The Republican Brain--in Oklahoma

This morning, at the commencement at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, the keynote speaker was Mr. Jerry Buchanan, a prominent Republican from Tulsa. During his speech, he made reference to “Obama bin Laden.” He then made a perfunctory apology, but due to his gestures (including a grin and putting his thumb to his mouth) I inferred that the apology was not sincere.


Events such as this make me wonder if Republicans consider Democrats to not be fellow Americans but to be outsiders, even enemies. Throughout human history, our species has drawn lines between insiders, whom we treat with altruism, and outsiders, whom we despise. We have steadily encompassed more and more people, and even other species and the Earth, into the “insider” group. But in Oklahoma it appears that this process is reversing. It hasn’t always been this way. Back when Republicans hated Bill Clinton, they never implied that he was a terrorist, or in other ways spewed the hatred that they now spew toward President Obama. Whether this is because the Republican Party has changed from being the party of right wing activism to being the party of personal animosity toward others, or whether it is because Obama is (part) black and Clinton is white, I cannot say.

And this is exactly what we would expect from the way the “Republican brain” works. This phrase is in the title of Chris Mooney’s new book. Mooney (author of such previous works as The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America) uses recent research into psychology to say that people whose brains have an intolerance of ambiguity tend to join the Republican Party. The process is quite simple. Some people’s brains make them believe that everything is either totally right or totally wrong; and that whatever they happen to believe is totally right; and that anyone who disagrees with them is therefore not only wrong but evil; and that they are right (or blessed by God) whenever they take actions against other people that would, in most circumstances, be considered wrong. That is, when such people are “standing up for their beliefs,” no amount of ridicule or insult or misinformation is too much to heap upon others, and God releases them from moral and legal obligations when they attack others. While this is a perfect description of Republicans, it also describes extreme liberals; however, there just aren’t enough extreme liberals to bother talking about them. And it is obvious to readers of this blog that this is the way the minds of religious conservatives work.

I believe that this was what was happening in the mind of the commencement speaker this morning. Perhaps he believes that he should extend the normal respect of shared citizenship to President Obama, but subconsciously his brain is telling him that the president is related conceptually to terrorism. And I believe that this is also why most of the audience thought it was funny.
I confronted the speaker about this afterward. The speaker had told the graduates that their words should be positive, to create a positive future for themselves and a positive environment for everyone. And he had make explicit reference to Christianity being advanced by positive words. I told him that his words about “Obama bin Laden” were not positive, but were highly insulting. He agreed. He insisted that it was a Freudian slip. I asked him to write a letter of apology to President Obama, and he promised to do so. I went up to him again and told him that his apology makes a great deal of difference. And that is why I am telling you about it. I will probably never know whether he actually sends an apology, but for the record, he apologized.

It is the Freudian part that I am writing about. I actually believe that Jerry Buchanan just made a mistake. But associating people who disagree with them, especially President Obama, with evil comes naturally and subconsciously to Republicans and to conservative Christians, and it slips out even when they do not intend it to—even when they do not consciously believe it, or just when they think it is bad publicity to say it. And the laughter of the crowd tells me that Oklahoma is dangerously Red. Dangerous, because they can say all kinds of hostile and inflammatory things before they even realize what they are doing. Will actions follow words? History, even recent history, even recent American history, does not offer us complete assurance that we have nothing to worry about, especially since there are enough guns in Oklahoma to supply an army as large as that of some nations. As long as the Oklahoma House opens its sessions with creationist rants (see March 20 entry on my evolution blog) and the people of Oklahoma think that it is funny to associate the name of the president with terrorism, the ground is fertile for real trouble.

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (1)

I will begin a series of postings that deal with what is sometimes called theodicy. There does not appear to be a God who intervenes in the world to place any restraint upon evil, or to provide any encouragement to good. Theodicy is the branch of theology that tries to make excuses for this, and attempts to explain how an all-powerful God could allow the world to be so randomly cruel.

Of course, there are many beautiful things in the world and that have happened to each of us, and I spend a lot of time thinking about the beauty of nature and the intense satisfaction that I feel in my life and work. Please do not get the impression that I am a negative person, however cynical my theological speculations may at times be. In fact, I marvel at how lucky I have been, and reflect that I am not a better person than many people who suffer so horribly. How did I get so lucky as to be born in the United States—a nation that, imperfect as it is, at least has rights that are usually respected?

A friend and I recently watched a movie called Osama. It was set in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. The movie was all in Pashtun, with English subtitles. It showed the incredible oppression and cruelty of the Taliban, as well as their glaring hypocrisies. It was about a family: a grandmother, a mother, and a girl. They needed an income, and the women were not allowed to earn one. So they decided to disguise the girl as a boy, named Osama, and he got a job. But the Taliban made all the boys go to a military camp, and while s/he was there, she had her first period and was discovered. Just before being stoned, she was spared, but sent to a fate worse than death. If you wish, I will tell you what it is later. Let me know. The response my friend and I had was, in what way do we deserve to escape such suffering?

Of course, there is no answer, because everything that happens is just luck. And I am not the only one who says so.

Consider the series of poems that composer Carl Orff used for his orchestral-choral masterpiece Carmina Burana. It is a primitive and rough piece of music that is almost frightening in its beauty. The poems were collected from medieval minstrels—some in Latin, some in German, some in a dialect that was French halfway evolved from Latin. They celebrate earthly things. Medieval times were supposed to be the age of faith when everybody thought God ruled over a small flat world. But these poems are often openly agnostic and reject the concept of Providence. The first poem in the series is Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi—Luck, Empress of the World.

O Fortuna
Velut Luna
Statu variabilis
Semper crescis
Aut decrescis
Vita detestabilis
Nunc obdurat
Et tunc durat
Ludo mentis aciem
Egestatem
Potestatem
Dissolvit ut glaciem.

Just read that—aloud—and hear the rhythm and rhymes. Powerful! It translates: “O luck, like the moon, changeable in state, you are always waxing or waning. Hateful life is at one moment hard and the next moment watches over the mind’s playfulness. Poverty, power, it melts like ice.” What forgotten minstrel composed these verses, saying that life was both hateful and playful?

The other source of ideas for this series of entries is nothing other than the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. It is breathtaking in its honesty about the randomness of fate. How did it ever make it into the Bible? I will explore the insights from both the medieval poetry and the Book of Ecclesiastes in upcoming days. Join me!