Remember how many of us used to watch in horrified fascination the hordes in Beirut, Damascus, Tehran, etc? Foreign fundamentalist fanatics freaking out. I have much the same feelings watching Americans of all stripes waving the flag and banners. People under pressure whose way of life is under threat sometimes behave weirdly. One person's terrorist is another's spokesman. Terrorism never ever exists in a vacuum. It's a reaction, whether in Chechnya, Kabul or Topeka.

Good analysis! One point though. How is it that the US seems to have more simple, er, I mean single minded, folks than other countries? After all, anywhere else in the Western World, Bush and his bum buddies wouldn't get elected dog catcher. Nuts like Le Pen get less than 15% of the vote in France and yet the Busheviks will probably be back in power.

Wow, this piece makes me feel very uneasy. It just reeks of unearned self-congratulation. If you can't see sophisticated minds like Karl Rove's hard at work on the "other" side, you're not looking closely enough. Frankly, to give the Republitards that little credit for their success is to accept more of the blame than even the stereotype of liberal self-flagellation requires. Conversely, the simplistic sloganeering that often passes for thought on "our" side seems to have conveniently vanished from perception.

You've just made another point to support the author's point, Ron. Puppetmasters like Karl Rove have based their political strategy on the underlying fact that their support base is, above all else, stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. And I like Americans! But as someone who has paid my dues on both sides of the border, I can tell you that many Americans are apolitical, skeptical, feel helpless, or simply don't care.

I can't argue with Fellman's take on this except to suggest Americans are not the only folks in the world who have this divide to work around. Madness comes to those who see too much within, while evil pays no heed to the devils it awakens.

Interesting comments. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsdfeld are not stupid, but they share the same Evangelical, single-minded mindset with W., who is in fact not bright. None of them seems to have travelled much, or considered the limitations of what the US can accomplish. And they have great power at their disposal and a keeness to be ruthless that grows from their certainty and righteousness. Why the US more than Europe or Canada? That would take me several history classes, but in any event, the sense of American MIssion goes back to the Puritans, who believed they were called by God to create a City on th Hill, as a beacon of righteousness to all the nations. And then the Americans got hold of a great chunk of real estate tin which to create great wealth and power. All nations with hegemonic power have always acted like the Americans are doing now, but the crowd in power now seem to have fewer internal checks on what they seek to do than previous administrations. Canada has 10% of the population and power, a Quebec people within who are of Roman Catholic origins, and an English speaking population that is divided between the single and double-minded, with Alberta the breeding gournd of evangelical reactionaries. What do you make of Stephen Harper in terms of the dualisms I have mentioned?

I’m almost convinced that the only thing that’s really going to bring America back from the brink on which it teeters is four more years of George W. Bush followed by four and maybe eight of Jeb Bush.

In other words the only thing that is going to bring America back from the brink - is falling completely over it. Tragically, and probably unavoidably, dragging a lot of the rest of the world over with it.

The fractures in America are now so deep and have led to such divisive dysfunctionality that what is going to be required to reveal the depths of the national pathology to enough of the population that recognition can occur is almost unimaginable.

The US dollar being replaced by the Euro as international currency of choice? The World Bank calling in loans? Asia selling off greenbacks wholesale? An obliteration of trillions of dollars of value on the various US based stock markets and the subsequent retreat by international investors? The US dollar as the new peso? Maybe. Too easy to shift blame to the French or the UN or someone else though.

Acceleration in the loss of allies leading to a decision by the UN to completely withdraw from US soil? The resultant muting or ignoring of the US voice in international diplomacy leading inexorably to an increase in US applied military pressure leading in it’s turn to increased international acrimony directed toward the US and, yes, increasing terrorism against US interests. Probably not. After all, a good deal of this is happening right now and it’s barely being noted let alone generating widespread or official concern.

I really don’t know what it would take but it would damn straight be pretty awful.

And electing John Kerry isn’t going to do it. A Kerry victory will immediately crank up the right-wing machinery that led to the years of empty Clinton persecution and that’s only going to increase the acrimony and generate more division and perpetuate the dysfunctionality.

It’s going to take something of a national, made in the USA, policy based (as opposed to natural) calamity that cannot be blamed on any other country, will not be solved by pressuring allies or invading and bombing a Third World country.

In other words, like a well heeled drunk in a thousand dollar suit, the USA has to hit bottom.

Sooner would be better than later.

Happy Labour Day.

Well said, Dana. I think China and it's "single-minded rulers" are going to play a large part in shifting the U.S. off it's pedestal and that's a very frightening thought. With so much made in China these days, China has become an ambitious economic understudy ready to take on the main role of the play.

The triumph of single-mindedness was very clear in the unrelenting inquisition of Bill Clinton concerning "the details" of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The intimate details that he was forced to reveal allowed the smear to stick. The details, in publically humiliating him, made him ordinary, far too human, ( ironically why so many like him still) and succeeded in creating a "not fit to be president image". ( Much like the smearing of Kerry as "not fit to govern".) The "details " made the impeachment of Clinton a whole lot easier for the right-wing - by quenching that single-minded puritanical zeal, a zeal that was used by Ken Starr et al to accomplish a political-religious agenda.

It should, however, never have been allowed to happen in a democratic country as it had nothing to do with governance. The double-minded viewpoint of Trudeau that "the state had no place in the bedrooms of the people" collaspsed here and instead that philosophy was made to look like some kind of democratic anachronism in comparison to "a moral Presidency." It was conclusive evidence that the state had already entered the bedrooms of the american people, a precursor to the state of war (fear of terrorism) and restrictions on civil liberties that are now becoming more commonplace.

