Doug replied:
> Or, in the words of a dead theocratic reactionary: "Humankind cannot
> bear very much reality."
>
I am not talking about preferring illusions to reality. I am talking about the position that any perception of reality, even the most 'real" one must necessarily pass through cognitive filters that establish its form or order. In other words, our brain organizes perceptual stimuli into meaningful wholes that we see as reality.
This is in essence the Kantian position that the "raw" reality is inaccessible to human perception - all we can access is the reality filter through our perceptual and cognitive forms. In other words, "form" come from the inquiring mind and senses, not from reality itself. But that does not mean idealism or relativism, as not every form is compatible with what we perceive of reality - i.e. there is some reality check, but many different forms of the "same" reality are possible.
The Kantian position begs the question "where do the forms come from" to which the modern social science answered "from the organization of society (the sociologist Emil Durkheim and followers), and the modern neuro- and cognitive science "from the chemistry of our brain." In other words, some of the way cognitively organize the world around us i.e. perceptions of that world is inscribed in our neurons and synapses, and so is determined by the organization of society and social interaction. Usually it is a combination of both.
The bottom line is that the popularity of certain popular figures cannot be explained by rational or utilitarian motives, but by cognitive needs and processes. People are not utility maximizers, as the neo-classical behavioral model wants us to believe. A better behavioral model posits status preservation as one of the fundamental motivators of human behavior. People are accustomed to their social status and the whole range of expectations, and perceptions that come with it. They strive to preserve and maintain that status, and usually do it at the cost that defies any rational utility analysis. Just look around in your native New York - and elsewhere else in the world.
If people do not mind spending hundred dollars a pop to "be seen" in the "right" places to maintain their status, it follows that they do not mind sustaining economic losses, pay cuts and reduction of other benefits to maintain their status or to vote for the guy who will promise to maintain or restore it. When Reagan promised Americans to be Number One team again, he won by a landslide, even though most people were losing economically in relative terms. Bush jr. is trying to pull the same trick - to kick ass and be Number 1 again and many follow that. Kerry's promises to raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour or pay for health cost does not even match that promise. Choosing between Bush and Kerry in that respect is tantamount to ask a New York snob to move from the East Side to New Jersey and eat at Mc Donald's to save a few bucks. It is a sure no go. The only reason that Bush does not have a greater following is that he is not very credible in his promise to make 'Murica Number One again.
The only thing that work for Bush is his stubbornness which many people see as guarantee of order in what appears to them as a complex, ambiguous, and scary world. They look for simplicity and confirmation that 'Murica is still number one. As long as Bush maintains that illusion by blowing up brown-skinned without too many US losses - he will attract large following, even among those who will certainly lose from his economic policies. It is NOT the economy, stupid! Its is the status, and it is not for sale.
Wojtek