User:Woozle/book ideas/Reality Agenda

This is first-pass at ideas for a book which might be called something like The Reality Agenda: why and how American "conservatives" got to be such fucking idiots

I can't decide if the title should actually use profanity, but I think part of the approach would be a very pointed and deliberate rubbing-in of just how completely wrong they are, on every possible level – with emphasis on the moral level. I'm hoping to inspire at least a little shame with regard to the way they let themselves be led by their perceived "leaders", who then abuse that trust in every way imaginable.

Basically

There would be two main aspects to the book. One part would be explaining the mechanisms whereby people come to espouse right-wing viewpoints, even when those viewpoints are clearly in violation of the objective evidence or mutually contradictory. The other part would be listing and correcting basic factual misconceptions held by many on the American Right.

Purpose

The purpose wouldn't be so much to change anyone's mind -- right-wing beliefs aren't generally driven by evidence and logic, but by believing whatever the people around them believe (groupthink) especially if it makes them immediately feel safer or more comfortable (skeptiphobia) -- but rather:

1. to point out that the objective evidence does in fact overwhelmingly support the non-right-wing positions on these matters, so even if that doesn't matter to you, you still need to stop thinking you know everything and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and bad and should be strung up (implied: so STFU if you don't want to look like an idiot).
2. as a sort of starting point for sane discussions -- the ground rules would be something like "if you disagree with any of these points, you need to first argue your case on them elsewhere. You can't just go introducing your position as fact without doing that first, because your position contradicts some very well-established facts." Sort of like an "Official Scrabble Players' Dictionary" for political issues.

   In other words, if I'm hosting a social media discussion about eliminating coal subsidies and providing more subsidies for sustainable fuels, you can't argue against that position on the basis of the idea that global warming is a liberal hoax; first you have to establish that global warming isn't happening, which is a SEPARATE DISCUSSION so stay off this thread until you've got enough evidence to convince me that it's worth taking a look at your argument, thank you and may I serve who's next in line.

3. to perhaps begin the long process of deprogramming right-wing America -- because so much of what they believe is based on a self-reinforcing web of lies which they are fed from every nook and cranny. A bit of exposure to the wrongness of some of their underlying beliefs might just start some of them thinking. ...especially if I point out how much of right-wing ideology is in fact just repeating what other people are saying (perhaps there should even be a section specifically devoted to critique of right-wing belief systems -- if I can figure out how to do it in a minimally hackle-raising way).

Sections

Values

One major section would be a discussion of values often referred to as "liberal" -- or, more precisely, what we thought America was supposed to be about, but which Republicans and other self-identified "conservatives" seem to want to destroy at every turn:

• egalitarianism: equal recognition under the law -- classlessness; no kings, no ruler-class, no servant-class
• secularism and science: policy decisions should be based on a modern understanding of reality, not superstition or religious doctrine
• fairness: while being perfectly fair is impossible, there should be limits to how unfairly any person or group is treated
• environmentalism: protecting and conserving the largest asset of them all, i.e. this planet and its resources

Political Topics

So, for example, I could discuss the following topics:

• A. Gay people are not a threat to your family, or to the US. Homosexuality isn't a choice, but either way it's basically harmless. (Yes, AIDS happened, but if you're going to hate gay people because of AIDS, then you have to hate heterosexuals a little as well, because AIDS is more easily transmitted between het couples than between lesbians. Yes, hating people for catching and accidentally spreading a disease is a stupid idea to begin with; I'm glad you didn't suggest it.) There is a supposedly-scientific study going around that proves people can change their sexual orientation (the Regnerus study), but it's completely bogus (and here's why...). Churches may still discriminate against gay people if they really want to go against what Jesus said; there's a religious freedom exemption from most anti-discriminatory laws. Nobody is lining up pastors and shooting them for any reason, (other than anti-black bigotry, see Chapter X) much less violating "the Gay Agenda" (which is generally more about picking up fabulous new curtains* than about hurting anyone).

  (* is it okay to poke gentle fun at disadvantaged groups, as a disarming tactic, as long as I'm firmly anti-demonizing them at the same time? I'm thinking this might be a useful tactic... on the other hand, it might alienate some of my potential non-right-wing audience, if they didn't understand what I was doing.)

