On the nature of intellect and delusion

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-voter-happy-deplorable-perspec-0206-md-20170203-story.html

____________________________________


The author writes, "

I am weary of lectures about what values I should have and how insensitive I am. I am tired of being "guilted" for having a job, finding a way to live comfortably and having a practical sense of priority on global warming. I make choices and decisions based on what can be done and what I can pay for, not on what is said or promised. I don't carry signs, chant, dress up in clever costumes, vandalize or wear pink hats.



But all that doesn't matter. My grandchildren should make these choices themselves, not the current collection of Washington and state government politicos who use my taxes to make empty speeches and buy votes in the next election. Balance the budgets and pay off state and federal debt first. And then we can have all the empty values-centered debates about which cause du jour we want to throw money at.

It seems that the outcome of the last election is understood only by people like me. Frankly, I don't like Donald Trump either. He is arrogant, careless with what he says, overly competitive and insensitive.

I voted for Trump because he was the alternative to letting a collection of free spenders, organizers, race-baiters, intellectuals, tree huggers and professional value arbitrators continue to spend our grandchildren's money."

_______________________________

This kind of thinking is common, contemptuous, and dangerous. It's dangerous because there is more than a kernel of sense in what the author is saying, but this only serves to give a broader delusion credibility. There are legitimate criticisms of the institutions that person thought they were opposing when they voted for Trump. What makes it dangerous is the seamless mix of reason and unreason. The claim you bolded is begging the question, assuming that the daily, practical contexts wherein this individually must choose to deprioritize global warming are not shaped by national-level policies, some of which may actually be efficacious in shifting the home economy. The author subtly assumes with justification the primacy of debt repayment as the determinant their grandchildren's' quality of life. I hate this crap because it shows the horrifying extent to which humans utilize their intellect not to apprehend truth by questioning what is believed, but to defend what is believed. This person, for whatever reason--perhaps because debt management has been an ongoing challenge for them personally, perhaps because a black man was president when they were told the debt was a problem--believes debt is the most important thing and for some reason we can only speculate upon doesn't believe global warming is a problem. Everything else is just an elaborate fancy spun around those beliefs to make them appear more reasonable. They didn't vote for Trump, they voted for the guy with an R by his name, just like they always do.