisors and accepting the word of foreign dictators.[5]

January 22, 2020: Reporter asks Trump if there are any worries about coronavirus, and he replies, “No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.”

January 24: Trump tweets, “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

Jan. 28: At a mass rally, Trump refers to the coronavirus as “the Democrats new hoax.” He does not appear to be denying that it exists, but is denying that it is a real danger.[6] This causes a lot of confusion among the press, and even more among less trained listeners.

Jan. 30: Trump blocks travel from China.

The same night, he holds a campaign rally in Iowa.

“We think we have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five. … we think it’s going to have a very good ending for it.”

Feb. 2: Trump tells Fox News host Sean Hannity, “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”

Feb. 6, 2020: Earliest known death in U.S. from COVID-19, in Santa Clara County in California. This indicates that the disease was already established and uncontained in the U.S. before Trump’s travel ban was put in place, as all containment efforts at that time were focused on Washington State.[7]

January-February 2020: After negotiations between House and Senate, the House holds final vote approving articles of impeachment and sends them to Senate. Senate holds impeachment trial and Feb. 2 shows that majority of Americans, including some Republican senators, agree Mr. Trump abused the power of his office for personal political gain. Popular opinion is closely divided on whether or not he should be removed from office, but there is widespread agreement that the House investigation has proven its claims. Trump’s defense, by his attorney Alan Dershowitz, is that his reelection is in the national interest and that therefore anything he does for his own personal political gain is also a matter of national security and therefore legal.

Feb. 4, 2020: During the State of the Union Address, Trump awards the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, a highly influential Republican pundit and Trump supporter.

Feb. 5, 2020: Trump acquitted by US Senate in a party-line vote, with the exception of Sen. Romney of Utah who votes with the Democrats to remove Trump from office.

NOTE: After this point, the impeachment is officially over and there is no realistic chance of it being revived.

February 24, 2020: Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners that the coronavirus is “the common cold.”[8]

February 27, 2020: Sean Hannity, a prominent FOX News and talk radio pundit with whom Trump is said to talk by phone nearly every night, attributes concern over coronavirus to “the media mob and the Democratic extreme radical socialist party.”

February 27: Trump supporter Candace Owens mocks concern about coronavirus, calling it “liberal paranoia.”[9]

February-March, 2020: Limbaugh continues his attacks on the medical community and health experts, insisting that COVID-19 is nothing more than the common cold. Sean Hannity continues to denounce concern over the pandemic as “hysteria” and “hoax.”[10]

March 6, 2020: While touring CDC, Trump compares the coronavirus tests to the transcript of his July 25, 2019 phone call that led to his impeachment, saying, “The tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This was not as perfect as that but pretty good.”[11] This was after numerous reports that the initial CDC tests were defective and that there was a severe shortage.

March 9, 2020: Trish Regan of FOX Business News denounces coronavirus concerns as a “coronavirus impeachment scam”[12] On his show, Hannity again refers to coronavirus as a “hoax.”

Jan-March 2020: Trump repeats many of these talking points from the conservative media in his briefings, speeches etc.

March 13, 2020: Trish Regan put on hiatus and later permanently dismissed.

March 16, 2020: Trump admits that virus is indeed “very bad” and begins to urge Americans to avoid crowds and so on.

March 18, 2020: Hannity claims that his show had always taken coronavirus seriously and never considered it a “hoax.”

March 24, 2020: Trump says that governors fighting coronavirus have to “be nice” if they want federal help.[13]

March-April 23, 2020: Trump conducts daily briefings on coronavirus; he also uses these briefings to attack political rivals and to make jokes about the “deep state”[14] and having sex with models.[15]   Frequently he is contradicted by his own aids and health experts, either during the briefing or afterwards, as he is presenting misinformation, medically dubious cures and so on.

