Damek.

As a preface: by linking & quoting the below I am not suggesting that all conservatives I know are brainwashed cultists or that all radical progressives are uncivilized primitives. My intents are non-partisan, though the subject matter isn’t. Particularly, I find the below enlightening with respect to the 30% phenomenon.

First, a review of the book Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean, which:

…contends, and amply documents, that the “conservative” movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.

The reviewer lists the book’s two central points as:

First, that what is currently described as the “conservative movement” bears virtually no resemblance to Goldwater’s conservatism, and has nothing to do with restraining government power or preserving historical values. Instead, it has transformed into an authoritarian movement which largely attracts personality types characterized by a desire and need to submit to and follow authority.

Second, because those who submit to authority necessarily relinquish their own conscience (in favor of serving the conscience of their leader and/or their movement), those who are part of this movement are capable of acts which a healthy and normal conscience ought to preclude. They can use torture, break laws, wage unnecessary wars based on false pretenses, and attempt to destroy the reputation of plainly patriotic and honest Americans — provided that they are convinced that doing so advances the interests of the authority they serve and the movement of which they are a part.

As for the first, from what I’ve read about the Goldwater movement, I would disagree slightly; I think the movement had, and perhaps all movements require, cultish personality types and aspects.

Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the premise and the analysis does “feel” correct, or at least useful, illustrating a modern example of a common human weakness. This reflects another excellent piece just posted on DailyKos Science Friday which takes an anthropological view of the 30% phenomenon, laying out what tribalism means and arguing that “the hate group” is an example of said tribalism that has reoccurred throughout human history and is likely to continue to do so.

Comparing the extremist faction of conservatives with the Taliban (nothing that hasn’t been done before, but the anthropological angle is new to me), the author writes:

Although members of either group would intensely dislike the comparison, components in both the Taliban and the neo-conservative religious right utilize similar propaganda tactics to spread a comparable ideology of authoritarian cultism, religious fundamentalism, violence, and hatred.

Sounding familiar to me after the cult-based analysis I’d just read, there’s even more agreement between the two ideas in the final paragraph:

From the standpoint of cultural anthropology, it might be said there is a form of violent tribalism, alternatively called neoconservatism or the religious right, loose in America. So try to keep in mind, when you hear someone from the right parroting talking points that climate change is invalid or that Iraq is going swell, it’s not so much an argument made from ignorance that can be corrected with information: it is a tribal chant.

And a cultish reinforcement, a self-affirmation. Most importantly, it’s something to which we are all susceptible, myself included. It’s the reason that, despite understanding their tactical utility, I am typically put off by things like progressive rallies or radio shows where people parrot slogans, etc. They seem to be more of a mindless chant of group validation than an expression of any thought or intelligence.

Perhaps one reason that politics has become so polarized in the modern world, and not just America, is that 20th century media (radio, television), coupled with the accompanying advertising revolution, thrives so much on superficial identity and sound bites. Does this feed the tribal, group-identity aspects of human nature rather than nurturing a healthy, individual empowerment?

And yet, humans being social creatures, the tribal instinct is not necessarily all bad, and is part of who we are.

Our understanding of human behavior and psychology made great strides in the 20th century, and continues to do so. Yet it has still only scratched the surface, and barely reproduced the insights of ancient thinkers. The real challenge is, can humanity use this understanding to protect ourselves and our future from these phenomena? Our founding citizens gave us a tool, a shield, since they:

were aware of this phenomena, and they crafted documents like the Constitution to sap these dangerous movements of the social inertia they need to gain a foothold.

…it prevents their movement from blossoming into full blown authoritarianism.

Will it continue to work? Or do we all need to start reading up on cult rehabilitation?

Via my assistance with Upper Green Side, I’ve become acquainted with the Green Restaurant Association. In fact, one of Upper Green Side’s new projects is to encourage restaurants on the Upper East Side to become certified green.

The Massachusetts-based GRA works with restaurants to find ways they can become more sustainable. And they know their stuff! They reportedly worked with an organic, vegetarian and raw food restaurant in L.A. “‘They weren’t even cooking their food,” said Michael Oshman, [GRA] executive director… ‘How much energy could they be using?’” They came up with 16 improvements within an hour.

They have a number of guidelines consisting of various steps, in areas such as food sources (organic? local?), energy and water efficiency, and more. They require that restaurants complete four steps a year to be certified green. (One wonders if they may retain their certification if they run out of steps!)

And it’s a pretty cheap program for restaurants. They charge 0.1% or less of the restaurant’s gross revenue with a minimum of $700 and a maximum of $3000, and there are discounts for longer term contracts.

They’ve been endorsed by major environmental groups from NY State and beyond, and although there is only one New York restaurant currently listed in their Green Restaurant Guide (and what a coincidence, it’s right here on the Upper East Side), they’re starting to make inroads. Oshman reported in a comment at Treehugger that, this June, the Statue of Liberty food service and a chain of restaurants called Le Pain Quotidien, with 10 NYC locations, signed onto the Green Restaurant Association and will make four new environmental improvements per year, per location over the next five years. Hopefully with the help of groups like Upper Green Side, there will be more restaurants signing up soon.

You can help, too. They have suggestion cards you can leave with your bill at restaurants to let them know you care about sustainable dining. And it doesn’t matter where you live — the GRA is not limited to MA or NY, their full list of certified green locations includes establishments in MN, NC, TX, HI, and, mostly, CA.)

The New York Mayor’s newly approved waste management plan (much pooh-poohed here on the Upper East Side for its inclusion of a marine transfer station in the neighborhood) has some good elements to increase recycling and composting (use dailykos’ login to access the full article). It includes an independent office of recycling, to be run by the Council on the Environment of New York City (CENYC), who also run other successful programs such as the city’s Greenmarkets.

This follows last month’s announcement that the Mayor would create an Office of Sustainability, charged with identifying strategies to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Add to that signs that the Bloomberg Administration may finally be exerting some initiative over the DOT and that Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff is pushing for action on bike lanes…

Could Mayor Bloomberg be getting the message?

I was almost excited to discover that Joel Hodgson of MST3K fame has a Kevin Bacon number of infinity. But obviously it’s simply a data error when you find that Michael J. Nelson has a Bacon number of 4. So Joel must at least have a Bacon number of 5, if not 4 for his own connection to the same Trace Beaulieu. Same old computer story: garbage in, garbage out.

Anyway, entirely unrelated to that, Alex says, with respect to a new stuffed animal in the family, “Could you make his hat less gay?” She was right, he looked like a sailor. After fixing it, he looks very smart:

And just to balance that out with an image of his mate Stanley (I know you don’t know who they are because I haven’t written a post referencing our vacation yet like Alex has):

Yesterday the NYC Council approved the Mayor’s waste plan which includes a highly-opposed marine transfer station here on the Upper East Side. Personally, I agree with this assessment. This will actually reduce the transit of garbage through the city’s streets by funneling Manhattan’s garbage to a couple of stations where they will be loaded onto barges and removed by water instead of by road. It’s not nice to the people living right next to the transfer stations, but they have to go somewhere. The garbage has to go somewhere. Until it gets reduced, of course. Conservation and waste reduction should be part of this plan, but I don’t see it yet. Still, I think this is a positive step forward towards communities taking responsibility for their waste. It might help even more if the garbage trucks going to the transfer station were routed up Park and Madison Avenues…