If what the single-minded lack in intelligence they make up in ruthlessness as Michael Fellman says, maybe, it's time the double-minded aren't quite so tolerant, quite so nice, or quite so quiet as those of the single mind stampede over us with their ever-tightening, morally restrictive world view.

Dear lynn smyth and Dana Owen Still; The US is not a tottering drunk, it's a nation state in possession of sufficient horrible weapons to take humanity to hell in a single afternoon, and a tendency to delusional thinking. Please don't wish out loud for them to search for the bottom, the bottom may turn out to be a place without return. They need educating, gentle persuasion, soothing music to calm them in their frenzy of superpower. They need to be taught tolerance.

They are susceptible to moral argument, they are just not hearing any lately, from their co-opted CNN spin machine. They are effectively an occupied land themselves. The only thing is that their occupiers are internal forces. An incomplete, over financed ideology from the southwest that has discredited, bought off, frightened off or arrested all with opposing views.

Ken Starr's agenda wasn't religious, it was precisely the same agenda as whoever murdered the Kennedy brothers and Dr. King in the 60s. It was about vesting all power in money. Eliminating morality as a value system capable of influencing policy.

Americans have been encouraged to mix up three essentially incompatible value systems, Christian values, family values and Conservative Democratic ones. All these systems have been presented to them as inflexible in the extreme, and Puritanically inescapable. You know the kind of thing: Jesus demands they be free to behave badly to their brethren, the Constitution demands that they require the neighbours families to resemble the Beaver Cleavers, democracy says they have the right to get rich by making others poor. Any world view built out of such blatant doublethink must result in singlemindedness.

It's like the redefinition of the word 'faith'. It used to mean loyal, good for your word. You keep your vows. Now it means willing to believe absolutely that which you know for certain is not true.

Descartes would have loved this one, “I’m moronic therefore I’m Republican”. And what about Oliver Sacks, would the man have mistaken a Democrat for an intellectual?

Bailey says "any world view built out of such blatant doublethink must result in singlemindedness." I actually think the reverse is true, that singledmindedness begets the world view - that singleminded vision is created often when we are young from parents who are highly authoritarian, and rigid in belief systems. Why would a wealthy family like the Bushes not expose their children to the world? Money wasn't an obstacle so why didn't they encourage their children to travel and experience the different cultures of the world? Yet, they didn't step outside of the U.S. despite their millions (and that is quite a curious fact in itself) - that must have contributed towards a mindset of arrogant disregard for the rest of the world that holds to this day.

You cannot separate Starr's agenda from religion. The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party is both politically and religiously enmeshed with the concept of control. Politically and religiously, control is the object and the motivator, and money is the marker. They both feed off of each other, the political and the religious, and in the end amount to the same thing.

I don't agree we have to teach Americans tolerance; there are many tolerant Americans and really intolerance has no borders. We should stand up to intolerant, dictatorial, people everywhere (BC would be a good start).

I like the ying and yang of tolerance - some things should be tolerated and some things should not be tolerated or soothed in any way. Clinton should have told the Starr Commission to take a hike - that he wasn't answering any of their questions, that their line of personal, intimate questioning was against all civil and human rights. He should have vehemently not tolerated it and the american public should have made one helluva, very "unsoothing" commotion. The "single-minded" are counting on our gentleness, our tolerance, they can't win without it, ...for everything there is a season, a time to tolerate and a time to not.

lynn, you make a good point about which comes first, the single minded or the singlemindedness. It's a truly inseperable process, a chicken and egg situation. But to believe that these people are married to the lie by their very nature leaves no hope. We're left committed as they seem to be to war. The argument you make is like the one against appeasement made in Europe in the thirties. It turned out to be a very true argument then.

I just point out that to some extent we become what we hate. The postwar world resembled a Fascist state to a surprizing degree. If tolerance can't be promoted in the world, what other possible approach is left? War. And that's the very thing we hate most about the singleminded worldview. They make war. War on terrorism, war on drugs, war on Communism, war on everything they can't tolerate. If we give up on changing the world by peaceful persuasion, we risk becoming absurdly the very thing we object to.

I've been thinking about this story a lot, cf. the dictum (Chesterton?) that "there are two kinds of people in this world: people who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who do not." I'd be a lot more sanguine about the author's thesis if the dichotomy was expressed as "those who are authoritarian, and those who are not." Because it seems to me that you could have simple/narrow and complex/diverse types in both rubrics. It stands to reason that people who feel uncomfortable with the very concept of authority are going to make poor campaigners. This would include not only true liberals, but also libertarians. Those who are eager and focused on the pursuit of authority, or who respond positively to such types, need not be tarred as simpletons; we can just observe that, for whatever reason, they have a victorious, committed mindset. Why? Lynn's comments above bring to mind the work of Alice Miller, who, in "For Your Own Good" blames authoritarian parenting for the spread of National Socialism in Germany in the 30s. All of those kids whose wills were broken by their parents (albeit out of love and propriety) become fertile soil for the spread of fascist memes. I think this is a good starting point for addressing the differences between "power-embracing" and "power-skeptical" personalities. There are plenty of the former types in Lefty ranks.