April 23, 2020: During his daily press briefing, Trump interrupts the presentation of medical information about how UV light and disinfectants can kill the coronavirus to tell his doctors to look into whether it would be possible to use either to kill the virus inside an infected person. The White House spends the next 24 hours trying to respond to mockery of this idea, medical experts explain that both the light and the disinfectant that would kill the virus would also kill people, disinfectant manufacturers issue statements warning people not to drink bleach or Lysol or similar products, and the press describes the president as too “distracted” by politics and media coverage to pay attention to the actual information discussed at the regular White House pandemic response meetings.[16]

 

So yes, the impeachment was a distraction. Trump was so distracted by impeachment that while the impeachment itself was over by Feb. 5, he is still talking about it. His supporters, in government and in the conservative media, were so distracted by the impeachment that they dismissed talk about the pandemic until mid-March, 2020, when Trump, Hannity and others announced that they had in fact always taken the pandemic seriously although their public statements regularly used words like “hysteria,” “hoax” and “conspiracy.” Had the Republican Party and Trump administration begun paying attention to the coronavirus epidemic in February 2020, when the impeachment was over, we could have saved many more American lives.[17] Instead, they were still distracted by the impeachment, which was over by February 5 and was as good as dead as soon as it reached the Republican-controlled Senate which had made clear  before hearing any evidence that they would refuse to remove Trump no matter what. Donald Trump is still distracted by the impeachment, even taking time in April 2020 to punish the Inspector General whose legally-required report to Congress of the whistleblower’s complaint started the impeachment investigation. So yes, as Mitch McConnell says, Donald Trump, as well as the entire Republican Party, the leading personalities at FOX News and other conservative media were all so distracted by the impeachment that even more than a month after it was over they could not seriously talk publicly about the growing pandemic except to call it a second attempt to impeach their President.

But at the same time, from the beginning of his administration, even before he took office, Trump and his team were distracted from the dangers of a possible pandemic, even after they were explicitly warned. Some within the administration saw the dangers and attempted to warn Trump about it, but he was only concerned with political matters like the trumped-up investigation of the Bidens. The nation wasted over two months, dithering instead of preparing supplies and plans: the last month of the impeachment process and then six weeks after impeachment was over, during which the Republican party did nothing.[18] It remained a distraction because Trump and his administration put his own political ambitions ahead of the national security of the nation, obsessing with Ukraine and the efforts to concoct evidence against a political rival rather than with the warnings of their own intelligence and health agencies about a looming national threat. And even today, Trump is so distracted that his own scientific advisors have to fact-check him publicly because he is more concerned with saying whatever he thinks will make people “happy” and help his poll numbers than he is in actually giving true information to people whose lives depend on it. And his supporters, including many in the conservative media and Republican leadership, continue to insist that the whole coronavirus issue is being overblown merely to undermine Trump. They are still distracted. Some are distracted by the chance for financial gain.[19] Some are distracted by their personal political ambitions, or their desire to hurt Democrats and aid Donald Trump even if it costs American lives.[20] Many are distracted, to this day, by the impeachment, continuing to see everything as a plot against Trump. And many, many are distracted by a simple resentment of “elites,” people who have educations and expertise, who have spent decades serving society by learning about health threats without partisan bias, serving the public under administrations of both parties and thus becoming that evil “Big Government” they have been trained to hate and despise by decades of right-wing messaging.

Perhaps we should fire this distractible party, and replace it will a group that actually pays attention to the business of government—-you know, like the party that originally wrote the anti-pandemic playbook which the Trump administration threw out, which established the pandemic-preparedness planning group that Trump fired, and which handled the Ebola and Swine Flu epidemics so that they DIDN’T kill fifty thousand Americans and counting in less than three months.

