The concept of “Group Think” was a key part of the novel 1984. Many saw the book as a type of prediction as to what the future would be. Of course, one can only predict the future (but that is another matter). Group Think was a state of profound agreement with the political party in power. I refer to this tendency as “fashion” or style, and consider it as a very powerful force in human behavior. I offer a few observations that, in my view, show this state of mind functioning in the contemporary culture.
I do not know whom I am quoting, but I totally accept the principle, namely, “Do not use a bad word when a good one is available.” Yet it seems that everyone violates this obviously useful rule. I refer to the issue of immigration. The issue has two divisions, legal and illegal. Pretty much every commentator and candidate will mention both parts. And everyone uses the word “illegal.” And essentially everyone says the word in such a way that it sounds as if it might be “legal.” This is to say, I can not distinguish between legal and illegal. The words are too similar when pronounced. I admit that my hearing is no longer excellent. However, the entire problem could be eliminated by using the word “unlawful,” or even “criminal.” Yet I expect no rationality to arise in this issue.
My second example may be the ultimate illustration of “they should know better.” Here is the background as I understand it. Harvard University has recently been exposed as selecting some atudents based upon race. The school has not denied the accusation. To be clear: the school admits some people, simply because they are, or are not, a particular race. Here is the official defense offered by the school. Being of a certain race actually “helps” some applicants to be admitted. In other words, no one is harmed, while some are assisted.
Really? If applicant X is admitted because he is Black then, obviously, some non-Black person Y is rejected because of his (non)race. There are a limited number of freshman spaces, and the filling of one space based upon race DOES advantage someone. But it also harms at least one other, based upon his race. Does really expect to be believed? And Harvard is not only liberal, but also officially “smart.”
My last example is one that deals with serious issues. It also appears to be an example of the “Big Lie” technique. This means that what is not credible can be accepted as true, if presented in the right way. This particular lie is easy to believe because it is noble in nature. I hear it frequently during interviews and talk shows. It claims to explain why the USA goes to war.
Usually veterans, or people praising them, advance this bit of nonsense. The claim is that our service men fought (and died) in order to guarantee our freedoms. The Bill of Rights is often mentioned. Somehow the attack on 9/11 is transformed into an attack on Freedom of Speech. Somehow, we are expected to believe that bin Laden would have avoided killing Americans if only Congress would pass a bill restricting freedom of the press. Can any human believe this? And, somehow, knocking down some buildings was an attack on the Eight Amendment, which deals with civil suits (has anyone ever read what “freedom” it provides?).
The reality is this. Those who do fight do so to keep alive by killing official enemies of the current administration... not that there is anything wrong with this.
The guests on news and talk shows often talk about America’s message and meaning to the world. Maybe it is to provide comic relief.
Comments