Ron, in remembering my old child psych courses, models of parenting skills seemed to range from democratic to permissive to authoritarian etc. All had differing effects on the child and I do remember when reading it that it seemed very tranferable to the political realm. It was interesting how the overlapping of styles could change the outcome. In the authoritarian model, for example, if there was respect for the child and fairness that accompanied parental authority, the results were much more favourable than a rigid, highly authoritarian style that did not acknowledge the child as a person in their own right and involved that "breaking of wills " you refer to. This seems very transferable to the responsibility of governing people - if there is not respect for the voice of the people, if that same disregard causes the will of the people to be broken, there will be a price to be paid by all.

Bailey, I understand your concern for peace in an increasingly dangerous world, but there are limits to tolerance - ask any abused child, man or woman, when enough is enough. Ask any human rights advocate - there are limits to what should be tolerated - sometimes rage against dictatorial power is necessary and our saving grace.

The childrearing analogy would have you require not only superiour wisdom than the child, but also the means to enforce your lessons. Children accept their parent's teaching partly because they have to. Not tolerating a thing implies preventing it. There may be a high price to pay for that.

Tolerance can be personal and individual. If people insist on rights being respected, people being valued, even when it's expensive, principles being followed, then a lesson is being taught by example, not force. It may not work, but it may. Ghandi taught a lesson without a war. Achieved a victory without a war. The weapons he devised are still available.

Rage is one thing, transformation is another. As we transform ourselves we add our own inertia to this movement. As we persuade others to change, momentum gathers. Is it enough? I think it's too soon to tell.

If you investigate Adolph Hitler's childhood it speaks volumes about creating monsters from highly authoritatian child rearing. In all child rearing models respect for the child is the determining factor and the research shows that even in authoritarian situations if respect at least is present there is some hope for the child to escape a more dire future. The democratic model of parenting seems to hold the most hope for children as well as for the political world.

Gandhi believed in passive resistance, he didn't tolerate, he resisted but he resisted passively. There's a big difference between tolerating and resisting. To his credit he was also highly subversive in his actions against the British , he didn't tolerate much from them and his passive resistance was a force of it's own.

I think we'll just have to disagree on this one , Bailey. I don't have any problem with outrage being expressed. Often it's needed. How much was tolerated before the year 1939 even dawned? Not tolerating a political bully doesn't necessarily lead to war and often it can temper, trip, or hopefully halt a dictatorial cakewalk.

We don't really disagree all that much, lynn. You're right about the limits of tolerance, although I think Ghandi taught tolerance of people, their differences. Only their wrongminded prejudices and abuses were his enemies. Still. You're right about resisting evil.

I just hate war. Even if you win a war, you can lose yourself. That thing you were trying to save, you lose. Especially in ideological war. There must be some way to resist without surrendering our principles, our spirits to the requirements of force.

You become what you resist. You become what you hate. You become what you ______(insert favorite here).

The list of things that are no longer with us as a result of resistance is very, very long. As is the list of things no longer here because someone said "I hate this".

Don't buy into the psycho-babble. Psychotherapy has been around and flourishing for the past century or so and the world has gotten much, much worse.

This is a very apt description of what we are witnessing in both the States and world abroad. It is an exact example of Kolberg's Theory of moral development that is tied to the level of aquired maturity of the individual's personal identity. The "single-minded" is characterized as the "formalized" individual - who never questions the beliefs that are taught to them - these individuals usually come from conservative roots where questioning the belief system is prohibited. Because their whole identity and foundation is built upon this acquired belief system - any opposition to the "validity" of this faith is extremely threatening since it would threaten the basis of the whole identity. These individuals often make up extremists groups - such as the KKK - and often act-out in "group-think" - as they are most comfortable around those who support and reinforce their beliefs. The important lesson is to encourage rebellion and questioning of everything in teenagers - since this is a crucial stage in character development - and when they see there is more than one way to make a living - they become "double-minded" - or multi-minded. Imagine - without such soul-searching teens we'd have an epidemic of little georgies running around with a missile in one hand an oil pipe in the other - with a gawdy cross like an albatross around the neck.

-- A well-deserved break -- Take the DOUBLE-MINDED QUIZ We're aware that at any given moment millions are clamouring for a reply to the pressing question, "How might I discover if my dog Blotz is double-minded - hence highly intelligent. And what about me? This quiz provides the definitive answer for Blotz. We pretty well have you pegged (but go ahead on the off chance you'll beat his score) INSTRUCTIONS: Read carefully the following quote from the original posting by Michael Fellman. You may answer the subsequent question by checking as many of three choices as are applicable. Quote: "The double-minded see the world in complex and indeterminate ways, finding contradiction, irony, skepticism, cynicism and uncertainty not only [in] the institutions and in other people, but in themselves as well." You know you're double-minded when: 1) You see George Bush and what he represents as complex and indeterminate. 2) You are able to at once identify, hold and accept contradictions, ironies, skepticisms and cynicisms relating to "W" 3) You don't remotely qualify in the above categories but are able to equivocate on internal contradictions with the best of them. Scoring: Less than 3 - Below par, but keep at it (hint: add your score to Blotz's) More than 2 - You show great promise 4 or more - Congratulations, your genuine parchment Diploma in Applied Double-Mindedness is in the mail.

Brian Tuff: QED.

Michael Fellman's analysis is brilliant in that it not only helps explain the "single minded" fanatacism of the religious right, but the single minded views of dogmatic lefties, extreme environmentalists and fanatical feminists. In fact it gives us insight into all forms of extremism be it religious fanatism (eg Al Qaeda), communism, fascism, KKK or what have you. Unfortunately when these fanatics' views are challenged they all too often lash out often verbally, sometimes physically and in recent times by flying jet planes into office buildings, or slaughtering hundreds of innocent school children and their parents.

