February 24, 2009

Michael Medved: Still Liberal After All These Years

Hatched by Dafydd

(But of course, I think most of us already knew that.)

I was listening to Mr. M. today; in his first segment, he examined the phenomenon of blacks as monkeys... well, to be fair, the phenomenon of blacks claiming that any reference to monkeys or apes -- no matter how far removed from racial considerations -- is actually a racist reference to blacks as monkeys, and therefore requires an abject, belly-crawling apology, contrition, and a healthy financial donation to Al Sharpton.

All right; fair topic. But in the middle of his intro, he noted that Charles Darwin, "who we honored the same day as Lincoln's birthday" -- possibly because they were, in fact, born on exactly the same day: February 12th, 1809 -- was a racist who believed that blacks were closer to monkeys and apes than were whites.

Again, fair point: But the proper conclusion to draw is that, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many great men and women were flaming racists... not that Darwin in particular was a more egregious racist than his peers (he wasn't).

The second time Medved noted that point, I was a bit puzzled; why harp on poor Charles Darwin? Literature from this period is replete with such casually racist observations and portrayals, from Harriet Beecher Stowe to Rudyard Kipling to Booth Tarkington... and they're even found in such notably anti-racist works as Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn: The character of "Nigger Jim," while depicted as the most kind and decent person in the work, is nevertheless painted as a shuffling Stepin Fetchit, not a visionary like Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington (throughout the book, until the very end, Jim thoroughly accepts his inferiority compared to whites, for example).

So why Darwin specifically?

I didn't realize Medved's real purpose, however, until the third time in the same hour that Medved brought out that "startling" fact (in case anyone had missed all but he final ten minutes of the segment) -- this time in response to a black caller who said the New York Post cartoon of the bullet-riddled corpse of Travis the Chimp, with the caption "They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," clearly played to the latent racism of American society: Medved believes the nineteenth-century racism of Darwin completely discredits evolutionary theory.

How could he think that? What would Darwin's racism have to do with the validity of modern evolutionary theory? We all agree that William Shockley supported eugenics (he doesn't appear to have been a racist, but eugenics is bad enough); does that mean transistors don't really work?

I believe the problem is that Medved either doesn't understand the scientific method, or more dastardly, understands it but hopes to confuse his listeners for purely tendentious reasons. He never discusses "evolutionary theory," "biological evolution," or even just evolution; he invariably refers to that entire subject as "Darwinism," and he conflates biological evolution with "social Darwinism," generally, though somewhat inaccurately, identified with eugenics. Medved doesn't see "Darwinism" as a scientific theory but rather a cult of personality, like Scientology, the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones' People's Temple in Guyana. Thus to Medved, the best way to "discredit" evolutionary theory is to smear Charles Darwin. There, that'll put paid to all this nonsense!

This tactic is a dangerous tendency alike of conservatives like Ben Stein and pseudoconservative former leftist radicals such as Michael Medved; we've discussed it a number of times before, going all the way back to the dim mists of antiquity (2005):

(The last is a rare post by Big Lizards co-founder Brad Linaweaver.)

This particular rhetorical trick is quintessentially liberal, though sadly, it's used by all sides: It's "Fruit of the Forbidden Tree" Reductionism (FFTR). The Left uses it almost to the exclusion of all other arguments. It consists in first reducing an entire argument, school of thought, philosophy, or movement to a single "founding" individual... then personally smearing that individual, thus "discrediting" the entire movement. Thus:

  • American Democracy was invented by Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence; but Jefferson the hypocrite clearly did not believe that "all men are created equal" or were "endowed" with "liberty," because he himself kept slaves; therefore, Jeffersonianism is irretrievably racist, regressive, and belongs in the dustbin of history.
  • Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who started the anti-Communist hysteria, was a bigot, a racist, and a drunkard; it's no wonder that many decades of McCarthyism have failed to uncover any Commies hiding under our beds.
  • Ronald Reagan was one of those rich and privileged Hollywood elites who betrayed their own fellow union members by denouncing them to McCarthyite witch-hunts; this explains Reaganism's later betrayal of the whole country by slashing taxes on the rich and crushing the poor.

And here's another one from the other side, besides "Darwinism":

  • In 1938, the cowardly, pacifist appeaser Neville Chamberlain gave Adolf Hitler everything he wanted as part of the European "peace process," imagining this would satisfy Hitler and prevent war; now, seventy years later, we're supposed to give Mahmoud Ahmadijejad everything he wants in the new Iranian "peace process"... which will have the same effect as last time.

