The same thing looks vastly different because of aspect
perception. That was the main point of my
previous blog post, using the widely-known duck-rabbit illusion. In that
article I referred to religious ramifications of aspect perception. This post
is about political ramifications.
What you see in the duck-rabbit illusion depends on whether
you look to the right or the left of the image. In the political world, there
is a huge difference in how the Republican right or the Democratic left sees this
nation.
As is clearly shown
here, in the Oct. 23 edition of Meet the
Press, a recent NBC poll indicates that 79% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats
think that the “other Party’s agenda will destroy America.”
What a huge and crucial difference aspect perception makes!
The two political parties just see and interpret the current situation in the
U.S. in radically diverse ways.
According to Michael Flynn’s perception of America, the
future of the country is in grave danger and can only be saved by “spiritual
warfare.” He is now leading a “holy war” to save the nation.
As you probably know, Flynn (b. 1958) was a prominent U.S.
general, active especially during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In February
2016 Flynn became an advisor to Trump for his presidential campaign, and in
January 2017 he was sworn in as Pres. Trump’s first National Security Advisor
(NSA).
Soon after being forced to resign as NSA, in December 2017
Flynn pled guilty to a felony charge of “willfully and knowingly” making false
statements to the FBI. In November 2020, however, he was issued a presidential
pardon by Trump.
Since then, Flynn has been active as one of the most
prominent leaders of Christian nationalism. As one of the main speakers at the
ReAwaken America Tours, since April of last year he has spoken to numerous
enthusiastic audiences of thousands. On Nov. 4-5 he will be with RAT in
Branson, Mo.
Perceptions of Michael Flynn vary greatly. In the PBS
documentary, pastor Jacqui Lewis is shown as a staunch opponent of Flynn. She
exclaims, “It’s our calling to disrupt fake Christianity. And we're not going
to be nice about it.” Lewis also declares, “It is a battle for the soul
of America.”**
The interviewer, Michelle Smith, comments, “Rev. Dr. Jacqui
Lewis is part of a coalition of religious leaders that opposes what they see as
a hijacking of Christianity by figures like Flynn.”
While not included in the documentary, a group known as Faithful
America is also actively opposing what they perceive to be the false
Christianity of Flynn and his supporters. On their website they identify
20 Christian nationalists whom they say are “false prophets.” Flynn is one of
them.
Flynn’s supporters, though, perceive things quite
differently. This week I checked out journalist Dave Erickson’s book Framing
Flynn: The Scandalous Takedown of an American General (2021) from my local
library.
The blurb on the back of the book says that it is an
“eye-opening and shocking look at the Obama administration’s scandalous set up
of an innocent man—General Michael Flynn—to destroy his livelihood, reputation,
and job with the incoming Trump administration.”
Author Erickson obviously perceives the same man in a drastically
different way than pastor Lewis and Faithful America. They represent the two
sides of Flynn’s “holy war.” The November 8—and Nov. 2024—elections will give
some indication of how that “war” will end.
Which side of the “holy war” are you on, and why?
Please note: I am not in the least suggesting that
one “side” is as true or viable as the other. My use of the rabbit/duck
illusion is only to illustrate how the same thing can be seen in diverse ways,
not how each is equally correct.
_____
* This
program was produced by PBS in cooperation with The Associated Press (AP), and
the main interviewer throughout is AP correspondent Michelle Smith. On
their website, AP,
founded in 1846, claims to be “an independent global news organization
dedicated to factual reporting.”
** Lewis
is the pastor of Middle Collegiate Church in Manhattan.
Here is the link to her informative website.
.jpg)
With your last paragraph you did, sort of, protect yourself from the charge of false equivalency. The questions facing our political culture are not about perception. They're about democracy vs. authoritarianism, truth vs. falsehood, empirically informed vs. ideologically shaped perception, and social morality vs. social immorality. I understand well the concept of ideology and how competing ideologies skew people's perceptions. (There are actually at least two major uses of "ideology," but I'll not go into that.) I've been trained, fairly thoroughly actually, to think critically, to seek the evidence, and to also interrogate the framework of assumptions by which one evaluates the evidence. Today in USAmerica, the problem is not so much competing political ideologies as it is political philosophies versus deliberate falsehoods for undemocratic and unlawful power for white Christian supremacy. The recent actions of Lisa Murkowski and Liz Cheney endorsing Democrats are illustrations--and evidence--for this claim.