No single-minded people here or perhaps it takes one to know one (-: Anyway, all I have to add to this interesting examination into the complexity of sigle-mindedness is another quote: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell PS I do have a single-minded idea or two: 1) Anybody but Bush. Bush bad. 2) Vote out BC's "Liberal?" government. Campbell & Comapny bad.

I think Fellman's single/double minded categories may go a little way to explain what categories of people tend to support the two parties, but I don't think it should be applied to governing elites. That is, I don't believe the Democratic leadership to made up of sophisticates, and the the Republicans single-minded fundamentalists. Both sides try to appeal to the as many voters as possible - surely Kerry's stupid salute and "Reporting for duty" nonsense was an appeal to the single-minded. Likewise, Bush and Cheney are taking either side of the homosexuality issue - appealling to those who take single-minded and double-minded approaches. In short, I think the governing elites are a lot more sophisticated than their comments would make them out to be. In US politics, most actions can be explained by the competition for power. Bush could turn quite double-minded, I am sure, if he and his strategizers thought it would win votes. We heard him last week, in a moment of forgetfulness, admit the "War on Terrorism" won't be "won" in any single-minded way - a moment of candor which probably revealed his real (and fairly sophisticated) thinking. Then the "double-minded" Kerry jumped on the comment and said, my goodness, the Democrats will win the war. What total b.s. on both sides! You can't get through Yale without _some_ smarts...

This piece hits the nail right on the head. I was just thinking today that Orwell was 20 years too early with his book's title. However, I'm not so sure that John Kerry is going to be the Mr. Fix-it that so many believe him to be. When Clinton was elected,it just bought the Republicans time to formulate their plans, such as the Project for a New American Century. If Kerry does get elected the populace may eventually become fed up, and four years from now we could see a more regrouped, refreshed, and ruthless Republican administration that won't have such a tough time implementing their single-minded policies if John Kerry makes all the right(or wrong?) mistakes.

"You can't get through Yale without _some_ smarts..." - I guess Bush X2 proved that theory wrong twice. A little money and prestige can still go further than merit in the land of opportunities - otherwise such ivy league colleges would not hand out "honourary" degrees to the rich and famous just to add them to their list of successful alumni. Which is not to say that you necessarily have to have a broad-minded perspective to graduate in commerce - that degree is assuredly single-minded in focus ($$$ above all). The point is that being inclusive is more productive and progressive for society than is being "exclusive". Exclusivity draws the lines of animosity and dissent between the have's and have not's (be it black vs white, rich vs poor, priveleged vs outcasts, Christians vs the damned, good vs evil) - and the approach is simply immature in mind-set - and its roots stem in the ideologies of "conservatism" or "Republicans" - if you are american. The single vs double-mindedness categories is a simplified depiction stating this difference between the political identities. "We cannot solve the problems that we have created with the same thinking that created them." - A Einstein.

MIKE GEOGHEGAN: Speaking of Einstein, you left capitalism out of your list of extremisms that that cause the problems you speak off. The one difference in capitalism is whatever actions are taken are usually paid for by rather than the direct actions of the real bullgoose loonies. (In other words, Capitalist pigs will certainly never make it as action figures). Yes Chile comes to mind, as does Grenada, Panama, sort of a failed (so far) follie in Venesuela and, let's not forget Iraq. Hey Mikey, we've all known you were smarter than the average right-winger simply because you read Tyee. It's brainfood man.

Well, at least the author of this piece got the what you see is what you get with President Bush right. The rest demonstrates a lack of understanding of the American voter bordering on the absurd. Thanks for the chuckle.

There are no polite,reasonable ways to say this and believe me I've been seeking one. So I'm just going to say it straight out.

An American who is not a billionaire or a wacked-out, rapture-seeking, fundagelical who votes Republican is stupid. Full stop.

There are no supportable mainstream reasons to vote for the current incarnation of the Republican party.

To reiterate, I think that the Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld group are smart but that they share a zealot's worldview that gives then, among other things, a sense of righteousness when it comes to savaging those who oppose them.GW Bush is cunning, but not as smart as the others, not that it really matters given the sense of means and ends that they share. The argument about re-electing Bush to heighten the contradictions is not unlike the argument many German Communists and Social Democrats made in 1933. I have lots of time for Dana, and I do not mean to be personally nasty at all, but this is a form of politics that is very very dangerous. Mind you, we may well find out what four more Bush years are like. Finally, my piece was a sort of "model" for analysis rather than some sort of big time theory. I hope it has some explanatory power; it certainly has led to some very interesting discussion, including from a dog.

Michael, I wan't trying to advocate for four more years of Bush. And thanks for the compliment.

But it does seem to me that America is so deeply and meanly divided that a near wreckage is becoming the only viable route to rebuilding.

The last thing I want is a fascist state on North American soil. But if the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution are to have any meaning as documents relevant to democratic traditions then the US will have to once again become a democratic state. It's far enough away from that ideal now that returning to it without cataclysm is very hard to imagine (to wit - November elections may not be held). And I'd rather that the cataclysm be *mostly* within their borders than without.

Just one comment, in an otherwise entirely interesting piece and discussion.

It's this word "American", which U.S. citizens have appropriated to themselves, of course, and which we too often concede them. "American", a contraction of North and/or Latin/South American, is actually a word like/ parallel in meaning to "European". It is the concept description of a much larger entity, in this case a continental/ hemispheric one, and not any single nation state within that. It is akin to Germans or Englishmen appropriating the word European to themselves exclusively.

