Bishop Hill Booker bashes Bob
Dec 8, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Ward Bob Ward receives a gentle lambasting from Christopher Booker in the Spectator. Ward, as we all know, has an interesting approach to factual accuracy, so it's interesting to see Booker's recollections of their interactions.
In 2009, an article of my own about Mörner provoked Ward to take me to the Press Complaints Commission (he has more than once called on the Sunday Telegraph to fire me). I cited a peer-reviewed 2001 paper based on satellite data, which quite independently confirmed Mörner’s finding that sea levels were not rising around Tuvalu. Ward sent the PCC a black-and-white version of the paper’s colour chart, claiming that this disproved my case. I replied with the original colour version, which clearly showed by its colour coding that sea levels around Tuvalu had actually fallen. Quite unabashed, Ward told the PCC that the authors of the 2001 paper had in 2006 published another withdrawing their earlier finding. The 2006 paper made no mention of Tuvalu. As I say, so little are the orthodoxy’s defenders interested in serious debate that they will stop at nothing to discredit any dissent — even as their ‘cause’ continues to crumble around them.
Reader Comments (51)
The only comment so far on Booker's Speccie piece is a wonderful tirade of abuse from someone called "David" - starting "Don't be ridiculous" and ending "no point in debating with the insane".
A better illustration of the point Booker was trying to make would be hard to find.
Any bets on whether "David" is "Bob" ?
I wonder if The Bob can get advice from the LSE about relocation, perhaps to Mexico? Or is his specific paymaster already somewhere safe and comfortable?
I am surprisedm that Bob has not replied already...he normally replies before the article is published
The primary players in the alarm game, and their apologists and publicists like Ward, are so unimpressive that I feel I am missing something important given that they have had such a huge impact in the political world (in which I now include the governing councils of such as the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union). How did they do it? It is not the science, which we know is flaky beyond measure. It is not their charm, which we know is just missing. So what is it? What am I missing? I hope I do not come across as arrogant here, since in fact I am not at all impressive myself. But then, I have not been intent on screwing up humanity for the past 20 to 30 years, so I don't matter so much. I am just a puzzled observer who sees so much foolishness pushed with great effect by people that I wouldn't vote for on any kind of X-Factor show for political aspirants. It is maybe just a sentimental thing. I guess I'd like those intent on saving the world to be somewhat more heroic and admirable, instead of appearing to be the complete reverse.
In one way Bob 'fast fingers ' Ward is a bit of a odd ball , he his to be frank and spinner and liar by profession out to further the 'cause ' and further enrich his already very wealthy pay master . But his so bad at it , for instance as in the case he simply does not check his facts and relies on bluster to get him through and has such a skill of putting his foot into this mouth his needs s wardrobe full of new shoes. So you have to wonder why his employed in this role at all
"...I am missing something important given that they have had such a huge impact in the political world ..."
They have an endless supply of money. Other people's money. They have enough arrogance and self-confidence to fool the ignorant or simple-minded. They have no scruples, feeling that their intentions alone ennoble them beyond the rights of anyone who would dare oppose them. They are the High Priests of Voodoo.
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/funniest-movie-line-ever/mt_HJ2mH_qCA-OdRoYr2EA
John Shade,
Are they not scoundrels on a heroic scale? Have they not been willing to lie and to bash honest scientists and others? Have they not been keen to take advantage of a nascent science, climate science, that lacks the reasonably well confirmed theories that enable genuine debate at a level worthy of the name science?
They told what Nietzsche would call a "grand lie" and embraced every opportunity to appear before the public to repeat their lie and to bash their critics. What they did surely counts as the most successful example of bluffing known to science.
Bob Ward is currently spreading doom and gloom over at HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/frozen-planet-accuracy-bbc_b_1133677.html
This is my favorite qoute from Bob (from here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/23/the-scientific-firmament.html)
"I'm not sure how to argue against this point - it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years."