ReplyDeleteThanks, as always, Anton, for your early and thought-provoking comments. There is much I would like to say in response, but I will try to be brief.
DeleteFirst, I was puzzled by your writing "sort of" in the first sentence. I in no way embrace a "false equivalency," seeing both sides of the political (and religious?) warfare going on in the nation as equally bad--or equally good. I believe that one side's position is clearly superior to the other side's. That is based on how I understand things, and, of course, I think I am right in what I think. But, and this is a significant but, I also think that most, even though not all, of the people on the other side think that they are right in what they think. That is why I write about this being a matter of competing perceptions. So I disagree with your perception that the polarity in the U.S. today is not about perception.
Yes, it is about democracy vs. authoritarianism--although most of those on the Christian Right would say it is about theocracy (even though they might not use that word) rather than authoritarianism, about God's truth (as they understand it) rather than the falsehood of those deceived by Satan, and about social morality (regarding such things as abortion and LGBTQ rights) rather than social immorality (as practiced by those who are "baby killers" and against the sanctity of marriage as instituted by God).
My academic training is very similar to yours, and I believe in thinking critically etc. perhaps as much as you do. But, thinking critically, I cannot agree that all of those who enthusiastically attend the ReAwaken America Tour rallies and are MAGA Republicans are knowingly embracing "deliberate falsehoods for undemocratic and unlawful power." I don't think that even Michael Flynn is doing that, although I think quite certainly there are many politicians as well as conservative evangelical leaders who are doing that. But it seems to me that even Flynn and certainly the masses of people who gather to hear him (and others) speak at the RAT rallies just perceive things differently than you and I do. I think they are wrong in how they perceive things--but you know what, most of them would doubtlessly think that you and I are wrong in how we perceive things. So, I stand by what I have written.
I don't know if you have watched the PBS documentary I mentioned in the opening paragraph. If not, I encourage you to do so. If you watch it, try to ascertain if Flynn is deliberately speaking falsehoods for political power and if those watching him are simply embracing a political philosophy that has nothing to do with their perception of reality.
Well, if you do believe that both sides are sincere and authentic in their claims, I would say, yes, that is still sort of a false equivalency because there is a lot of evidence of duplicity on the part of trump, MAGA, and their white Christian and nonChristian followers. You would have to believe that trump, the many trumppublicans running for office, and others actually do believe the election of 2020 was stolen in spite of huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. trump was told by many, according to sworn testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, that the election was not stolen. A lot of the Capitol rioters have confessed in the courts that they were wrong. Either they're lying now or just afraid to tell the court what they really believe. Flynn himself confessed to lying to the FBI, which doesn't do a lot for his credibility. Alex Jones admitted to being wrong when in court regarding the lawsuits for his false claims about Sandy Hook. Did the courtroom convince him or was he now lying to save his rear end or did he realize that deliberately participating in a falsehood was threatening his livelihood? Many have taken the fifth before the Jan. 6 committee; I wonder what that means. Were trump's Supreme Court nominees, before the Senate, being sincere when they endorsed the importance of legal precedent? If you are right that both sides sincerely believe all the stuff they're claiming, perhaps, then, we're dealing with delusional vs. realistic thinking. But I think there's another phenomenon in play here.
DeleteAnd this is the willingness of people to deliberately participate in falsehoods in service of what they think is a greater good. A number of Nazis are on historical record of saying they understood that falsehoods could serve their cause. I can imagine plenty of Christians, convinced by evangelical preachers and Catholic priests that zygotes are persons, willing now to support unscrupulous politicians and deliberate falsehoods to stop "baby killing." I can imagine gun lovers willing to toss out the democratic processes of USAmerica to not have controls on guns. White evangelicals enjoyed cultural hegemony for over two hundred years; how far are they willing to compromise with falsehood to reinstate that supremacy? It's a kind of contextual ethic for what they think is a higher cause. [I have trouble here labeling it because the use of "situation ethics" (J.Fletcher) or "contextual ethics" (P.Ramsey) by theologians has meant something altogether different than simply throwing ethics to the wind to get what you want.]
