Daniel Holter, whom I found through the wonderful Unburying the Lead, linked to an article which mentioned that George Bush chose for the Oval Office a painting the very subject of which he misunderstood:
“He often tells visitors that it depicts Methodist circuit riders—missionaries who spread the Good Word across the Alleghenies in the 19th century. It actually depicts a horse thief fleeing a mob.”
The link in the above paragraph leads to a fuller explanation of the error, one which we may be inclined to consider instructive, or perhaps symbolic (indeed, if Bush’s presidency were the fiction of a novelist and he included such an overt illustration of its nature, we’d criticize him for being too neat, too heavy-handed).
The author continues: “Bush’s inspiring, proselytizing Methodist is in fact a horse thief fleeing from a lynch mob. It seems a fitting marker for the Bush presidency. Bush has consistently exhibited what psychologists call the “Tolstoy syndrome.” That is, he is completely convinced he knows what things are, so he shuts down all avenues of inquiry about them and disregards the information that is offered to him.”
This seemed striking to me for many reasons, not least that while I agree that Bush has been “completely convinced he knows what things are,” I am at the same time acquainted with very few who are not similarly convinced of the accuracy of their own worldviews. We have the good sense, thanks to our pluralist educations, to deploy a kind of tact as a hedge against accusations of arrogance, but that’s mere etiquette.
It is easily illustrated: simply recall the US presidential election. Were we not constantly astounded at the stupidity of the other side? Did it not seem impossible to us that anyone could vote for the candidate we opposed? In general, aren’t we amazed that the entire world doesn’t see how obvious the solutions to most major problems are? Don’t we casually call “erroneous” the views of many millions of people, including thousands of academics and thinkers older and more experienced than we are, whenever they contradict our own?
Whenever there is a debate, we have a side; where there is disagreement, we inevitably have a solution! We know what is best for Iraq, Israel, Wall Street, and possibly the Earth itself! If only we were in charge!
And if that strikes you as odd, it is probably because you perceive this arrogance in others but not in yourself; you nod and think, “Yes, people are so sure of themselves,” thereby suggesting that you are not such a person! (And perhaps you are not).
Tolstoy syndrome is more properly called “confirmation bias,” but is associated with the author because of this quote:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life”.
But not us! You and I are ready -ever ready- to interrogate our most cherished ideas and abandon them when we encounter sufficient reason, yes? We are not like Bush! We don’t make mistakes and we’re not close-minded and we’d only govern and control and use the mechanisms of the state for the best ends! We know about global warming, about economic theory, about foreign policy, which must be more moral!
As soon as we can take over the world, we will shower it with our golden wisdom!
(To achieve this sublime end, of course, some reactionary elements will need to be overcome; such is the nature of revolution).
That these journalists feel compelled to deploy dehumanizing quasi-medical (“objective”) jargon to describe Bush is as fascinating as Bush’s own foibles: it makes clear that in precisely the same way that Bush unthinkingly and unreflectively acted the part of the self-assured blunderer, the thinker-gone-awry whose convictions lead us into disaster, so some of his critics will insist that they would never do so, that their minds are open and their hearts are full of light and their opinions are ever-accurate. That this is pure bullshit has been so totally demonstrated by history that it’s scarcely worth rebutting, but I will note that while I believe in Obama’s admirable humility and consideration for his opponents, I see no evidence that the great masses of Democrats and Republicans are any closer to adopting this posture. Cultural critics, intellectuals, and artists in particular are odious in this respect, which is one of the reasons why our kind are so little-trusted by the public.
But at least we never make mistakes about art!