Just an independent seeker of knowledge lol.
James
I was going to make the observation that it is not the BBC or journalists who are most guilty here, but the administrative bodies of most of the professional societies. However, it seems that that has already been pointed out by other academics.
John,
The western world has been in the grip of a 'progressive' mindset for at least 40 years, and while some of its effects are beneficial, others are not.
The American philosopher Ken Wilber has written at length about this phenomenon, giving it the name 'boomeritis'. He identifies narcissism as one of its most pervasive and corrosive aspects, along with a sense of moral self-righteousness.
A good read on the subject is at http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/debold.asp
I think that the AGW debate has become so polarised because it is about a great deal more than climate -- when this edifice (which includes media, academia, NGOs and governments) topples, it will bring much of the 'progressive' movement down with it. Just a theory.
John,
"The American philosopher Ken Wilber has written at length about this phenomenon, giving it the name 'boomeritis'. He identifies narcissism as one of its most pervasive and corrosive aspects, along with a sense of moral self-righteousness."
Narcissism is a huge part of it. A presidential race between Obama and Gingrich just might be a first in human history. I think both of them qualify as the anti-Lincoln. So very sad.
Theo Goodwin: "A presidential race between Obama and Gingrich just might be a first in human history...."
Would you expand that, Theo? First what in human history? I believe I can make it up; but I would prefer to have it direct from the horse's mouth. (Can one still say that? or does it debase gallopers?)
What, actually, are Bob Ward's academic or scientific qualifications?
I think Johns question is a very good one. Of all the nutty ideas promoted by "progressives" over the last thirty years, why has this particular one gained such traction,such market share? Why have so many others, like politicians, bought into it when they need not have? If world 'leaders' hahahaha are talking up climate change, why it and not lesbian vegetarianism?
Even at the risk of being cynical, I can't believe that the politicians, short-termists to a man, know/care/even understand 'the science'. So is their involvement really just something as base as grasping at a new revenue stream to prop up the tottering finances of born-to-fail social democracy?
It's a way to control China and OPEC. That's why politicos like it.
@Rick Bradford:
"The American philosopher Ken Wilber has written at length about this phenomenon, giving it the name 'boomeritis'."
I largely agree with the point, but Wilber himself was a fraud who was quite unable to accurately cite science or evidence other than to support his own narcissistic new-age philosophy:
http://www.normaneinsteinbook.com/
Until 1996 or so, thee was some credence to the Hansen/Trenberth science. Although the latter had made a monumental mistake by accepting Aarhenius 'back radiation' idea, which no professional engineer or physicist taught the 2nd law of thermodynamics and knowing statistical thermodynamics, can accept, so long as CO2 apparently drove the end of ice ages, there was a massive amplification effect.
In 1997, CO2 was discovered to lag T by 600 years +/-. Quietly Hansen started to search for another amplification mechanism [in 1985 he claimed that wet ice albedo was lower than that of drier ice, correct, but it cannot explain the effects] and the hockey-sticks were created. Mann's was fraudulent as were the temperature variants - done by reducing past temperatures so no land temperature database is reliable.
In 2004 NASA claimed that the mechanism by which clouds had high albedo was smaller droplet reflection. This was another fraud but because it was from authority, most climate science paper rattles it out. Early last year, the US top cloud experimentalist noted that 40% of low level clouds behave differently - they are the reflective ones and they have the large droplets. At about the same time as he i noticed the same and have worked out the new optical physics,. It explains the ice age amplification and present Arctic warming.
The bottom line is that to cover up the initial mistakes and maintain reputations, the politics and carbon trading, the subject has decayed into overt fraud, a new Lysenkoism. In 20087 it was shown that the ice age warming starts 2000 years before any major CO2 change. Its effect could well be slight cooling at present levels. The amplification is an entirely different explanation, switching off the high reflection optical effect by biofeedback. Phytoplankton plus solar effects control climate.
