George Rebane
The ongoing debates on current issues such as budget, deficits, gun control, healthcare, climate change, immigration reform, … highlight one of the most robust aspects of how Left and Right thinking are fundamentally different. As witnessed by RR’s Liberal Mind category, this is a long abiding subject of interest to me, and apparently becoming so to others inhabiting the polar regions of our ideological globe. There is something fundamental and basic to how both sides present and argue their positions on the issues. And since RR readers fervently debate these issues, I want to introduce a couple of new terms from the technical field that, perhaps, best capture the meaning of the different approaches.
A pair of arcane terms in science and technology that have yet to follow ‘feedback’, ‘bandwidth’, ‘in the loop’, ‘cloud’, … into the common lexicon are ‘synoptic’ and ‘topical’. Dictionaries often define synoptic as “affording or taking a general view of the principal parts of a subject”. In science and technology synoptic denotes notions that refer to an area in the large, be it the entire history or time window of a process, the overall design of a large-scale system, the complex inter-relationships of this with all of those, or a stream/collection of data in a database. A synoptical argument captures the large scale of the subject that may even include objectives and measures of utility. Something synoptic is of encompassing scope.
The other end of the semantic notion of scope is topical which denotes anything of limited scope. Again, the more common definition of topical is that “pertaining to or dealing with matters of current or local interest.” But in the broader context I’m discussing here, things topical are limited in time and space, they are arguments, notions, appeals to the here and now, or entail some specific example(s) of a larger scheme, examples that need not be at all representative of the whole. This last point is very important in the understanding of the proper meaning of topical. Specific examples/incidents are sometimes also called anecdotal, and therefore a topical description of something subsumes the semantic of anecdotal examples, occasions, happenings, samples, etc.
With this understanding, I now can make a more powerful proposition regarding how the Left and the Right contend on issues in the public arena. The Left overwhelmingly presents its support and/or promotion of ideals and issues in distinctly topical frameworks. Whether it is healthcare or gun control, we are regaled with stories of a specific individual who is denied a critical medical procedure, or have eleven bullets pumped into their little body.
The ongoing debates on current issues such as budget, deficits, gun control, healthcare, climate change, immigration reform, … highlight one of the most robust aspects of how Left and Right thinking are fundamentally different. As witnessed by RR’s Liberal Mind category, this is a long abiding subject of interest to me, and apparently becoming so to others inhabiting the polar regions of our ideological globe. There is something fundamental and basic to how both sides present and argue their positions on the issues. And since RR readers fervently debate these issues, I want to introduce a couple of new terms from the technical field that, perhaps, best capture the meaning of the different approaches.
The other end of the semantic notion of scope is topical which denotes anything of limited scope. Again, the more common definition of topical is that “pertaining to or dealing with matters of current or local interest.” But in the broader context I’m discussing here, things topical are limited in time and space, they are arguments, notions, appeals to the here and now, or entail some specific example(s) of a larger scheme, examples that need not be at all representative of the whole. This last point is very important in the understanding of the proper meaning of topical. Specific examples/incidents are sometimes also called anecdotal, and therefore a topical description of something subsumes the semantic of anecdotal examples, occasions, happenings, samples, etc.
With this understanding, I now can make a more powerful proposition regarding how the Left and the Right contend on issues in the public arena. The Left overwhelmingly presents its support and/or promotion of ideals and issues in distinctly topical frameworks. Whether it is healthcare or gun control, we are regaled with stories of a specific individual who is denied a critical medical procedure, or have eleven bullets pumped into their little body.
The Right’s position on the same issues seeks to convince on the basis of the relevant synoptics. Their contentions cite the scope and breadth of the problem, the overall objective of any solution, attaching numbers and statistics wherever possible. In their synoptical approach, they hope to strike a responding chord of reason in the listener, to illustrate that the solution to the problem needs to address the more encompassing factors.
And in that difference lies the rub. Those who take the topical tack immediately appeal to a larger audience, because the barrier to understanding judiciously selected topical arguments is between very low and non-existent. Pandering politicians are the virtuosi of the topical.
While the synoptic perspective is arguably the proper one when making policy/decisions to apply across a broad landscape, it is a perspective that requires two things in short supply – intelligence and attention span. Even if the Left believes it has the proper synoptical arguments or rebuttals, it will not use them. Instead, they wisely come back with yet another instantly accessible topical bon mot. And correctly so, because talking to their faithful constituencies, topical sticks.