Let's dissect that last. First, note that it's not necessary actually to use an eponym like "Chamberlainism;" the sin is in the identification itself, however expressed. Second, I agree with the underlying conclusion... but finally, FFTR is not about the conclusion, it's about the rhetorical road by which one arrives there. Its essence is:

  1. Identify the enemy philosophy with a single individual;
  2. Villify that individual, especially if one does so unfairly;
  3. Conclude, by the mother of all non-sequiturs, that the enemy philosophy is thereby refuted.

In the last example above, (a) the philosophy of appeasement is identified with Neville Chamberlain, as if he had invented it; (b) Chamberlain is ludicrously caricatured as a coward, a pacifist, and a blind fool who believed that the Munich Agreement would permanently prevent war with Nazi Germany, none of which is accurate; and (c) the arguer uses the identification and denunciation to shortcut the heavy lifting of really analyzing appeasement to see where it works and where it doesn't.

In fact, appeasement does sometimes work. For one example, in 1978, Israel returned the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for the promise that Egypt -- which had taken the lead in all three previous major wars against Israel, in 1948, 1967, and the Yom Kippur War of 1973, just five years before the Accords -- would normalize relations with Israel. This is classic appeasement... land for the promise of peace. But in fact, it has worked. Since 1978, and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of the next year, Egypt has kept the peace with Israel and even fought against Hamas in Gaza (to some extent). Hey, appeasement worked for more than half of Israel's existence; we can't deny that stubborn fact.

Thus, those of us who oppose appeasement anent Iran (which is a horse for another day) must analyze and explain why it wouldn't work and would be a catastrophe, despite the positive example of Egypt. That complicates the argument, though not unduly; it is, however, an argument of some subtlety and the polar opposite of FFTR.

FFTR flattens all distinction, subtlety, and nuance into one big smear of fire-engine red. A good analogy increases understanding of an issue by removing the structure of an argument from the emotion-laden specifics; but a rhetorical trick like FFTR reduces understanding of the issue by conflating unlike things as if they were one and the same.

And that surely is true with Medved's and Stein's full-throated employment of FFTR to "refute" modern evolutionary theory (ET): They flatten all distinctions between ET and religion, between ET and "social Darwinism," between logic and sincerity, and between legitimate and ideological personnel decisions; they leave behind only a raw, "four legs good, two legs bad" bleat designed to prevent rational discussion, trying to silence science.

And in yet another rhetorical trick filtched from liberals, Medved and Stein then project their own thuggishness onto their victims -- Expelled is the poster-child of such role reversal!

It's disgusting when a former left-liberal radical war protester, like Michael Medved or David Horowitz, reverts to form, seizing upon the rhetorical tricks familiar to his misspent youth; but it's utterly vile when a lifelong conservative like Ben Stein appropriates alien, leftist tactics to his own cause. Buckley never did this, nor did Goldwater; in fact, not even liberal-turned-conservative-icon Ronald Reagan did it.

When those identified as conservative use Carville-like tricks to bamboozle the audience, they discredit not only themselves but the rest of us as well, handing open leftists the perfect ammunition to use for their own adventures in "Fruit of the Forbidden Tree" Reductionism.

Thanks again, guys. I truly enjoy being forced to swim upstream through your rhetorical sewers, undoing the damage you cause, before I can even get to my actual point.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 24, 2009, at the time of 3:31 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3500

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

You are correct regarding appeasement, and I've often wondered at the same thing.

The classic example, a guy says to give him your wallet, or he'll blow your head off. Now, giving him your wallet is technically appeasement, but most of us would do it. In the case above, wallet + killing you is the less preferable alternative to wallet + not killing you. This is because the goal is the wallet, not killing you.

In the case of Egypt, regaining the Sinai was the goal, killing Jews was secondary.

In the case of Iran, killing Jews appears to be goal, and getting appeased while doing so is secondary. They will kill you, then search your cloths for your wallet.

In the case of North Korea, getting appeased in the primary goal, with killing secondary. They are the mugger who asks for your wallet every day of the week, because that is the only way they have to make a living.