[Snip - venting]
bill: "Of all the nutty ideas promoted by "progressives" over the last thirty years, why has this particular one gained such traction, such market share?"...
It answers so many human "needs", bill. The need to be doing something important; the need to be someone; the need to be a part of a major segment of the population; and a need to assuage a guilt so many of us seem to suffer for being. ah... fat and happy.
To be a part of a movement seems to be required by so many of us. Mob instinct. Herd instinct. Not necessarily bad instincts in themselves; perhaps even essential for civilisation to function -- but also open to destructive outcomes when they warp or distort -- or are manipulated.
I believe the good human instincts -- the very best of them -- were cynically used by the carpet baggers (and that is being kind to them) to manipulate our good feelings, our noble feelings, into cashflow. They used the children's natural instincts to build organisations to "save" this and this -- and to influence the parents and the grandparents; and milk them for money.
Then they noticed CO2 was rising, and someone remembered the guy in Enron's prayer that a way could be found to tax air (Mighty hoax from little Enrons grow) and the serious money, and the serious fraud, exploded.
CG1 - the climate science and the climate scientists took the hit.
CG2 - gave us the much needed context to the fault lines exposed in CG1 along with the climate science communicators taking the hit.
CG3 - we await with interest.
It's a way to control China and OPEC. That's why politicos like it.
Dec 9, 2011 at 8:27 AM | TheBigYinJames
///////////////////////////////////////////////
If it was conceived as a way to control China, it is an abject failure. As a consequence of this 'scam' the West has exported much of its industry to China and what little industry that remains is bogged down in red tape and ever increasing energy costs making it less competitive. The net effect of this is that it has brought forward what was probably inevitable and has made China the economic power house of the world. This has meant that the balance of power has shifted from West to East with untold and unforeseen consequences. Whilst not endorsing the USA's forign policy will China in the future police the world and if so what aims will underlie its involvement?
One reason why the present economic difficulties is so difficult to deall with is due to the de-industrialisation of the Weat these past 20 years, the adverse negative trade deficits caused by importing too many goods that were at one time manufactured on home soil, the unfortunate change in the balance of the economies from industrial to service based (particularly over reliant upon the financial sector) and the inability to grow one's way out of the present crisis due to the lack of export industry and jobs that that industry would provide. Added to that is the point made earlier, namely that such industry that remains has vecome uncompetitive,
Welcome to the new world. This is the legacy that successive governments have left us (and our children and grandchildren) due to their jumping on the green bandwagon.
I didn't say it was successful :) China has been on the rise for 20 years, it was on the cards that it would become the dominant superpower as the west declined. Controlling CO2 emissions is another way of controlling manufacturing, so if they could generate a 'climate catastrophe' that China would be forced to sign up to controlling, the nice by-product for politicians in the west is that China would have to curtail most of its industry to pre-1990 lebels (i.e. when they weren't such a superpower). It wouldn't hurt the west much, because we've all gone to service industries.
By far the brunt of cutting CO2 emissions to pre-1990 levels would be borne by China, which is why western politicians like it.
By far the brunt of cutting CO2 emissions to pre-1990 levels would be borne by China, which is why western politicians like it.
Dec 9, 2011 at 10:20 AM | TheBigYinJames
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
All points taken but why would the Chinese commit suicide? Why would anyone in the West consider that China would agree to keep its emissions at or below 1990 levels? There was never a realist prospect of China agreeing to that, so if that was the game plan it was patently doomed to failure.
Global warming would be good for many countries, eg UK and Canada would greatly benefit from Global warming. I suspect to too the majority of the Northern part of the Northern Hemisphere. Has anyone considered how China which is such a large and diverse country would fare? No doubt some areas may be adversely affected but overall gl;obal warming might be good for China and if that is the case then self interest would make it even less likely that China would go along with the plan.
This is more than simple niavity, it is foolhardy action. In particular, the west should have only de-industrialised at the same time as China stopped industrialising. If China did not refrain from cutting its emissions, the west should not have cut its emissions.
Having slept on this, I think Booker's final sentence has the key:
As I say, so little are the orthodoxy’s defenders interested in serious debate that they will stop at nothing to discredit any dissent — even as their ‘cause’ continues to crumble around them.
The evidence from CG1 and CG2 of ruthless conniving and backstabbing, combined with the downplaying of their own weak knowledge and their obsession with controlling published papers, does point to a deliberate hampering or even destruction of debate. But these would-be scientists are surely not at the heart of the darkness - they were merely useful as designated high-priests to both validate and distract attention from the more down-to-earth machinations of such as Maurice Strong and others of his jaundiced ilk who spotted the potential of CO2 and the vulnerable infant discipline of climatology for furthering their aims. I would dearly like FOIA to get hold of their emails.
And I've been wondering what the implications of this are. It adds to the puzzle of who and why, particularly of why as I have always thought of Buffett as a decent man. Still do, in fact, so...?
The billionaire investor Warren Buffett has agreed to buy a solar power farm in California worth $2bn (£1.3bn).
@HuhneMustGo [I agree] Dec 9, 2011 at 7:06 AM
The PR flack Ward has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry.
(although some credulous idiots have been known to refer to him as "Dr" Ward and assign to him a measure of expertise in some aspect of climate BS).
Evil Denier yeb just like those that claimed Pachauri could be trusted becasue he was a leading climate scientists only for them to have to admit he had no qualifications nor experience in the area at all .
Please don't respond to Zed, comments and follow-ons removed.
Re: Dec 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM | John Shade
"The primary players in the alarm game, and their apologists and publicists like Ward, are so unimpressive that I feel I am missing something important given that they have had such a huge impact in the political world (in which I now include the governing councils of such as the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union). How did they do it? It is not the science, which we know is flaky beyond measure. It is not their charm, which we know is just missing. So what is it? What am I missing?"
Margaret Thatcher has the answer in her book "Statecraft" published in 2002. Although it was she who had been persuaded by the UN ambassador Crispin Tickell to help found the IPCC she came later to bitterly regret the direction in which the 'science' was being pushed -
"since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism". (Something that EU president Herman van Rompuy touched on in his inauguration speech).
In a section of "Hot Air and Global Warming" she goes on to give an excellent summary of the main points ie (as well as her own sceptic viewpoints too long to reproduce here)
First, is the climate actually warming?...Second, is carbon dioxide responsible for whatever global warming has occurred?...Third, is human activity, especially human economic activity, responsible for the production of the carbon dioxide which has contributed to any global warming?.. Fourth, is global warming anyway quite the menace suggested... The answers to each of the above four questions will be directly relevant to the fifthe and final one:can global warming be stopped or checked at an acceptable price"
She goes on
"The lessons drawn from past predicitons of global disaster should be learned when it comes to considering the issue of climate change
1.We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in with other preconceived agendas.
2.We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criteria of commonsense and a sense of proportion to their pronouncements on the environment as to anything else.
3.We must never forget that although prosperity brings problems it also permits solutions - and less prosperity, fewer solutions.
4. All decisions must be made on the basis of the best science whose conclusions have been properly evaluated."
I think the massive EU funding of only the pro-AGW science, and also the massive EU funding of so-called NGOs that then go on to lobby for EU preferred policies amply demonstrates just how political intervention has skewed the 'science' so that it is politics leading the science rather than the other way round.
Lessons 1 and 3 are the ones to keep tight hold of at all times.
Lessons 2 and 4 really should go without saying.
Re: Dec 9, 2011 at 1:28 PM | Mike Jackson
"Lessons 2 and 4 really should go without saying."