The double problem for the Right is that countering with topicals doesn’t work very well. When a picture of a ten-year-old lying there in a pool of blood with eleven bullet holes in her is painted, it is hard to compete with a story of how an elderly widow scared off a drug-crazed burglar with her gun. And no matter what the (synoptical) numbers connected with such incidents with the old lady, out there in television land such numbers, no matter how compelling, don’t trump the topical little girl dead on her classroom floor.
That such arguments work with the sheeple is understandable, but that they also work with progressives claiming reason is still a puzzle. Studies like the ones recently completed at the University College London (here) and University of Virginia (here) are beginning to shed some light. However, even a complete understanding of the clinical factors involved cannot bring comfort to anyone on the Right of the argument.
And in that difference lies the rub. Those who take the topical tack immediately appeal to a larger audience, because the barrier to understanding judiciously selected topical arguments is between very low and non-existent. Pandering politicians are the virtuosi of the topical.
While the synoptic perspective is arguably the proper one when making policy/decisions to apply across a broad landscape, it is a perspective that requires two things in short supply – intelligence and attention span. Even if the Left believes it has the proper synoptical arguments or rebuttals, it will not use them. Instead, they wisely come back with yet another instantly accessible topical bon mot. And correctly so, because talking to their faithful constituencies, topical sticks.
The double problem for the Right is that countering with topicals doesn’t work very well. When a picture of a ten-year-old lying there in a pool of blood with eleven bullet holes in her is painted, it is hard to compete with a story of how an elderly widow scared off a drug-crazed burglar with her gun. And no matter what the (synoptical) numbers connected with such incidents with the old lady, out there in television land such numbers, no matter how compelling, don’t trump the topical little girl dead on her classroom floor.
That such arguments work with the sheeple is understandable, but that they also work with progressives claiming reason is still a puzzle. Studies like the ones recently completed at the University College London (here) and University of Virginia (here) are beginning to shed some light. However, even a complete understanding of the clinical factors involved cannot bring comfort to anyone on the Right of the argument.
So George when Todd Akin spouted his now famous theory on "legitimate rape" was he a spokesperson for the Right that you refer to in your post or if he wasn,t who does he speak for?
"Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 February 2013 at 04:03 PM
PaulE 403pm - I don't know what your point is, but true to form as I describe in my post, you went right for the topical. Thank you.
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 February 2013 at 04:14 PM
Paul@04:03PM
Are you saying that if one Republican puts forth something stupid that we can assume that he or she is speaking for all Republicans? If that is true, then in your mind, one stupid statement by a liberal progressive Democrat makes all Democrats stupid, even the moderates. If that is true, then you are the one that is ...... Please use your god given brain to it's highest capacity so we can all appreciate the results.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 04 February 2013 at 04:45 PM
Another well presented writing by Dr. Rebane. I see it in less scientific terms: those who want instant gratification verses those who see the bigger picture.
I well remember the Welfare Debate. First thing the media uncovered was an 80 year old blind Polish lady who had lived here 40 years and never applied for citizenship. Was she to be tossed out into the streets and starve to death with her food stamps cut off because of her status? Few can reasonably argue that Welfare Reform was a disaster and unworkable. Yet when Clinton later brought out a Welfare Mama who said the program was working great and got her off welfare, the most liberal of the members of Congress called her story "anecdotal" and dismissed it because it did not fit their impending doom scenario they predicted, complete with millions of crippled children tossed out into the streets to fend for themselves. Thus the Liberal Mind is capable of dismissing anecdotal examples from time to time when it does not fit their agenda.
In general terms, the Liberal Minds looks solely at an event that happened while those on the Right look to see why things happened as well as diving into cause and effect understanding and solutions. The Liberal Brain is best displayed in the Climate Change argument...er...there is no debate, the issue is settled. Nothing to see here, move on.
I wondered why our fellow citizens of the Liberal persuasion prefer football by a slight margin while those on the Right prefer baseball by a slight margin. Could it be the Left looks to the bang bang visuals and the Right looks at a slower paced thinking man's game? Is the instant gratification in play? Maybe that is why more Democrat voters buy scratch offs than Independents or Republicans. Curious indeed. I am sure someone will now post a story of a Conservative that won the lottery.