The reality is, we are all; Canadians, U.S. citizens/ Yankees, and the peoples of Latin/South America, Americans. It is a not too subtle measure of the megalomania of our Southern neighbours, and our own uncritical kowtowing to them, that they should have so staked the claim as entirely their own, and that we should have allowed them to do so.

A "relatively" small point, but not an insignificant one. Especially in light of their global pretentiousness from the gitgo.

And why we would be better, and more accurate, to just call them, until a better concept is found, "U.S. citizens". As a state, they are quite pretentious enough, in any case.

Though it is dangerous, I think, to presume, as there is a not so subtle suggestion here, that the most dangerous and reactionary amongst them, and who are in control, are not "intelligent". They certainly are, overall. And even their "formal", so-called "liberal" political opposition, the self-described "Democrats", are not "so" disagreed with them on the "fundamental" points of politcal and economic ideology, commitment to the status quo heirarchical power structure, (however masked as something more benevolently "populist"), and preparedness to defend their "capitalist" way of life, and what passes for "democracy" at least, within that narrow confine.

It is becoming steadily clearer, I think, that the U.S.A is/has emerged, out of its quest for global control of the worlds resources, as the main enemy of most of the rest of the globes national and international interests, including our own. One should never underestimate the capacity or the intelligence of any entity, that has emerged to such a status. It is what makes this world and these times so damned dangerous for every one of the rest us, as well as many of their own.

Well.... that's actually a couple comments, at least. :)

Does the division and categorization of American people into “double-minded” and “single-minded”, which is based on a whole lot of judgmental thinking and labeling – stupid, good, evil, fundamentalist, evangelist, moron, hypocrite, complex, intellectual, etc. – really serve a purpose other than to further alienate Americans from themselves and others? History has numerous examples where this kind of labeling has gone awry. The significance of the single or double-mindedness concept, if any exists, may be that it has some unfathomable taxonomic importance, but what does offer in the way of helping us understand and explain why these so-called single and double-minded folks think the way they do? Given that this social duality concept is artificial – little more than a construct to fit the criteria (in this case the list of judgmental labels) – understanding the underlying behaviour of the group/individual is more complex than understanding the choice of labels. If there is knowledge to be gained, focus must be on why the labels are used, what they mean in terms of pain and pleasure and what they say about a society that has come to accept judgment as reality. We aren’t born single or double minded, we are trained to believe those labels are real. That labels have come to shape society and replace reality speaks volumes about a training/learning process that has failed (some say by design) to teach basic thinking skills.

The U.S. empire is about as "intelligent" as the all empowered malignant cancer cell that thrives while the body it thrives on dies - the irony is that the lack of foresight or cocept of "sustainablity" as it grows ever more powerful befittingly kills the beastly thing since its lifesource is dead. Without equlibrium (ie balance, homeostatis - what have you) - it is a self-defeatist venture. "Double-minded" would be having the gift of seeing the consequences of ones actions - in the whole picture - as opposed of seeing the one goal to conquer everything - inclusive of the self. America will eventually figure out that it is its own worst enemy - the "axis of evil" - if you will.

"... a training/learning process that has failed (some say by design) to teach basic thinking skills." observes KWD.

Okay, so we agree-, in some "small" measure. :) To which I would only add, "...has failed to teach basic AND CRITICAL thinking skills."

That U.S. citizens are capable of some measure of objective thinking, of course, to me is unquestionable. They do as well at, at least, the "physical" sciences level as anyone, and are certainly a "technically" proficient people. Observable to me is,however, and a quality much noted by other observers, their almost total lack of an ability to be self-critical, certainly widespread in their "popular culture", and at the level of "official society" in any case, of either themselves as a people, their state, history, notions of democracy or role in the world. All typically being overblown. Which is not to say that large numbers of them have not, or are incapable over time of rising above that-, for they certainly did over Vietnam, and yet may well around the issue of Iraq-, when the appropriate "pain threshold" is adminstered to them by the Iraqi Resistance. Still, I think we can say that it is arguably, but "generally" universally observable of U.S. society, and indeed our own, only marginally less, that there is a clear shortage of "critical" thinking capacity when considering themselves and theirs. Though they are certainly more capable of being critical when it comes to judging others. Perhaps a typical phenomena of "the species" as a whole, I suspect, but more important and potentially dangerous in a society occupying the strategic global position of the United States, and posessed of its WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

In Pavlovian terms, which "may" impress my friend, KWD, there is still more "pleasure" than "pain" that accrues to the U.S. and its citizenry, as a consequence of their "empire quest", as well as us and others who kowtow to them. For that to change, as indeed I think it IS already, the consequences of Empire must become much more conditioningly "painful" to them, such that it roils their economy and citizenry. Body bags facilitate the process.

The experience with all other empires has been, that at that point where the "cost" of empire exceeds the "benefit", it will come unglued. So too will it be with the U.S. Empire, in my opinion. The "conditioning" of the U.S. public's "responses", which have become "desensitized" or "disconnected" by time and distance since Vietnam, is now being "re-inforced and re-awoken" in their new experience in the Middle East, just as it was for their predecessor European Empires.

Also, for them and us, at that point where the consequences of current right wing policy and ideology have become more "painful" than "pleasurable", or rewarding, and distinctly associated with "the Right", -, a process likewise already underway, in my view, there will almost certainly be formed a "conditioned reflex" response against the Rightist Nutters.