I can believe that a great many USAmericans are convinced by honest and unscrupulous politicians that leftward moves by the US are not good. The question is, how far are they willing to go in trucking with falsehoods to prevent that from happening? After all, many liberal and conservative Christian theologians were left scratching their heads at the white evangelical support of a candidate and then president whose morality they would have found completely unacceptable fifty years ago. It appears to me that they're ready to compromise their own morals and convictions to maintain the white evangelical supremacy they once enjoyed.
Anton, thanks for taking the time to post more thought-provoking comments. They help me to think more about my own position and to clarify the points I am trying to make.
DeleteI certainly agree with you that there is "lot of evidence of duplicity" on the part of Trump and his political allies, although I don't know how much evidence there is for such duplicity on the part of the average Tom, Dick, and Jane who are MAGA Republicans. I have no desire (or reason) at all to defend the political positions of Trump, Sen. McConnell, Rep. McCarthy, Sen. Graham, Rep. Greene, and many others of their ilk. I am writing mostly about common, ordinary people such as the majority of those who attend the ReAwaken America Tour rallies. I don't see them as vile (or evil) people but rather as people who have an erroneous perception of the real issues/dangers facing our country. And many of these people most likely think that their thinking is "realistic" and that it is people on the other side (like us) that are delusional. They think there is a real danger in the "socialism" that the Democrats are trying to foist upon the nation. And most of them think, my guess is, that Flynn is trying to reawaken American to that danger. After all, he started his career fighting against Communism before switching after 9/11 to fighting against "radical Islam." But now he sees the primary danger to the country coming from within--and that is the reason that nearly 80% of the Republicans think (perceive) that the Democrats will destroy the country.
Unlike the politicians I mentioned above, I don't think that most ordinary citizens who are conservative Republicans are deliberately participating in falsehoods. Many of them may, indeed, support MAGA politicians (including Trump) in elections, thinking that by doing so they are supporting (voting for) the lesser of two evils. But for the most part, I think that most people simply act on the basis of their perception of what they think is right, or good, or beneficial for society (although perhaps mostly beneficial for the members of society like them). I further think that the only hope for overcoming the polarity that is ripping out country apart is for more and more of us to be willing to listen to those we disagree with express their perceptions, to ask that they listen to ours, and to reason together about how we can all come to a better comprehension of reality as it is now and should be in the future.
Local Thinking Friend David Nelson is both Anton's and my close personal friend, and here are his pertinent comments about this morning's blog post:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for this post and the link to this very disturbing Frontline video. Christian Nationalism is far from the faith that has embarrassed and nourished me and seems a complete contradiction to the words and life of Jesus. Christianity is a wonderful religion, and I am saddened when it becomes weaponized as a tool in political warfare. The world community needs more love, not hate. We must listen, read and live with curiosity rather than judgement. My neighborhood and my world is wonderful because of our beautiful diversity of religion and ethnicity. I learn from Jesus each day to love my family, my friends, my neighbors, and my other neighbors whose believes, and traditions differ from mine. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and others are not the enemy. Hate is the enemy that must be defeated and only love can win that war."
Thanks for your comments, David, and I largely agree with what you wrote. But it is my impression that Flynn is primarily engaged in what he calls "spiritual warfare" rather than political warfare. He no doubt thinks that the Republican Party is on the right side of the current political warfare going on in the U.S., and those on that side are happy to use Flynn's fiery speeches (sermons) to bolster their cause.
DeleteMaybe I am too gullible, but I honestly think that Flynn and especially most of those who go to hear him are sincere in seeing the current situation in the U.S. as "spiritual" warfare and seeing themselves as "Christian soldiers" marching to war against the deluded godless, Satanic people and institutions in the nation.
Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky comments,
ReplyDelete"Leroy, I don’t think one can say much in support of Michael Flynn’s effort to recover an American theocracy. He muffled his voice by his role in the Trump administration. He also has a slim grasp of biblical teachings."
Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson. I hear what you are saying, but Flynn's position with the Trump administration was as National Security Advisor, and he was responsible for trying to keep America safe from what he saw as godless Communism and radical Islam, both of which were dire threats to not just American theocracy but even to the non-theocratic democracy we have now. And, it may well be true that he has a slim grasp of biblical teachings, but even though he is a Catholic, what I have heard him say is not much different from what many conservative evangelicals say regularly--but, sadly, many of them may have "a slim grasp of biblical teachings" also.
DeleteThis afternoon, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard send these comments:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your observations about the latest 'Holy War.'
"I cannot think of any actual war that was holy, so the term 'holy war' seems self-contradictory. Nonetheless, the 'Christian' nationalists are likely to inspire more war rather than less because conflicts arise when people are marginalized based on their identity. Christianity should be inclusive, not exclusive, and any system of morality worth its salt must be based on the sacredness of the dignity of every human being.
"I suspect that Flynn's Holy War will be directed against abortion and women's rights, the rights of gays and transgender people, immigrants, and possibly people of color. It will force people to hide their true identities. No one should have to be dishonest about his or her identity or beliefs.
"I think America is nearing spiritual bankruptcy and Christian nationalism is making the situation worse as it tries to demonize and dehumanize those who are different. It is a sad state of affairs and I am very concerned about where this is headed."
And then a few minutes ago I received the following comments from Thinking Friend Jerry Jumper in southwest Missouri:
ReplyDelete"I don't pretend to be an elitist but in practicing medicine for 50 years I have observed a few things about people. There are large numbers of people who react and don't seriously or studiously approach life. Their offspring frequently follow this pattern. I believe we are approaching a point where thoughtful analysis of issues--religious, political, economic--does not exist. And I am glad I am 80, not 20."
Recently the increasing mention of "holy war" blanched my soul, not just for its recklessness but for its spiritual blindness and deafness, the dangerous mixture of ignorance and arrogance as to make such utterances in public, and the horrifying fact that such wars have always destroyed much more than one's enemies. Holy war is war; it cannot be holy. It gains only death. How sobering it is to hear Americans talk death as if their words score no more than points against opponents they have magnified as evil in their own imaginations as of any reality (are "those" people actually half as bad as you say, "Mr. Flynn"?). How can anyone reasonably take sides when the palaver suggests mutual cultural destruction? History's wars prove the point that no nation has ever been so civil and clever as to beat death and loss in an internal war. No matter who "wins".
ReplyDeleteThat being said, organization such as the braverangels.org that brings people together are hopeful signs for dialogue and adequate understanding of each other.
Thanks, Jerry, for your significant comments. I agree that all war is bad and there cannot really be such a thing as a "holy war." I cannot document that Flynn has used those words, though; PBS used that term in their documentary about Flynn. What I remember is his emphasizing "spiritual warfare," which PBS/AP interpreted, perhaps correctly, as being the same as holy war. Flynn and other Christians who speak of spiritual warfare usually base what they say about that on Ephesians 6:10~17. Of course, even this passage doesn't call for holy war; it is about putting on the "armor of God," and the only offensive weapon mentioned is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
DeleteThank you for introducing the braverangels.org website. I did not know about that organization and find it quite appealing. On their website they say, "As individuals, we try to understand the other side’s point of view, even if we don’t agree with it." That was much of my motivation for writing and posting this blog article about different perspectives. Most of the ordinary people we strongly disagree with simply perceive things differently, so I strongly think that trying to understand their point of view is far better than arguing with them and trying to convince them they are wrong and we are right. If we listen to them, some (but, sadly, not all) might be willing then to listen to our point of view, and then there can be, possibly, fruitful dialogue.
Well, I am back from my latest grandchildren tour, so here I am jumping in. Optical illusions need to be distinguished from mirages. A mirage, as in famous example of "water" seen in a desert, is based on a profound misunderstanding of reality. Science can solve the water mirage quite simply. You can never reach the mirage, for it is not a body of water. It is an unusual behavior of light which can use nearly flat surfaces seen at a an extreme angle as a mirror, even when the surface is sand or pavement, not polished glass. It still tricks our eyes, but we know how to override our natural inclination to get an accurate observation.
ReplyDeleteAn optical illusion is a consciously created relative of a mirage. Sometimes found objects are used as optical illusions, such as the famous photo a few years ago where people saw two totally different color schemes in the same dress. Even people looking at the same computer screen at the same time would have different readings. The scientific part of my mind suggested to me that this appeared to be a really bad (overexposed) photo that just happened to confuse people.
One of the things scientists have discovered from studying video and film is that we tend to see what we expect to see, rather than what actually happened. This can have tragic consequences in court, when an eye-witness reports what they thought they saw instead of what actually happened. I am not talking about lying, but rather memory failures that can be horribly damaging. This also applies to who was seen by the witness. Unless identifying a previously known person, eye-witnesses have proved terribly inaccurate at identifying strangers in a lineup.
Science is the only answer. We have to learn our limits and weaknesses. We need to practice critical thinking in order to practice anything resembling accurate perceiving. USAmerica is in a critical juncture where one of our two major parties rejects both science and critical thinking, and the other party is only marginally better. So we may end up having to drink a glass of mirage.
Thanks for your comments, Craig. It is good to hear from you again. I hadn't thought about contrasting illusions and mirages, and I was amused by your conclusion about "having to drink a glass of mirage."
DeleteTo tell the truth, I am not sure the images I used in the blog articles are illusions, although they seem to be called that regularly in the articles I found on the internet. According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, an illusion is (1) "a misleading image presented to the vision," or (2) "something that deceives or misleads intellectually." I don't think there is anything misleading or deceitful about the duck/rabbit image or the young/old woman image. They are just drawn to look different according to one's perception, which is really in the case of the two pictures just a matter of what part of the image one focuses on. And my point in the blog post is that people in USAmerican society seem to focus on different matters and thus do disagree greatly on many issues--although I also think that one side does seem to have been more misled and deceived than those on the other side.
Everything said is useful, even when some ideas contradict others. My 2 cents are based on a faith in positive change in future public opinion. I look back on the wars in Viet Nam and in Iraq and Afghanistan and how public opinion eventually aligned with my initial anti war opinions. In other words, I counsel patience and playing the long game. There may be no easy instant fixes, but seeking common ground on issues not currently “weaponized” by partisan politics is a way to “muddle through”. For instance, let’s focus on malaria or famine or concussions. We may find allies on opposite sides of our current political divide with whom we can work productively. These are trust building strategies, and delaying tactics while we hope for mutual appreciation and the fading away of current hostilities.
ReplyDeleteHere are comments received this morning from local Thinking Friend Lonnie Buerge:
ReplyDelete"Leroy, I agree that the Holy War is upon us. It is hard to accept but it seems that there is no let-up of the onslaught by the far right and the acquiescence of a huge part of what had been labelled as conservative. If the nation turns blue on next Tuesday, I wonder how the progressives will deal with the failed 'warriors.' If it turns red, how will progressives be treated by the victorious? If there is no clear direction, are we doomed to years of guerilla warfare in our own country? Right now, the picture is not a pretty one."
Thanks for reading and responding to my blog article, Lonnie. You raise important questions about the short-term future of our country. As much as I hate to say it, I am afraid that at least the House is probably going to turn red in January, although I still have hopes that the Senate will remain as it is now and might turn a bit more blue. But even with a GOP majority in the House, I foresee two years of considerable disfunction and deterioration. The Jan. 6 committee will likely be dissolved before its work is done, there will probably be a concerted effort to impeach Pres. Biden, support for Ukraine will possibly be reduced greatly, Social Security and Medicare will be threatened, etc. The only good thing that could come out of this likely scenario would be the swing back to a blue Congress in 2024--and the election of another Democratic President.
Delete