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 February 2013 at 04:46 PM
Okay then, who in your view are legitimate spokespersons for the right?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 February 2013 at 05:05 PM
Actually I dangled the worm on this one. Thanks for the bite.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 February 2013 at 05:08 PM
PaulE 508pm - to illustrate the size of the disconnect here, we don't even agree on what a "bite" is to your 403pm. Had I bitten, I would have responded instead of rejected (my 414pm). Perhaps a simple acknowledgement of a comment is gratefully accepted as a "bite" in your world.
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 February 2013 at 05:40 PM
Maybe the reason more Democratic voters buy scratch offs is because more Democrats are poor and can't afford more affluent forms of gambling like subprime mortgages and derivatives.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 04 February 2013 at 05:41 PM
JoeK 541pm - an excellent perception Mr K. However, your implied share of Repubs investing in subprimes and derivatives is woefully off the mark. I would posit that an equal number of both Repub and Dem wealthy avail themselves to those investments. However, the Dems do rule the lower end of the economic scale, and give great credence to the homily that state run lotteries are nothing but an acceptable tax on the stupid and ignorant.
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 February 2013 at 05:47 PM
I really didn't imply that Reps were the investors, you made that implication, it is obvious that wealthy of all persuasions would and could invest in that way. You tend to categorize ideas into a them vs. us mentality. My point was to question the notion that scratchers and instant gratification were somehow related to being a Democrat, which is absurd at best. It is like saying that greed and Republicans have a cause and effect relationship. Just to put things in perspective, I know of a local store owner who was not a Democrat who would stop and buy either a lottery ticket, scratcher, or both practically every night on his way home. Over twenty-five years I personally witness this ritual on dozens of occasions. So instant gratification isn't something that can be connected to political persuasion.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 04 February 2013 at 06:10 PM
George
"The Right’s position on the same issues seeks to convince on the basis of the relevant synoptics. Their contentions cite the scope and breadth of the problem, the overall objective of any solution, attaching numbers and statistics wherever possible."
I'm just asking who in your view is a reasonable representative of the Right. Is it the Republican Party for example?
What you suggest is very vague and needs clarification. Who the heck is "the right" anyway? Am I the "left" for example? Where do you put someone like Ron Paul or Glen Beck ? Did Romney represent the Right?
So many questions.
"The Right’s position on the same issues seeks to convince on the basis of the relevant synoptics. Their contentions cite the scope and breadth of the problem, the overall objective of any solution, attaching numbers and statistics wherever possible. "
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 February 2013 at 06:22 PM
JoeK 610pm - Most interesting that Repubs vs Dems is an 'them vs us' categorization, but that the poor vs the wealthy is not a 'them vs us'. And your own (correct) characterization of the Dems being the prime lottery buyers, implied the opposition being the Repubs. I'm glad we both agree that clever investment vehicles are used by the better off of both parties.
BTW, some local LA Dem politicians griped some years ago that the lottery was indeed a tax on the poor and ignorant. What caused the heartburn was that these were overwhelmingly from the Dem voting block. There, of course, was no redress since the state was already violating the 'education only' destination of those revenues.
PaulE 622pm - I use Right and Left here in the same way that the media use the labels as gross characterizations of cohorts who seek bigger govt vs those who want to limit the scope of govt. Nothing more specific. Both sides are nuanced and have finer divisions of thought and organization.
A "reasonable representative" of the Right, hah! The Right is in such disarray that no one would dare stick their head up and claim that commission. There are intellectual repositories like Heritage, Cato, Mercatus, Hoover, ..., and media like Fox, Weekly Standard, National Review, talk radio hosts starting with Limbaugh, and countless blogs. It is a cacophony, there is no such thing as a 'party line'. But I'll take the job if offered ;-)
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 February 2013 at 07:05 PM
George 7:05 -- Poor and wealthy are states of economic being not points of view and, as such, cannot be put into an us vs. them categorization. It is the political characterizations that are divisive and create the us vs. them mentality that allows the economically elite of all so-called political parties maintain a tighter control on the direction of the country, divide and conquer. Poor folk are more worried about food than politics, they are just another football for the politicians to toss around, another bone of contention for people to waste time arguing over. The more we argue the less that gets done. I think the last three decades have seen a huge division in the American people. Not that people never disagreed, but it seems like since the political/social divisions that occurred during the VietNam War, the vitriol related to political affiliations has gotten to pre civil war proportions. Just witness all of the meanness bordering on hate expressed by some of the participants of this blog. The automatic us vs. them mentality that seems to kick in precludes any exchange of ideas and turns the whole thing into a he said/she said argument where there must be a winner and a loser and the truth be damned. In my opinion, we are all being taken for a ride no matter what side of the coin you think you are on.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 04 February 2013 at 07:49 PM
George
So in your view do the Rush Linbaughs and Glen Becks, who fashion themselves to be mouths of the right have to subscribe to the same rules of engagement that you claim progressives lack?
