Wow the times are rich for speculation on human limitations and their effect on American democracy!

Whenever my heroes are at odds with each other I, like Gene Lyons' horses, get a little scared.¹  I agree that people behave this way.  But they don't have to and they shouldn't.   

As an evolutionary biologist, I'm not given to denying my connection to all beings great and small (and that I am barely not a chimpanzee and such), but I observe that I am, or at least I can (and should?) be, a little more sophisticated in my assessment of my surroundings (especially over time and in the abstract) than the quarter horse I used to ride while driving cattle in Montana².  So rather than run from a situation that, unlike a horse, I recognize as being designed to make me run I am going to try and address it.  Horses aren't only not smart enough to lie, they aren't smart enough to suspect it in others.  So do we fault people for being stupid racists (evolutionarily derived traits) or do we fault them for not employing critical thinking skills³ and imply that this is an excuse for being manipulated to act like stupid racists?

You can claim the latter isn't what is going on here but it is.   Look around at the utterly innumerable examples of open, cynical pandering to human horses not just in the context of healthcare (I will not call it a debate) but in the very design of our economy and the practice of our government.  Every now and then someone writes an article lambasting unnamed over-privileged (true!) liberals for not understanding the value systems of poor rural conservatives that would send there family members to war⁴, but they never leave the scene without letting you know that they are doing this to excuse the stupid behavior of these people with said misunderstood values.  How is this evaluation superior?  Does it allow you to not feel arrogant?

We all are influenced by biological drives.  They are amoral.  Our selection of their influence on our behavior, to identify the only remaining ground on which free will may stand (not for long!⁵), is not.  For fuck's sake, the British created their national health service while hiding in bomb shelters.  Why bother to excuse anyone's behavior when that person acts like a fool, not acknowledging the mental or physical structures around them? Even when that person is everyman.  Said person either can't or isn't paying attention.  The former means they should be excused from debate (and the associated privileges) and the latter means they are obliged to (and should be called out if they don't) address it better than a horse would.

It is stupid to believe that Obama is a fascist regardless of your story.  A few dishonest people, accompanied by some bullies, are manipulating a big bunch of stupid people in this country.  That we make policy this way is the thing to debate.

¹   Does it appear to anyone else that the primary theme of his story comes off not as intended (blame the sinister manipulation of available media, along with lazy (maybe stupid, maybe purchased) journalists and politicians who are supposed to oppose it) but rather leaves one with the idea that humans act stupid as we are simply innocent and ignorant like horses.  Or maybe not we, just they.

²   Name of Snort.  OK so there is my horse street cred.

³   i.e. being simple in the head.

⁴   Good one in Harper's not too long ago.  I habitually peel of my mailing label prior to registering my subscription so I am having trouble searching the site for the proper reference.  I am not a horse, but I keep records like one.

⁵   Mathematicians such as Stephen Wolfram, and a bunch of philosophers that like to play with MRI machines (normal coursework for a Princeton undergrad) are among those at the gates.