Conservatives who attack Darwin either misunderstand Darwin or are idiots. They are a blight on the rest of us.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 24, 2009 5:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

I think FFTR works so well because we are constantly urged to slavishly follow it's opposite: Endorsement. With an Endorsement, especially a Celebrity Endorsement, we are told that since this certain fine fellow eats California Bob's Corn Meal, we will be like this fine fellow when WE eat California Bob's Corn Meal. This applies to Politics as much as product advertising... probably more so.

When there is no other source for information and no way to verify the information, it is legitimate to question the source and disregard the information if the source is found wanting. However, if further sources VERIFY the information, then questioning the original source is not only unnecessary, but disingenuous. On the subject of Evolution, you could discover and prove that (as an example pulled out of the current political outrage file) Darwin was an advocate of sex with Minors. This would not disprove any of Darwin's work on the Theory of Evolution, much less all of the work done by the legion of Scientists on the subject over the last handful of decades.

I think the problem tends to be that people who haven't studied evolution tend to confuse "On the Origin of Species..." with Origin of Man... and just assume that in the book Darwin advocated that Man descended from Apes. (Which, BTW, he did not do.)

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 25, 2009 3:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Mr. Michael's got it.

If George Foreman can sell me a grill, why can't Darwin sell me evolution?

Also - for leftists politics is always personal. This is because it is not about ideas, it is about emotions and feelings. But inanimate ideas and philosophies do not lend themselves to emotional or feeling analyses, not as much as a person does. There has to be a face, a person, a life, to be reviled and hated.

Leftists are not smart enough to hate ideas, they must hate people, preferably personally, or if not available, by class. Why do you think they are so fond of burning people in effigy?

Re. Medved - he knows better. he just loves the "I know more facts than you" side of things.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 25, 2009 10:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd wrote:

"Again, fair point: But the proper conclusion to draw is that, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many great men and women were flaming racists... not that Darwin in particular was a more egregious racist than his peers (he wasn't).

There are different reasons people were racists. I doubt most of them in Darwins day were racist for intellectual or logical science based reasons.

Fear of the unknown, lack of living amongst people who were different than you, raised by parents who themselves were racists, etc.

The difference, one supposes, between those people and Darwin is the why behind their racism.

All the reasons for the racism of Darwin's day have pretty much been eliminated. We are living in a new, enlightened era, supposedly.

So why bring up Darwin then if he's surrounded by racists? He's not the only one!

Because Darwin's reasons for being a racist are still around today. His "science" is the why behind his racism.

Which is why Medved mentions it.

The best way to shut Medved up though is to call him names, like Liberal.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 26, 2009 4:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Baggi:

So why bring up Darwin then if he's surrounded by racists? He's not the only one!

Because Darwin's reasons for being a racist are still around today. His "science" is the why behind his racism.

No. Darwin's faulty understanding of his science may have been the "why" behind his racism; but it's not "in" the science.

Can you point to a single respected contemporary evolutionary biologist who argues that descent from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection implies that blacks are inferior to whites? I eagerly await.

If you cannot, then you are in error when you claim "Darwin's reasons for being a racist are still around today."

This is a point that eludes nearly all creationist conservatives and creationist neocons: No scientific theory is an "eternal verity;" by the very nature of science, our understanding of it changes constantly. Physics in 2009 is not the same as physics in 1909, or even physics in 1999. The same is true for chemistry, biology, astronomy, anthropology, and every other science.

Charles Darwin died in 1882 -- 127 years ago. Before we knew anything about chromosomes, DNA, radioactive dating techniques, cosmology, and so forth.

Darwin's understanding of the science he did so much to create is vastly different from (and vastly inferior to) the understanding of contemporary EBs. The point is that it's quite irrelevant what Darwin himself thought about his theory... just as we don't give a rat's hind end what Isaac Newton thought about his physical discoveries; we only care what those discoveries actually were and how they have been modified through the centuries.

What matters is the data, the tested theories concocted to account for the data, and the procedure for devising the next test that will obliterate some part of the current theory, replacing it with a refinement (or a revolution).

Even if somebody unearthed evidence that Darwin was a Satanic, drug-addicted child molester who sold British military secrets to H.G. Wells' martians, it wouldn't make any difference to the validity of evolutionary biology. EB rises or falls on its own merits without regard to the personal follies and foibles of evolutionary biologists, past, present, or future.

Thus Darwin's putative racism is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of evolution; it's just a lurid non-sequitur.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 26, 2009 6:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd wrote;

Can you point to a single respected contemporary evolutionary biologist who argues that descent from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection implies that blacks are inferior to whites?