"The Right’s position on the same issues seeks to convince on the basis of the relevant synoptics. Their contentions cite the scope and breadth of the problem, the overall objective of any solution, attaching numbers and statistics wherever possible. In their synoptical approach, they hope to strike a responding chord of reason in the listener, to illustrate that the solution to the problem needs to address the more encompassing factors."
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 February 2013 at 07:49 PM
Paul, the Great Divide is indeed an "us vs them" mentality. I can think of no class more skewered the last 3 years than the 1% and I am relatively poor! No one ever put a gun to my head and forced me to give Mr. Moneybags a dollar.
Getting back to Dr. Rebane's point, each side sees things differently and thinks differently and definitely reacts differently. The left has no problem with burdensome regulations. They see it as a good thing. Same with slow/no growth. You can add progress to the mix, which is at odds with the term progressive. Here is a classic example of how the different sides think:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/01/30/the-epas-lisa-jackson-the-worst-head-of-the-worst-regulatory-agency-ever/
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 February 2013 at 08:15 PM
George,
I couldn't disagree more with your entire post. I give data, links, statistics, examples through history, and bring it all back to the topical debate. Also what I do that most conservatives who participate on RR don't do is I expand the issue to the connecting issues or variables. Gun violence shouldn't be and isn't limited to guns. There are many factors in gun violence and I would say that guns are down the list of being a major contributing factor, unless that is we eliminate all guns in society. I haven't heard anyone serious threaten that last option.
Here is what I find, most people mistake the current Democratic Party as liberal and the Republican Party as conservative. Neither are those things. In the 1960's that would have been true but not today or for the last twenty to thirty years. They both are there to accumulate more wealth and power for a select few in our nation.
If we put side by side issues with political parties in all developed nations on the planet the Democratic Party would be one of the most conservative major political party's in the world. The Republican Party is literally an international joke, most people cannot believe the Republicans are a real party. They think it would be comical if the party wasn't so dangerous to the freedom, liberty, and lives to citizens around the world.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 04 February 2013 at 08:19 PM
JoeK 749pm - From your mouth to President Obama's ear. No rocket science is required to discover whose case is based on class warfare. And poor vs rich is the most basic of all class distinctions constantly displayed by collectivists. There are plenty of ideas out there (and on these pages) about how a better quality of life has and can be achieved. But there is only one side that wants puts class equalization above quality of life improvements. Can you help?
PaulE 749pm - Rush and Glenn only claim to speak for themselves. It is others who to various degrees embrace the broadcast messages as their own. And, of course, the Left does view them as trumpets of the Right, but that does not give them an imprimatur from Right leaning audiences - it is just a convenient framework constructed to support vilification of the Right.
As audiences of these pundits agree, both of them overly use synoptics to make their arguments (especially Beck with his charts, graphs, and numbers galore). While the chorus takes comfort in such arguments, the congregation remains as hard to reach as ever.
And finally, I'm confused about what "rules of engagement" you are talking about. A more comprehended reading of my thoughts on the matter prescribed no such rules, but simply characterized the message formats from the Right and Left - the latter being more effective. But I think the Right might be learning from the Left, because among the synoptics from rightwing pundits issue occasional topicals recounting how some poor citizen got his mammary caught in this or that government wringer.
Maybe the phoenix will rise from the ashes when Repubs learn how deliver their own bodies riddled with more bullet holes than those displayed by the Dems. That will bring the national dialogue down to a new lurid and very accessible low.
