The definition states that the Ornery Americans are "the common folk who don't pretend to be intellectuals or elite in any other way, but who are just stubborn enough to think that we ordinary folk are the ones to whom this nation was entrusted from the start." Ten points are given to detail exactly what this means - exactly what being an Ornery American entails. Some of those points I agree with, but in the case of several, I couldn't disagree more. In truth, I believe that we never did nor should entrust our country to the so-called Ornery American, if this is how we would define such a person. I will explain this point by point, but my central argument is this: Being common does not make one a wise leader. In fact, a wise electorate is precisely the opposite of common - it is a group that strives to rise above the prejudices of "common" sense. It is a group that recognizes that arrogance and stubbornness are bad qualities - qualities held by those who fail to recognize their own fallibility. It is by definition an intellectual and elite group, because it consists of people who strive to better themselves, rather than simply strive to justify their present selves and their present prejudices. It is by no means exclusive, however.
My argument is that the wise American is a very different thing than the Ornery American. The Ornery American is very much the problem of this country. And the wise American is the solution.
So, here are the defining characteristics of the "Ornery American" and what I see wrong with them.
quote: 1. We aren't impressed by your credentials, Dr. This or Senator That. We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves.
This attitude overlooks the need for authority in life. "Ordinary" people are not experts in everything. They must rely on sources more often than not in order to form reasonable views. Yes, it is true that everyone should think things through for themselves. But we SHOULD be impressed by credentials, to a certain degree - to the degree to which those credentials mean something. If a doctor says you have a serious disease, you should believe him. The "ornery" side of you may think you are smart enough to overrule the doctor, but the wiser side of your mind should understand that you are too fallible to be doing things like that. Just being ordinary does not give you the expertise in medicine to overrule a doctor without some sort of extreme evidence - and the same goes for expertise in many many areas.
quote: 2. We don't like being spun. That doesn't mean we aren't sometimes fooled by the way reporters slant their stories, but when we find out how we've been manipulated, we get a little mad and we refuse to trust that writer, commentator, that magazine, that newspaper, that news network, or that politician again.
quote: 5. We'll forgive your misdeeds, but only if you apologize sincerely and never do it again. Our trust, once betrayed, is not lightly restored.
These two rules make the same mistake.
The wise American should not hold grudges. The truth is, everyone makes mistakes and almost all sources spin at some time in some way - and many do not apologize afterwards. It may feel emotionally good to reject people who do this, but it is not reasonable. It sounds reasonable at a distance because anything that might betray us once should be considered likely to betray us again, but that once again forgets the general fallibility of everything. The truth is, everything we trust could betray us in some way. And we betray others all the time, often without even realizing it. We are deluding ourselves if we think the things that haven't betrayed us won't do so in the future.
Trust should not work like that. It should not hinge on having a perfect record. Trust, instead, should be a freely given and measured thing. If your friend lies to you, you do not disown him as a friend. Instead you make a mental note that he has lied to you once, and adjust accordingly. Maybe you require a bit more proof from him than before, but you do not reject him totally for his one mistake. To do so would be arrogant, and unwarranted. Everyone is fallible.
quote: 7. We know that good, wise people sometimes disagree. So we listen to the views of others, and have no patience with those who shout others down or use ridicule or coercion to silence serious arguments. Only fanatics and dictators assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil or stupid.
I agree with most of this, except one very important feature: Patience. This point suggests that the Ornery American has no patience with those who do wrong. This is unwise. Being patience does you no harm, but failing to be patient does. After all, as I alluded to above, even those who use poor tactics and act unethically may offer things that are useful, productive, or true. There is no reason to throw away these things because you don't want to be patient. The world will not be conquered by barbarians simply because we are patient with them. (It will if we let them do whatever they want unopposed, but that is a very different thing than simple patience.) However, without patience we may never understand what the barbarians might have to offer - and we certainly have no chance of making them civilized.