• B. Socialism is not a terrible thing; it has been a part of American society since the founding. It's not the same thing as communism. It doesn't mean abolishing private property (neither does communism, for that matter). The USSR was no more socialist than it was a republic. The Nazis were not socialists, despite the name -- they believed in destroying inferior individuals and "races", which is kind of the opposite of socialism (but strikingly similar to Donald Trump's ideology, not to mention much of the GOP's). Socialism, in the colloquial sense, is a necessary element of any functional society.
• C. Austerity policies don't work. They're about as sensible as someone who tries to save money by not putting gas in their car. While the Wall Street Bailout was probably a mistake, the rest of the Stimulus helped the US economy recover much faster than countries that were talked (or arm-twisted) into "austerity". What's that you say -- there still aren't enough jobs? Well how about that -- you mean that just because stocks have bounced back doesn't do diddly for the rest of us? Huh, who knew "trickle-down economics" was bogus...
• D. Trickle-down economics (aka "supply-side economics", aka lowering taxes on the rich) is bogus -- a scam invented to get you to pay for more corporate jets. Taxing rich people is good for the economy and society, and means that you pay less in taxes. It doesn't "punish success" or "reward laziness". We were more prosperous and happy as a society when the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. (Note that "marginal tax rate" is not the same as "tax rate"; "tax rate" is based on how much is in the lake, and "marginal tax rate" is based on how much is going over the dam. This could be accompanied by helpful diagrams...)
• E. Raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation will not hurt employment. Evidence is inconclusive, but if anything it seems to improve employment -- and it certainly improves lives.
• F. People on welfare are not lazy, and they are not living lives of luxury on our tax dollars. "Welfare queens" are almost entirely mythical. There was one lady who scammed the system for awhile, and the Right has been using her to excuse the growing number of homeless people ever since.
• G. Voter fraud is a myth designed to get you to accept election fraud and a slow march towards totalitarianism.
• H. In fact, most Republican positions are myths designed to get you to give away your rights, freedoms, and wealth to the wealthy and powerful.
• I. "Right-to-work laws" actually take away rights.
• J. If people believed in a "right to life", they'd support the abolishment of capital punishment, abolishment of war, gun control, public healthcare and education, and a reliable social safety net.
• K. Whether or not there are unanswered questions about it, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of scientific experts in the field of climatology believe that extreme global warming is happening and that humans caused it. These same experts, as well as experts in other fields, believe that the predicted changes in climate will be disastrous for us in many ways, including economically -- but rest assured, "conservatives" in Congress are fighting for their right to do nothing about it, and for your grandchildren's right to live in a toxic hellhole.
• L. The US is not and has never been "a Christian nation" in the sense that our founding documents were inspired by (much less being based on) Christian ideals. The First Amendment, for example, flatly contradicts the First Commandment. There are a number of people (e.g. David Barton) who have made careers out of claiming that the US is a "Christian nation", but they routinely lie in the facts they cite -- which is hardly Christian of them, if that word is to have any meaning at all. "In God We Trust" was added to the currency, and "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, less than a century ago -- by religious fanatics who wanted you to think those words had always been there.

...and so on. I expect more topics would probably suggest themselves as I started writing it; possibly it could become a series... an encyclopedia... an Issuepedia? (Really, it would be more like CWRE: The Dead-Tree Edition)

It also might make a good gift for those relatives you're fond of as people but can't stand to be around when they start talking politics. (coughcough)

Style

Where possible, I would try to use analogies and metaphors involving other things that most people are familiar with. Vehicle metaphors (especially cars) seem to be especially good for analogizing the behavior of complex systems:

• Small-government Republicans are like people who steal your car and drive around drunk in it, smashing up people's homes and businesses and killing a few bystanders -- and when you complain to them about all the damage, they try to convince you that you don't really need a car because of how dangerous cars are. (Also, those bystanders were totally asking for it.)
• Anti-regulation, anti-tax types are like people who think car engines would work better if only they weren't held back by being coercively connected to the transmission, which imposes an unfair burden and punishes success.)
• The "size" of government is like the size of an airplane: the more people there are, the larger it needs to be. You don't want it to be too large, because that's wasteful -- but you really, really don't want it to be too small. The reasons should be obvious. (discussion)

I would try not to talk down to the audience, while still keeping the basic level of conceptualization at a more or less middle-school level. (Perhaps sidebars for more nuanced information. Also, easily-typeable links to web articles with sources and/or more depth.) ...and being absolutely straight with them that they're being duped and controlled by people who just want to use them.