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 February 2013 at 08:20 PM
BenE 819pm - I take it your disagreement is my assignment of synoptic and topical to conservatives and collectivists respectively. Fair enough. While I claim no uniformity in those attributes to either side, I do think that you would gain more traction in taking up your disagreements with the folks at the cited universities, in addition to research showing that liberals don't forward ideologically based arguments, instead fashioning them within a framework of "issue activism" which is prima facie topicality.
However, there is a lot to like in your arguments about the similar factors motivating both parties.
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 February 2013 at 08:30 PM
George,
What I have found is that the "conservative" side of the think tank world does a much better job at framing and messaging arguments but strangely enough at the emotional level not at a rational level. There is nothing rational in the thinking that a few hundred semi automatic weapons is going to protect an individual from our government if it were to ever go Khmer Rouge. They would go out in a blaze of glory but nothing more. I believe I would fight back myself but in a much different way. I don't think one way or the other is better in creating results but I choose to live in line with the teachings of Jesus rather than the rhetoric of chicken hawk Ted Nugent.
Posted by: Ben Emery | 04 February 2013 at 10:01 PM
Pink pistols that shoot and kill three year olds, and Adderall wiping out 24 year olds does tend to attract the topical eye:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/concerns-about-adhd-practices-and-amphetamine-addiction.html?_r=0
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/05/pink-gun-mistaken-for-toy-3-year-old-s-c-boy-killed-video/
How many near misses have there been with these cutsie deaTH MACHINES, THAT HAVE GONE UNREPORTED? This kid got unlucky in the direction that it was pointed. What about all the other directions on the sphere of possible shots? If those parents had manned up to the situation, a recall or more protection might have saved this unfortunate toddler. You expect me to believe that the very first time a kid picked one of these up and pulled the trigger it just happened to be pointed right at his head? When pigs fly and play word games on their cells.
Yuba Charter School is Yuba River Charter School, BTW
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 February 2013 at 01:57 PM
If you list links, you get the Captcha experience.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 February 2013 at 01:57 PM
BenE 1001pm - I totally disagree. (And that's why "a few hundred" are not nearly enough in the hands of citizens.)
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 February 2013 at 02:41 PM
Ben, "a few hundred"? Slate estimated there are about 3.8 million AR-15 pattern rifles in the USA, and that doesn't include rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 (0.8 million) that fire the same cartridge but don't count as "assault weapons", or other autoloading centerfire rifles including AK based or SKS 'military style' rifles.
Kudos for Slate for at least considering they'd have to pay for the rifles they'd like to have confiscated.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html
Posted by: Gregory | 05 February 2013 at 02:57 PM
Thanks Gregory for that link. It would do Our Lefties good to read the first
comment at the bottom.
I'm sure Ben and friends will pipe up with a "revision" or two.
Posted by: Walt | 06 February 2013 at 11:29 AM
BTW,, There is one less Democrat family in PV. They are now "born again" Conservatives. I guess all the " I told you so " finally sunk in.
They thought "O" was GREAT!! ( they were watchers of MSNBC and the like)
Now that they finally see that "O"&CO. is going after some things that " they"
like, their tune changed.
They were of the thinking we still hear, " The are not going to try and take away your guns". NOW the see otherwise. Funny how things work out sometimes.
Hear the latest? Some LIB wants us gun owners to have MANDITORY insurance for our gun use. ( and will probably be offered ONLY by state gov. at a huge expense)
Posted by: Walt | 06 February 2013 at 11:41 AM
"3.8 million AR-15 pattern rifles in the USA" ~Greg~ 2:57 pm
And so far one home invasion in which they were used to kill an intruders, and how many dead due to mass shootings? Seems like the cost effectiveness ratio is a bit off for support of so many of these things.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 06 February 2013 at 12:46 PM
JesusB 1246pm - and where does the revival of the only purpose of ARs, or any other high capacity semi-auto, is home defense? And we have yet to revisit the 'that which is not seen' line of argument. The liberals' argument never acknowledge the broader purpose of an armed public.
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 February 2013 at 01:01 PM
So,,, only cops should carry guns because they are "so well trained" and are SOO much more responsible than the average citizen. Well,,, that sure doesn't hold water.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/06/what-this-inmate-did-after-he-found-a-troopers-lost-loaded-gun-could-pay-dividends/
Hat's off to the inmate for doing the right thing.
Posted by: Walt | 06 February 2013 at 01:18 PM