> The volunteer military in the United States depends on the working-
> poor draft. Rather than drafting the poorest of the poor (whose
> physical health is too poor, whose education too neglected, whose
> criminal record too extensive, whose attitudes too badass, etc.), the
> Pentagon preys on the sons and daughters of the working poor (those
> whose parents are relatively regularly employed, earn too much [the
> household income of $25,000-40,000 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/
> NationalSecurity/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/
> getfile.cfm&PageID=85094>] to qualify for most or all forms of means-
> tested public assistance and need-based grants [cf. "Department of
> Education to Tighten Pell Grant Eligibility," <http://www.cnn.com/
> 2004/EDUCATION/12/23/pell.grants/>], etc., and yet too poor not to
> worry about paying bills, especially big-ticket items like health
> care and children's' college tuitions).
I think this statement perfectly exemplifies what is wrong with the US Left - its fundamentalist religious belief in a myth, and its inability to think critically beyond that myth. If empirical evidence contradicts that myth the effort is taken to neutralize the evidence rather than revise the myth. Just like the countless dupes all over the world who live miserable existence and wait for Jesus Christ, Allah, or some other mythical father-like figure in the sky to deliver them from their misery if they only say the right magic word.
I was always curious what makes the human mind fall into the trap of such reality-defying mythology. People are naturally endowed with intellectual ability to think rationally and critically, and many of them, such as Yoshie and others on this list, seem to be otherwise intelligent, thoughtful and critically thinking people, yet they succumb to reality-defying mythology from time to time.
The philosopher of science Imre Lakatos observed a similar tendency among scientists. Contrary to the conventional view of scientific inquiry which holds that theories hold as long as they are not refuted by evidence, Lakatos proposed that theories are often preserved in the face of contradicting evidence, and efforts are made to insulate the theory from contradicting evidence. He called it "problemshifting," which involved two strategies, progressive and regressive. Progressive problmeshifting is devising some conceptual contraption that explains the contradicting evidence without undermining the core assumptions of the theory to be protected (e.g. implied non-rational motivation of human actors to explain the poor predictive power of the rational-choice model). Regressive problemshift is reducing the empirical scope of the theory to be protected, usually by recourse to abstract speculation (e.g. mathematical modeling in economics, or linguistic contrivances in "post-modern" theory), or by regression to the founding "principles" (e.g. in certain strains of Catholic thought in Europe that reduces modernity to philosophical discourses of the antiquity and the medieval times, or in certain strains of Marxism that reduces modernity to the fundamentals of the Marxist canon).
With that in mind, the "working poor draft" and other populist leftist dogmas, such as that the poor have no responsibility for their own actions, and that responsibility rests solely with the elites, or that the existing institutional order is nothing but a conspiracy of the elite, are examples of the regressive problemshift by regression to the founding "principles" or myths in this particular case.
While the mechanisms of "problemshifting" seem to be relatively clear to understand, the motives behind it are not. Why do people stick to their beliefs or delusions in face of contradicting evidence?
Possible explanations range from vested interests in maintaining the status quo to an affective disorder that makes people fearful of change, uncertainty and ambiguity. The latter obviously requires a psychological analysis of the affected individuals on the pain of becoming a mere speculation and imputation of motives. I will thus leave it as a possibility.
On the other hand, vested interest in maintaining the status quo seems to offer some interesting explanations. Market niche for leftist mythologies is rather narrow, and that may explain why the producers of such mythologies have high stakes in maintaining the conventional left myths. Changing the conventional story may reduce the appeal of the myth maker to the already small market, and put him or her out of business altogether if the market niches for the new genre is not found - which is a big if. So it is safer to stick to the old trite myths than try new ones.
Looking at this form a broader perspective, I think I can understand why what passes for the US left tends to be (with exceptions, of course) so goofy and out of touch. Unlike the European left which maintains its distinct institutional power and identity - which also secures a considerable market for its intellectual product - the US opposition and protest movements tend to follow a different trajectory - that of the assimilation to the mainstream. That was suggested, inter alia, by William Gamson (_Strategy of the social protest_) who studied various social movements throughout hundred fifty or so years of the US history, or Theda Skocpol (e.g. _Protecting Soldiers and Mothers_ and _Social policy in the United States_) who argued that the unusual openness and inclusiveness of the US political system was a key factor preventing the crystallization of labor as a political and institutional force.
Stated differently, because of the relatively open and poorly delineated nature of the US party system, the protest movements - or at least its rational elements - tend to be absorbed into the amorphous mainstream rather than crystallizing as a major and separate institutional force. What is left are more uncompromising, wacky, goofy or simply irrational elements that resist "being assimilated" and prefer to live marginal political existence on the periphery. This is why what is distinctively labeled as "left" in this country - as opposed to "liberal or social-democratic mainstream" - seems to be so wacky, irrational, and goofy. The fact of the matter is, however, that these are the fringe elements that would remain on the periphery of any political system, not just the one with a conservative leaning, such as the US.
I can also understand why European-born lefties, such as Hitchens or for that matter this writer, become so disillusioned with the US left (point of clarification, unlike Hitchens I do NOT contemplate defecting to the opposing camp.) They seem to mis-apply the European political categories, which have ample room for the left as being a separate-yet-part-of-the-mainstream force, to the US, where the mainstream left is difficult to distinguish from the Democratic Party, and what is labeled left is mainly fringe cults. As a result they treat these fringe leftish cults as if they were mainstream left and become progressively annoyed with their fundamentalism and irrationality.
I certainly understand why folks like Hitchens got finally fed up with this unreasonable attachment of what passes for the "left" to reality-defying mythologies - albeit I am less clear why he de facto joined the right instead of simply embracing the left elements of the Democratic Party. The latter is what I would rather do.
Wojtek