That being the dominant "emerging" direction of social development within our two "American" societies.

Micheal Fellman, I think you may have touched on something when you wrote about how German progressives spilled the same sweat that many of us are today. I think there are numerous parallels with Germany of the 1930s playing out right now, not the least of them are the old patriotic sensibilities that have much if not most of the U.S. population saluting their emperor's words and deeds. Even John Kerry proudly voted in favour of invading Iraq based on irrefutable statements by the chairman of the joint chief of staff. Why would it be irrefutable (when almost two years later not a WMD has been found.) Because of the tradition to stand beside the president in times of trouble, which was weaved into the American mindset long before oil was a commodity. Germany was also a pretty forward looking nation in the sciences and in industry to name a few before Hitler grabbed power. Both nations, in their time, were suffering first from swollen egos as well as from the slings and arrows of others even if the darts came in response to indelicate empire building or poor diplomacy. Swollen heads oft times miss the subtle clues that friends and colleagues offer as polite rebuke in hopes that sanity will prevail. I could mention that one in four Americans has heritage stretching back to Germany, but I won't play that card. Instead, I suggest that conditions were somewhat similar, a falling currency, obvious need for resources from far points of the world and a growing sense that, like Rodney Dangerfield, neither could get any respect from others despite a belief that the sun rose and set within the chosen nation. I like your one-track vs. multi-track mind argument, but it just seems too simple to capture what has to be a far broader reality. Quite frankly, I suspect the war in Iraq is greater news to most of Europe and the middle east than it is to many Americans who are kept distracted by cops and robbers, baseball, the Hilton girls and other entertainment fare, finding proper medical help or working 50 to 60 hour weeks to remain a part of the American dream.

How very enlightening, folk. Thanks for sharing your views on Fellman's article which helps me understand the 'great divide' in the USA, considerably better. Take good care of yourselves,and do keep people like myself educated by your thoughtful postings. Thanks again. Sincerely, Colin.

"If what the single-minded lack in intelligence they make up in ruthlessness as Michael Fellman says, maybe, it's time the double-minded aren't quite so tolerant, quite so nice, or quite so quiet as those of the single mind stampede over us with their ever-tightening, morally restrictive world view." wrote Lynn.

Amen to that. It's regrettable perhaps, but no less true.

And an excellent piece above 8:52:10 PM , Allan.

I'm sorry I got to this article and discussion late. I will now be away 'til after the weekend. Ta ta, my friends.

Another dog. According to Samuel R. Delaney there are actually three levels of sentient beings: Simplex Complex Multiplex Where would you place yourself?

The problem is that the Liberals have ceded the single-minded ground to the right-wing. Where there used to exist an overarching progressive narrative that defined progressive politics in positive terms that were accessible to ordinary people, this has been abandoned in favour of fractious coalition politics based on postmodern philosophies. The left no longer believes in good and evil, which is why they no longer say that they are on the side of good. Yet equality, justice, human rights, labour rights, etc are good. The result is political confusion, division and apathy. In contrast the Conservatives are able to communicate their agenda in simple, effective and emotional language that validates the passion of their supporters and creates doubt among their enemies. Liberals must do the same because you cannot inspire others to believe in your vision if you do not believe in it yourself. Enough of the nonsense that there is no truth, no reality, no history, no shared experience. If Liberals were to start demonstrating a sense of purpose and conviction and stop wringing their hands about Bush and Rove the right-wingers would have a fight on their hands.

Avicenna, very interesting comment: "double-minded would be having the gift of seeing the consequences of one's actions." (It ties in with Alan's comment that the Iraq war is of more interest to other parts of the world then it appears to be in America itself.) This is most notable today when the American news media is reporting that American deaths in Iraq are nearing the one thousand mark. However, there is not a mention anywhere nor any obvious concern for the fact that the Iraqis death count is now over eleven thousand deaths. Almost four times that of the World Trade Center but not a word said today except By CBC's David Halton. No eleven thousand biographies will ever be written up in the New York Times (as was done in post 9/11) telling of the special qualities and moments in the lives of the Iraqis casualities. What if America actually had to look at the faces of these eleven thousand men, women and children and read their life stories? Would they finally become real, these victims of a badly botched, "supposed" rescue attempt against an evil empire? It is as if they do not exist. Their numbers do not count - they are just another consequence to be overlooked on America's singular mission. As Coyote says: "It is what makes this world and these times so damned dangerous for every one of the rest of us as well as many of their own".

Though there is no doubt many shades of grey to mindsets, this article does reflect the gathering feeling that two dark thunderclouds of opposing worldviews are about to collide over our heads.

Lynn - Orwell said it best: "some pigs are more equal than others" - the only lives that count are those of our "allied forces" - the soul of the freedom loving capitalist is worth far more than those oppressed under the regime that serves our energy needs. But that is another story. It is somewhat ironic that having two "single-minded" individuals is worse than one - they actually seem to cancel each other out so that we are left with something "mindless" - and, alternatively, too many "double-minded" folks seem to confound the issue with all their moral trajectories. The albacross of bieng human is having the ability to foresee consequences - as Burns had said to the poor mouse bracing for a fearsome winter - that the mouse was far better off since the weight of worry is something that the rodent (assumably) does not bear - unlike humans who are want to worry what the future brings. Having said that, maybe the single-mind - like the rodent - are reminants of a primitive mindset yet to have evolved the sensibility of what makes us humane. "Don't ask for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee." I wager not many of the Americans counting their dead get the gist of Donne's comment.