Unfortunately the Climate Change Act of 2008 has proven they need to be reiterated. Almost all but a handful of MPs voted for it. And yet just watch this video of Ed Miliband who was our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change at the time and largely responsible for this prohibitively expensive Climate Change Act and see just how 'expert' he is on the subject (particularly the bit about feedbacks!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/user/shantabarley#p/a/u/1/1r29uVnKfaQ
Why do some nutty Leftist ideas get traction and others don't? They are all informed by Lenin's observation, "give the capitalists enough rope and they will hang themselves". For ideas to work, in the real world, a consensus needs must must be built. So perhaps the most successful nutty Leftist ideas are the ones that hold out the greatest potential rewards for the capitalists who come on board. In short, financiers saw the prospect of making a serious packet out of global warming so gave it their support. Whether they are the puppet masters who pull politicians strings is a story for another day's conspiracy.
But, the hypothesis that Lefty ideas that can draw in non-leftists by appealing to their greed, and so make things happen, seems reasonable. Take another mystery de nos jours, mass immigration into the UK. Lets say its not just an inevitable consequence of burgeoning population numbers and economic distress in parts of the world, and the technological impact of easier, cheaper air travel. Suppose it was a deliberate Lefty plot to change the nature of Britain, to render irrelevant the bourgeois concept, "my country". Lefty plotters can't do it on their own, but when they hold out the carrot of cheap, amenable un-unionised labour, guess who'll be their new best friends?
Marion, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:52 PM
A horrifying glimpse of a 'useful idiot' chatting to a 'willing accomplice'. A year later she was busy busy with the production of 'No Pressure' - a particularly brutal realisation of her idiocy which was mercifully short-lived, being withdrawn by her and her chums within hours of it being realeased.
Thank you also for all the information in your 1:10 PM comment. I think this 'politics leading the science' is part of the explanation for what has happened over the past 20 to 30 years, although it may well be more of a network of influence with positive feedbacks in some of the linkages rather than just A leading B throughout.
It seems that the choices facing us are either right wing, small government and capitalism or left wing, large government and crony capitalism. The good thing about small government is it would effectively neutralise the lobbying groups as well as being much cheaper and more efficient.
Unfortunately in the UK none of the three main parties are what can be described as 'right wing' !!!
Theo Goodwin (12/9/11): Recall "The Culture of Narcissism" by Christopher Lasch, stating this thesis three decades ago (1979).
In the U.S., the Boomer generation is conventionally considered those born 1946 - '64. By the socio-cultural/demographic Rule of 72, the last Boomers will turn age 58 only in 2022, while their bizarrely arrogant and selfish (read "spoiled brat") legacy will persist through c. 2040.
Not since late Roman times has any generation so subverted its great legacy, nor so willfully squandered posterity's resources on its own behalf.
Re: Dec 9, 2011 at 3:09 PM | John Blake
It seems Lasch has also written a follow on book very aptly named "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy"
"The distinguished historian argues that democracy today is threatened not by the masses, as Jose Ortega y Gasset (The Revolt of the Masses) had said, but by the elites. These elites - mobile and increasingly global in outlook - refuse to accept limits or ties to nation and place. Lasch contends that, as they isolate themselves in their networks and enclaves, they abandon the middle class, divide the nation, and betray the idea of a democracy for all America's citizens....The author traces how meritocracy - selective elevation into the elite - gradually replaced the original American democratic ideal of competence and respect for every man. Among other cultural trends, he trenchantly criticizes the vogue for self-esteem over achievement as a false remedy for deeper social problems, and attacks the superior pseudoradicalism of the academic left."
Yep, I'd say that was absolutely spot on!!!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolt-Elites-Betrayal-Democracy/dp/0393313719/ref=pd_rhf_se_shvl3
Re: Dec 9, 2011 at 2:32 PM | John Shade
"it may well be more of a network of influence with positive feedbacks in some of the linkages"
John, I totally agree, an excellent analogy.
Marion isn't it interesting how ideas reappear? That one of Lasch's would have been familiar coming out of the mouth of a little German man with a moustache, except he probably would have used the code-phrase "rootless cosmopolitans".
Re: Dec 9, 2011 at 5:12 PM | bill
Oh, you mean the leader of the National Socialist Party!
Richard Verney: “This is the legacy that successive governments have left us (and our children and grandchildren) due to their jumping on the green bandwagon.”
The decline in manufacturing in the west and its uptake by what were once termed the “Asian Tigers” was more a consequence of the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s and the cost advantages of the east than greenism.
If anything, the green mantra of “buy local” and the desire for small-scale, artisan-style manufacture would favour a reduction in imports and a move away from service-type industries.
While there is currently a good deal of lip-service paid to greenism by industry, the perceived bottom line will usually prevail when it comes to making decisions about where to put the money.
Bill: “Marion… That one of Lasch's would have been familiar coming out of the mouth of a little German man with a moustache, except he probably would have used the code-phrase "rootless cosmopolitans".”
Bill, I think Marion is praising Lasch, not condemning him.
Now you’ve put her in a bind because you’ve just told her that the comments she describes as “absolutely spot on!!!” are reminiscent of the man with the toothbrush moustache.
I don’t think that’s the sort of response she’s looking for.
If something goes against the consensus of scientific opinion it is worth looking for corroborating evidence. In the case of sea level rises in that part of the world, there was a paper published on Australian sea level rises earlier this year that backs this up. This was virulently attacked by Tamino. Only last week it was alleged that the Australian Government suppressed other papers that showed the rise in sea levels was a constant 1mm per year.
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/tamino-on-australian-sea-levels/
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/climate-change-science-being-stifled-by-nsw-labor-bureaucrats/story-e6freuzi-1226211748047
Brendan H.
"The decline in manufacturing in the west and its uptake by what were once termed the “Asian Tigers” was more a consequence of the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s and the cost advantages of the east than greenism."
------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is not true.
Reagan and Thatcher governments were REAL job creators. Deindustrialization had peaked under Jimmy Carter and 70s Labour in Britain. In the 80s, Microsoft, Intel and many others started business and many, almost bankrupt companies like IBM or GE were revitalized and even automakers invested in Britain. The government deficits were high though, but nothing to worry, as they were small compared with the giant defense budget and therefore easily reducable if required.
Todays problems started in the 1990s with Clinton / Krugman / Greenspan.
Troublemaker no.1 were far too low interest rates. Too low interest rates rob money from middle class savers and real investment and favour rich, sophisticated investors and most importantly, generate speculation, particularly speculation on credit. The financial sector grew like crazy, hedgefunds, as we know them today were born, and philantrophist billionaires started to make billions and influence politics and everything else. Management stock options and boni spread all around the world. Government debt looked good, but it was a completely artificial bubble boom economy built upon lowering interest rates from over 10 to almost 0 percent. The bubble burst for the first time in the 2000-2002 stock market crash.
Troublemaker no.2 was the housing for everyone program, as well invented in the 1990s. NINJA credits and houses for anyone, though many could not even afford a down payment. And this with a background of 62 million, mostly unskilled immigrants since then - an unprecedented 25% increase in population. And on top of that, this program already included innovative financial subprime weapons of mass destruction, which started to explode since 2008.
Manfred: “Deindustrialization had peaked under Jimmy Carter and 70s Labour in Britain.”
I’m not arguing the politics or the desirability of various economic policies, merely that deindustrialsation has been occurring in advanced economies.
According to this study: http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=332 there was a long-term process of deindustrialisation in OECD countries from the mid-1970s through to the early 1990s. Also this study: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues10/
More to the point, I was arguing that factors other than green policies are responsible for deindustrialisation, since green-style economic policies have not been a major driver of western economies.