The common thread running through these problems is arrogance and the failure to realize one's own fallibility. No person is perfect. Noone is an expert on everything. Everyone's recognizes this when it is said point blank, but in practice many do not apply it. Instead they think they are capable of judging the character of others based on their mistakes of judgement, or that they should be entitled to overrule experts rather than challenging their common sense prejudices. It is this arrogance that runs through each of the rules I listed above, and I believe it is this arrogance that renders civil and productive debate nearly impossible.
Why?
The defining characteristic of arrogance is the way it makes people blind to their own weaknesses, and the possibility that they are in the wrong. Once that belief takes hold, whether consciously or unconsciously, any debate is transformed from an attempt to jointly find the truth into an attempt to make your views triumph. After all, if you are certain your views are right, a victory of your views is necessarily also the triumph of truth. Thus, there is no need to obey the rules of debate, so long as your own views triumph in the end. It becomes okay to trick people. It becomes okay to spin. It becomes okay to drown out others, or attack them, or do all sorts of things the Ornery American would never want done back at them. I believe this this list of proclamations inevitably leads to the promotion of the things it is proposing to eliminate. I believe Karl Rove is an Ornery American - and I believe that is why he thinks he should spin truth the way he does. The same goes for liberal extremists, who put up "No War For Oil" signs under the attitude that their own prejudices over why we invaded Iraq supercede all the facts and investigations done by the more-knowledgable. I think the prototype of the Ornery American is all those political talk shows Jon Stewart was complaining about today - where the most simple, base arguments are raised up because it is what the average viewer can understand without bothering to become an expert on a subject.
I am reading a bit between the lines here, but I do not think this attitude of arrogance is in my imagination. It is neccessary in any system where the common are raised up above the experts, purely based on their commonness, and not based on the strength of their reasoning. It is going to arise with anyone who feels they can be judgemental, unforgiving, impatient, and untrusting of whoever they believe merits it.
I think there are three principles that should be followed to avoid this. They are the principles listed out by philosopher Karl Popper throughout his work on defining what a free and rational society would look like. Popper claimed they were fundamental to any discussion that hoped to be productive. They are:
quote: "1. The principle of fallibility: perhaps I am wrong and perhaps you are right. But we could easily both be wrong. 2. The principle of rational discussion: we want to try, as impersonally as possible, to weigh up our reasons for and against a theory: a theory that is definite and criticizable. 3. The principle of approximation to the truth: we can nearly always come closer to the truth in a discussion which avoids personal attacks. It can help us to achieve a beter understanding; even in those cases where we do not reach an agreement."
In a forum like this one, I think we need to remember these principles if we want to be "wise" Americans, and come to policy decisions that are based on understanding rather than prejudices and spin. Rational discussion is necessary to see through the biases we might have. If we don't engage in it, I think we'll fall into the trap of being incapable of seeing beyond the prejudices we hold.
[/RANT]
This thread is inspired by Team America: World Police, by the way.
posted
Or, there are simply different degrees of right or wrong. How true it is that people will often look at there own perspective alone. I'm trying to learn not to do that. But what exactly is an "Ordinary American?" Or a "Common person"? How I HATE meaningless, empty phrases like that. Who defines such a thing? What is the intellectual elite in the first place and what is so bad about intellectualism?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Real Conservatives don't like intellectualism because understanding the world breaks down the means by which Conservatives hold power. (Philosophical conservative here, not american usage of conservatism).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like Ornery. It is one-sided, not tough-minded, IMHO.
Maybe that's as it must be since it's almost impossible to find people who can write a review of situations that takes in all sides and tries for a more objective truth.
I don't think Ornery lives up to the statements you quoted (i.e., its own creed). If it did, it might actually be worth visiting on a more frequent basis.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't REALLY want to delve into ornery, since I still enjoy it more then hatrack, most of the time but... I do question how you can say ornery is one sided, unless you aren't including the forum discussion at all?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think a better site would be possible if non-aligned presenters were selected for the initial essays. At least on a frequent basis.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I agree. Ornery would probably be a lot better if Card found a sci-fi writer he disagrees with politically to post essays on ornery once every 2-3 weeks.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