[Arriving at the party late] " James W. Ceaser and Daniel DiSalvo, political scientists at the University of Virginia, writing in the fall issue of the Public Interest, argue that what makes Bush's foreign policy distinctive is its attempt to implement an idea. Bush says that "liberty is the design of nature" and that "freedom is the right and the capacity of all mankind." Ceaser and DiSalvo say that not since Lincoln has the Republicans' leader "so actively sought to ground the party in a politics of natural right."

Kerry is the candidate of the intellectually vain -- of those who, practicing the politics of condescension, consider Bush moronic. But Kerry is unwilling to engage Bush's idea.

Hence he is allowing Bush to have what he wants, a one-issue election. The issue is a conflation of the wars in Iraq and on terrorism in the single subject "security." Kerry is trying, and failing, to pry apart judgments about the two. But even if he succeeds, he continues to deepen the risible incoherence of his still-multiplying positions on Iraq." George Will in the Washington Post

Single minded vs. fuzzy. Kerry is trying to be all things to all people because he has virtually no idea of where he stands on any particular issue. This is a bug not a feature which the 11 point lead opened up by Bush is proving.

I don't think Kerry and party are the only ones who have come to the conclusion that "Bush is moronic". Bush says a lot of things, and if people want to attribute any sense to them - I wonder what they can make of the things that man with a single-mind that is not kept recharged often enough by his archived ponderings at: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Perhaps, Mr. Ceaser and Mr. DiSalvo should have asked George the W. to elaborate on his idea that "liberty is the design of nature" and that "freedom is the right and the capacity of all mankind" in 250 words or more. Emphasis on the word "more." That would be the real test and that would be very interesting...It's just too bad that Jerzy Kosinski is no longer with us to witness his novel "Being There " (where Chance the feeble-minded gardener is mistaken for a mysterious sage as he stumbles into the world of politics) enacted for reality. Only this time the story is darker, much darker, the main character's guileless wisdom has been replaced by a simple but quasi- earnest ruthlessness. However, the compelling desire and need of an empty society to believe almost anything remains the same.

I think what is being identified here is a degradation of political discourse. People don't talk issues, they attempt to villify the other side. And that's not just a problem in the U.S. (Regrettably, you'll see much of that in exchanges of comments, right even here.) Democracy requires that we talk to each other. It's never a response to any position to say, you're just one of those ______ (fill in the blank, whether the epithet comes from the left or the right).

That's an interesting comment from a guy styling himself as just one of those union guys. :-)

Though I will confess that you have a point.

The suggestion most commonly made in conjunction with that point unfortunately plays directly into the strategies employed by the right wing think tanks over the last 20 some odd years.

And we wind up with Paul Martin...a man so proud to be Canadian he flies everyone else's flag from his fleet...and provincially we have a total geek maundering mindlessly and the leader of the opposition , supposedly "left" and "socialist" is talking about how we need to make nice with business interests... and we all of us dismiss as hysterical those who speak of secret agendas, conspiracy, and societies whose membership is restricted to the sons of the already powerful. Has anybody noticed how many times the "enemy" (who, by the way, is not MY enemy) refers to the US presence in the Muslim world as "the crusaders"? Why do we immediately consider them to be "wrong"? For years I was as "Zionist" as a non-Jew could be. When sanctions were brought against Israel after the six days war and they were denied the right to purchase oil or ammunition I sent a parcel to Golda Meier; a can of engine oil and a box of shotgun shells. Got a nice letter back, too. Now I look at the link between the radical militant Israeli right and the US aggression in Iraq (and soon to be Iran) and I truly do wonder..and grieve. People of good will can get along regardless of religious ideology or political belief. People of ill will can't get along with anybody and in time will not get along with each other...look at how Hitler turned on the Brownshirts and had some of his most rabid supporters slaughtered. We won't be off the hook soon. Our children and even our grand-children will reap this sad harvest. It isn't going to matter one little bit who wins the steeplechase in November. It doesn't even matter which flag Paulie flies. We have our asses caught in a fox trap and nobody else can get us out of it. We're on our own and it is up to us. I am heartened by a feeling that we'll get out of it, and right now I think I'll go get a coffee and listen to Willy Nelson.

Like Anne, I sent aid (in terms of medicine) to Iraq which were dropped from the sky during the decade (and then some) of sanctions placed against the people - who were fed only for oil. I wonder what it is all worth at the end - generations are sacrificed a chance at making a life - with the only promise being that sometime in the future - there may be peace. Imagine having nothing to lose, being brought up in an environment of hate and violence, and the only thing you have to lose is your pride by being a willing victim. That is the state of affairs that has resulted from the type of imperialism practised by the world's superpower, and that is the environment that coddles, cultures, and creates terrorism - an act of last resort that essentially yells - if I'm going down, I'm taking as many as I can with me. What is great about Canada (and I'm sure I will be admonished for this bias) - is that we are humble enough to acknowledge our differences without there being one greater than another - men and women are different - but equal in every way that counts. Neo-cons - and the right wing fundamentalism destroys the aspect of meritocracy and instills a caste system of the worst kind as it relies on exploitation - of people, culture, vulnerabilities, egos, and the environ - to meet its end - It will bring its own demise in time if we, as a society, are willing to put up with it until the illness rides its course.

Two things----First, the words 'stupid' and 'moronic' have occurred here a couple of times. I'm not clear on them. Does anybody have a definition to offer? Or are they simply pejoritives?