[1] Elizabeth Janowski, “Timeline: Trump Impeachment Inquiry;” NBC News February 5, 2020 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/timeline-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1066691)

[2] Nahal Toosi, Daniel Lippman and Dan Diamond, “Before Trump’s Inauguration, a Warning:   ‘The Worst Influenza Pandemic Since 1918’;” Politico March 16, 2020 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-inauguration-warning-scenario-pandemic-132797)

[3] Veronica Stracqualursi, “ABC News: US Intelligence Warned of China’s Spreading Contagion in November;” CNN, April 8, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/us-intelligence-report-china-coronavirus/index.html)

[4] CNN Editorial Research, “Coronavirus Outbreak Timeline Fast Facts;” CNN April 22, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/health/wuhan-coronavirus-timeline-fast-facts/index.html )

[5] Caroline Kelly, “Washington Post: US Intelligence Warned Trump in January and February as he Dismissed Coronavirus Threat;” CNN March 21, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/politics/us-intelligence-reports-trump-coronavirus/index.html)

[6] Bethania Palma, “Did President Trump Refer to Coronavirus as a ‘Hoax’?” Snopes March 2, 2020 (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/)

[7] Dennis Romero, “1st US Coronavirus Death was Weeks Earlier than Initially Believed;” NBC News April 22, 2020 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/first-u-s-coronavirus-death-happened-weeks-earlier-originally-believed-n1189286)

[8] Jonathan V. Last, “The Malicious Irresponsibility of Rush Limbaugh;” The Bulwark April 2, 2020 (https://thebulwark.com/newsletter-issue/38752/)

[9] Jeremy W. Peters, “Alarm, Denial, Blame: The Pro-Trump Media’s Coronavirus Distortion;” The New York Times April 1, 2020 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/us/politics/hannity-limbaugh-trump-coronavirus.html)

[10] Aaron Rupar, “Hannity Claims He’s ‘Never Called the Virus a Hoax’ 9 Days after Decrying Democrats’ ‘new hoax’;” Vox March 20, 2020 (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/20/21186727/hannity-coronavirus-coverage-fox-news)

[11] Chas Danner, “Trump Says Coronavirus Testing is as ‘Perfect’ as his Phone Call;” Intelligencer March 6, 2020 (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/trump-coronavirus-testing-as-perfect-as-ukraine-call.html)

[12] Matt Wilstein, “Fox Business Ditches Trish Regan After Coronavirus ‘Impeachment Scam’ Rant;” Daily Beast March 28, 2020.

[13] Aaron Rupar, “Trump Commits to Helping Blue States Fight the Coronavirus——If Their Governors Are Nice to Him;” Vox March 25, 2020 (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/25/21193803/trump-to-governors-coronavirus-help-ventilators-cuomo)

[14] Jake Lahut, “Dr. Anthony Fauci Did a Facepalm After Trump Mentioned the ‘Deep State Department’ in a Wild Coronavirus Briefing;” Business Insider March 20, 2020 (https://www.businessinsider.com/dr-anthony-fauci-did-a-facepalm-during-trumps-coronavirus-briefing-2020-3)

[15] Matthew Wright, “President Trump is Eviscerated on Social Media for Making a Tasteless Joke About Being ‘Involved’ with Models as He Talks About Coronavirus DEATH Trajectory;” Daily Mail April 4, 2020 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8187225/Trump-makes-joke-involved-models-talks-coronavirus-DEATH.html)

[16] Kevin Liptak and Kaitlan Collins, “How a Media-Distracted Trump Ended Up Derailing His Own Briefing;” CNN April 25, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-task-force-science/index.html)

[17]Stephen Collinson, “Trump Sees ‘LIght at the End of the Tunnel’ at Start of ‘Pearl Harbor’ Week;” CNN April 6, 2020 (https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-history-health-economy/index.html)

[18] Jonathan Alter, “Trump’s Lost Months Are Killing Us. Here’s How to Make Them Politically Fatal for Him;” The Daily Beast April 4, 2020 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lost-months-killing-us-011244950.html)

[19] Matthew S. Schwartz, “Missouri Sues Televangelist Jim Bakker for Selling Fake Coronavirus Cure;” NPR March 11, 2020 (https://www.npr.org/2020/03/11/814550474/missouri-sues-televangelist-jim-bakker-for-selling-fake-coronavirus-cure)

[20] Scott Bixby, “DeVos Has Deep Ties to Protest Group, but is Quiet on Tactics;” Daily Beast April 21, 2020 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/devos-has-deep-ties-to-michigan-protest-group-but-is-quiet-on-tactics)