The Remnant >30%

There is a diminishing group of believers in the U.S. that polls show continue to support the cretin in chief no matter what he does. A lot of liberals, the people of our society who look deeply into their leaders' behavior and choose to follow whoever shows the best powers of reasoning, can't understand how anyone can still believe the lies and give allegiance to bad behavior with bad results.

I think there are some who have either the low intelligence or lack of confidence driving them to cling to whoever holds high office, out of panic. They can't believe in themselves because of a personality or mental defect that is a remnant of prehistoric group behavior. Allegiance symbolized security, and to those who have grown up in a culture of fear of other cultures think they are well represented by this group. We got into a discussion of this at Eschaton yesterday, and I told 'mena' I was going to talk about it further.


These now fewer than 30% remind me very much of the early, primitive human groups or tribes of babboons in which there is a leader, and followers' behavior is subservient or they are separated from the group and cannot survive. Of course, when the leader doesn't lead well, the adherents are in trouble, but their role is not judgment but submission. I see this reflected in the rising hysteria of the right wing, that keeps trumpeting the leadership of some one they can only continue to respect if they ignore his increasingly erratic behavior.

The human race began in colonies in the wild, and like all species it was preyed on by other species - and needed to stick together for self preservation. Dominance was given to the strong and the smart, who brought the group to good hunting grounds and territory that was easily held. From their mindless behavior, I see the present-day recidivists clinging to adherence to their group's chosen leader in a need for self-preservation. Of course, the leader they have now was chosen by means of paid advertisements that were lies. If they ever see that, it threatens them and they react with violent anger, and often colorful vituperation.

I seldom go to the right wing websites, but once got into a discussion with one who actually thought that Jimmy Carter was weak because he didn't 'nuke' the embassy in Tehran when it was taken over by rioters. In a crowd like that, showing strength requires mindlessness - and they have their ideal in the present holder of the office. A refusal to consider options is respected if that's your own chief characteristic. Of course, to thinking people it looks suicidal - and in the case of this present administration's threatening Iran with hostilities, it may be.

This morning at Eschaton, poster 'sinfonian' had a doozy that had occurred at his blog;

Kim Barreca, mother of Michael Barreca, from Vineland, is whining about how they were expecting him home so he could get married in June.

Welcome to real life, soldiers. This sort of thing makes me laugh, only because these punk kids who join to milk the government (and we, the taxpayers) for college money and exhorbant [sic] pay packages get a real wake up call when they realize that things such as stop loss really do exist.

Hah ... pwnage. A great way to start the weekend.

It's wonderful to travel through Italy and see the mountaintop walled villages, where for aeons the group that held them kept together and warded off the hungry roving bands of pillagers. Interestingly, gated communities continue this isolation as a means of securing their goods. Now we hear them proposed for Baghdad. As Litz proposed a few days ago, they might well look for names like their prototypes here, ending in '-field', '-meadow', or as I like, '-gate'.

Listening to Chris Matthews this morning, there was running speculation on the body language shown in the latest message of continued war on Iraq, the body language of loss and dejection. The attacks on his policies, in the Matthews' panel view, showed their effect in the C-i-C's loss of confidence and demeanor of defeat. His leadership among the intellectually challenged may be seen waning in his retreat from belligerent attitude.

If groups are formed ``randomly'' and reproductive success of group founders is determined by a multi-person prisoners' dilemma game, then selfish behavior will prevail over maximization of group payoffs. However, interesting models exist in which ``group selection'' sustains cooperative behavior. Forces that support cooperative behavior include assortative matching in groups, group longevity, and punishment-based group norms.

This comes from a work on group psychology by Ted Bergstrom of UCSB. Of course, there are many other works on the subject. The group supporting the leader at all costs represents an ancient trait, thoughtless subjugation to a perceived savior. The questioners, which include most liberal thinkers, shake the structure the blind follower has always found stability in. It shouldn't surprise us that we are viewed as the enemy. We are shaking their need to follow blindly, to survive. Ironically, it is the survival of those who are less than able to take care of themselves that we are promoting, as well as the survival of the earth. Their 'punishment-based group norms' are invoked by this behavior which they don't understand.

The remnant that is clinging to the C-i-C has to hold onto its beliefs or it will accept its own idiocy. Don't expect that to happen.