Second, about something anne cameron said... "And we wind up with Paul Martin". How likely is it that the neo liberal/neoconservative movement has gone as global as the so called Capitalist Revolution, as global as the corporate state, and is providing these not-quite citizens to all these nation-states parties for their leaders. Martin flies false colours on his ships for profit. Bush represents southwestern oil interests, instead of the people of the United States. Campbell rules from Maui as if he has a US passport. Klein, Eaves, Shwartzenegger, Mulroney, Thatcher and Reagan. The lists are very extensive, if you think about it. Leaders who betray their people, their oaths and duties to serve an ideology not in their people's best interests. But definately in somebody's best interests.

Bailey: how about a simple definition like George Bush. Both are interchangable. Both evoke that special something only a good-ol' boy who would make J.R. Ewing look smart, oozes when he ad libs and or lies.

"Liberals must do the same because you cannot inspire others to believe in your vision if you do not believe in it yourself. Enough of the nonsense that there is no truth, no reality, no history, no shared experience." wrote KF.

I'm sorry I missed the mainstream of this very good article and discussion, but I'll guickly slide this in.

While I wouldn't have used the term "liberal" here, it being too restrictive, oddly, and U.S.-centric for this group, where we range much wider across "left opinion", I think, I nonetheless don't entirely disagree with you-, and which I think ties in with something Lynn said earlier, about it being time for the left to stop being "so nice". There is a problem with "absolute certainty" about the "correctness" of one's position however, which I observed in my early Communist Party days. That being, that along with that "tends" to go a certain ideological and practical rigidity, and the suspension of objectivity, in varying degree, and the evolution of something akin to a faith based ideology that apes some of the worst features of the extreme right.

Now, in really high intensity conflict situations, such as revolution and civil war, that can be not only unavoidable sometimes, but even useful. Which saw Communists, for example, through some of their most danger fraught times, and sustained their cohesion in the face of near impossible odds. Though, like I say, it invites in as well, habits, styles of work, and personality traits that invariably erode and, over time, undermine a movements viability and credibility. There is a critical movement away from an objective, science based, and yet democratic and humanistically compassionate view of people and history.

So, you are right, I think, however much it wobbles and waffles, evolves and is difficult to define sometimes, there is objective truth, reality and history. There is also a need to act with certitude and passion, and with a belief in "the cause" one has chosen to fight on the side of. Otherwise, "the left" is only ever, as it is pretty much now in this country, a kind of limp dick at a sex orgy, a slightly cheesy, opportunist little politician scarcely different from any other, baby kissing and pressing the flesh, obsessing about the next election and his/her political career, devoid of any real content except "the win", which even when it does bring them to "formal" power, never really changes anything. The "business's" interest is equally as well served over that of "the people", as if a "junta or oligarchy" had simply dispensed with this silly electoral ritual.

"The modern left" has yet to find that "on a knife's edge place", which when one does, history begins to seriously move, like a hot knife through butter, and there is a sudden discovery of one's relevance.

Let's face it. Right now, what passes for "the left" is not only largely pathetic, but quite properly irrelevant. Which needs to change, big time. There is a need for both, greater and more critical objectivity and analysis of OUR society, as part of the evolution of a science based view of OUR time, AND a motivating and inspiring "passion" for the truths and reality there.

Speaking to the definition of the words "Stupid" and "Moronic". They still mean more or less what the dictionary says. Two other words come to mind: "Freedom" and "Democracy" I kinda doubt if the guy on the street in Bahgdad would agree with our old definition of "Freedom" (especially when it's associated with "Operation Iraq Freedom") Then the haphazard use of the other word: "Democracy" lately defined as some form of "you either agree with us or we start dropping bombs on you and guess what? the "Voting Public" will enjoy that." I can hardly wait to find out how the word "Future" will be redefined.

I have read all the comments with interest and I have not much to add except to speak to the impression someone had about the Bushes not taking their feet off of Usian soil and therefore not gaining an understanding of the world. This is not entirely correct although the ignorance of the rest of the world is pretty accurate. The Bush family spent oodles of time in that great bastion of freedom, democracy and intellectual creativity called Saudi Arabia, even calling the ruling families with which they cavorted- brothers. These long time allies ,business partners and friends of the Bush family have just about the most vile record of human rights abuses that it is possible for one country to compile.

Dear faith, It's a good observation you've made above. The next question is, what does it mean?

What conclusions flow from that little piece of information?

I was commenting on someone else's observation that the early learning environment of the Bush family led to their woefully inadequate world view. Not having met GW I can't say what it means but I'm willing to take a guess. The sphere of influence in a persons life tells a lot about them. Alcoholics seek out other drinkers, status seekers have their own crowd , most people gravitate to those of like mind. When I look at the life of rich priveledge in the Saudi Bin Ladens and the Usian Bushes there seems to be a lot of common ground don't you think?

Looks to me like the "Shit hit the fan" a few years ago. We can entertain oursleves with this mound of irrefutable evidence as long as we want, but there are actually folks out there who care and vote and pay taxes and who make descisions in this world: 'Course they don't have a clue about this particular world. They tend to live in places like Calgary or "Calgary South": Houston, Texas. So what should a thinking person do at this time? Not much! XX111 The Po Hexagram "Po indicates that(in the state which it symbolises)it will not be advantageous to make a movement in any direction whatever" From I Ching "Book of Changes"

Dear Faith, Just the other day Dubya was quoted on CNN. Apparently at some rally or other, in front of cameras he said he wants to build a coalition of the "haves and the have mores. Those are my people"