Brendan, I was merely pointing out that, in the world of ideas too, there is nothing much new under the Sun, and often what is touted as 'original' is just old stuff dressed up rather differently. I think Mr Hitler would have no trouble as describing, say, George Soros, as a rootless cosmopolitan; nor would Mr Lasch, except his description would be a bit more long-winded and wouldn't use those particular words. Same ideas, same conclusions, different wrappers. Of course the stay-at-home peasants are pissed to see bucannering freebooters make gigantic fortunes for themselves, even more pissed are the peasants when they feel such fortunes are made at their expense. There is nothing new in that. Sometimes circumstances make it possible for social tensions thus engendered to be kept under control, sometimes not. There is nothing new, 'originality' is limited by the identity of the human condition.
Looks like Booker didn't realize that Funafuti is a kind of magic island. This has been recently confirmed by real scientists (Becker, 2012). As you can see from the paper which looks are sea level trends in the tropical Pacific islands, the rate of sea level rise for the whole region is 1.8 mm/year since 1950, in line with calculated global sea level rise. However for the magic island of Funafuti, a mountain of water has been developing and the sea level rise has been 5.1 mm/year since 1950.
The cause of this mountain of water is unclear but will be continually investigated as long as the funds are available.
See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001445 for the details.
bill: “I was merely pointing out that, in the world of ideas too, there is nothing much new under the Sun, and often what is touted as 'original' is just old stuff dressed up rather differently.”
Fair enough. I suppose I’m too attuned to Hitler comparisons that are pejorative rather than descriptive.
Roger Carr,
Obama loves nothing so dearly as he loves his own fantasies. The fantasy that he most loves is the fantasy of himself as world model. The only way that the citizens or their representatives can deal with him is through his fantasies. Aside from the new health care law, now under review by the Supreme Court, nothing will be accomplished under an Obama administration even if he is elected again. The US will continue to drift.
Gingrich's narcissism is more limited. The danger with Gingrich is that he is wholly invested in the fantasy of his own genius. At any given time, Gingrich might propose the great immigration solution, climate change solution, banking regulation solution or whatever. The solution must necessarily have elements that make it unique to Gingrich and some elements that express Gingrich's great humanity or whatever. (Bush 2 suffered from the fantasy of his great humanity.) Gingrich is capable of being a good president but his narcissism makes him a loose cannon on deck. Conservatives might support Gingrich to find that President Gingrich commits two trillion dollars to climate change projects.
The debate would be a first in human history because the debaters are vying for control of the world's most powerful nation yet one is a prisoner of his fantasy of himself while the other constantly hears the voice of his own genius demanding expression and demanding it on each topic. It might be a debate between psychotics. Clinical narcissists are psychotics.
I am not all doom and gloom. The US should have let the banks fail in 2008. With Obama in a second term, the banks will fail. With Gingrich in a first term, the odds are 50-50 that he will do something that makes the banks fail. But the banks should fail. And the US needs to reorganize itself to address the problem of the banks. In 2008 it would have been easy and we would have recovered quickly. Now it will be really painful. But we will recover and become better.
Hope that helps.
John Blake and Marion,
I followed Lasch's work and think it is valuable. You would not believe how narcissistic the US has become. Lasch would not believe it. I was recently introduced to a TV series, "That 70s Show," that ran in the US something like 1998 to 2006. It is a show about ordinary middle class American families (my family and all our friends are upper middle class - wink, wink) that focuses on the late teenage children. In the show nothing happens. No individual grows. No individual finds reality. Unfortunately, the show is pretty much accurate regarding the lives of most American families.
Part of the problem for American teenagers is that none of them work unless their parents own a company. Forty years ago, there was a universal understanding that teenagers took jobs during the summer. This understanding was shared by teenagers, parents, and businesses. I do not know the history of what killed this understanding - several things of course. But the lack of opportunities to do physical labor for wages has removed a powerful tool for coming to grips with reality and for growth in maturity among teenagers. So sad.
The problems associated with narcissism will grow for the foreseeable future.