If I do, then you will concede?

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2009 7:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Baggi:

Concede what, exactly?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2009 8:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd wrote;

Concede what, exactly?

Really, you don't know?

I read this website and enjoy it quite thoroughly. But when you get angry at us Bible believing creationists, sometimes I have to wonder what happens to your cognitive process.

You wrote;

No. Darwin's faulty understanding of his science may have been the "why" behind his racism; but it's not "in" the science.

And you followed it with this challenge;

Can you point to a single respected contemporary evolutionary biologist who argues that descent from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection implies that blacks are inferior to whites? I eagerly await.

If you cannot, then you are in error when you claim "Darwin's reasons for being a racist are still around today."

So, what would you concede? It's right there in what you wrote.

That it is in the science and that Darwin's reasons for being a racist are still around today.

I'm surprised by your question.

You really didn't know what you be conceding?

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2009 11:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Baggi:

So, what would you concede? It's right there in what you wrote.

That it is in the science and that Darwin's reasons for being a racist are still around today.

No; that's paralogical. Even if you found a single "respected contemporary evolutionary biologist who argues that descent from a common ancestor by variation and natural selection implies that blacks are inferior to whites" -- which you won't -- it's not a "magic bullet" that will take down evolutionary theory. The test is not commutative:

  • If no such scientist exists, then clearly Darwin's racism (to whatever extent it differed from that of nearly everybody, black and white, in the nineteenth century) is not "in the science."
  • But even if such a scientist could be found, that certainly doesn't indicate that the racism is in the science.

I won't give you any freebie concessions; I'm not Barack H. Obama. Just make the effort to come up with a single respected, contemporary evolutionary biologist who says that evolutionary theory proves racial superiority; you will find that you simply cannot do it, because no such person exists.

There is nothing whatsoever within contemporary evolutionary theory that implies the superiority of any one race of humans over another... or indeed, the superiority of any one species over another; evolution is values-neutral.

Evolutionary theory merely explains how tiny changes plus a selection process (reproduction) yield major, permanent changes in the family of organisms; it says nothing about the moral consequences, if any, of such changes. Scientists ought to leave that to the priests and philosophers, though they sometimes don't.

But please, make the attempt; I suspect at least a dozen readers of this blog are eager to see what you come up with.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 2, 2009 3:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Baggi:

And while you're at it, perhaps you can tell us how creationism explains the curious fact that cetaceans have shoulder blades and a pelvis. How is that "intelligent" design?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 2, 2009 3:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

But please, make the attempt; I suspect at least a dozen readers of this blog are eager to see what you come up with.

I know of at least one.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 2, 2009 8:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

No worries Dafydd, we've been arguing about this for years, just under different names.

I know how it works. You can't find a person as you described because they don't exist, but even if you do, it doesn't prove anything. Yadda yadda yadda.

Send us on wild goose chases that don't prove anything. Which is why I didn't bother to point out the obvious.

The point remains, rather you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Michael Medved did what he did because Darwin was a racist for logical reasons. Reason that is rejected by people like Medved and myself.

Your attempt to excuse Darwins racism by claiming that he lived in a time of racists is merely a distraction.

If Darwins theories are correct, which they are not, then we might as well all be racists.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2009 1:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Baggi:

Your attempt to excuse Darwins racism by claiming that he lived in a time of racists is merely a distraction.

I couldn't care less whether Darwin was a racist or not; it has nothing to do with the thoroughly proven science of biological evolution.

Unless it is your contention that because Darwin was a racist, contemporary evolutionary theory is wrong -- and because William Shockley was a eugenicist, transistors don't work either.

If Darwins theories are correct, which they are not, then we might as well all be racists.

Ah, Argument by Increasingly Emphatic Assertion (a.k.a. the "pound the table" syllogism). I know it well: It's the hallmark of the Discovery Institute and other creationist "think tanks."

I take it that you cannot come up with any respected contemporary evolutionary biologist who believes, as you and Medved do, that accepting evolutionary theory requires one to believe that blacks are inferior to whites. There is a reason you cannot come up with a name: There is none.

All right, let's take another tack: Can you point to any specific rule of inference that takes you from some point in "the science" to racism? Some mechanism that starts at a premise or conclusion of contemporary evolutionary theory -- and winds up at a Klan meeting?

Dafydd

P.S. You didn't answer my question about shoulder blades and pelvises on dolphins.

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2009 2:11 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved