Welcome, Medienkritik Readers

…and thanks, Medienkritik, for the Medien-lanche.

Honduras, and the Blues and Greens of the Circus

The Blues and Greens of the circus were an interesting manifestation of Amity-Enmity behavior in the days of the Byzantine Empire. In our own time they have become iconic for irrational team spirit, usually with destructive manifestations.  In fact, their behavior was very similar to that of the liberals and conservatives in our own day, who exhibit the same type of in-group/out-group identification.  The recent events in Honduras provide an interesting case study.

In case you haven’t been following the story, versions slanted one way or another may be found here, here and here. The astute reader with no ax to grind might recall that the history of South and Central America offers many examples of populist dictators who gained power by successfully exploiting the credulity of the downtrodden, and many examples of wealthy elites who justified privilege and inequality by hypocritical appeals to religion, justice and democracy, but few examples of noble, incorruptible heroes who were indifferent to personal power except as a means of serving the people. If the past is any guide, caution would seem to be in order in picking sides in the current crisis in Honduras. In fact, both the right and the left have thrown caution to the wind. Both sides have chosen their respective “good guys” and “bad guys,” and can now be relied on to defend the virtue of the former and direct their catcalls at the latter without the least regard for the facts.

As more and more facts have emerged in this rather complex affair, the spin has become more and more nuanced on both sides. Examples of the current state of the art on the left and the right may be found here and here, respectively. You will notice that the arguments themselves are becoming increasingly subtle. However, one thing hasn’t and won’t change; the bitter determination to defend the “goodness” of the respective “good guys” against all odds. From the two links above, the punchline on the left is, “In their rage, the almighty gods of Honduran politics have punished an aspiring titan, President Manuel Zelaya, for attempting to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy.”  On the right we have, “The Honduran soldiers who escorted Pres. Manuel Zelaya from his home on Sunday were acting to protect their country’s democracy, not to trample it.”

And so the battle between the Blues and the Greens, with its implausible heroes, goes on.  It goes on the same way for every ideologically loaded issue you can name.  Once the sides have been chosen, it’s a rare spirit who will dare to wander outside the ideological box of his or her in-group.  As a result, one can read a line or two of comment on one of these issues on any forum or blog, and know immediately the details of what the commenter “thinks,” not only on that particular issue, but on every other issue that happens to be included in the narrative of their “team.”  If they comment on another issue, one can predict very accurately in advance what the tendency of that comment will be.  It is probably conservative to say that at least 95% of the political “thinkers” out there never think at all.  They just defend narratives.  To the extent that they think at all, it is to come up with better and more subtle arguments in support of preconceived conclusions.

There is no quick fix to the problem.  It is a manifestation of a predisposition that is fundamental to our nature, and human nature can’t be changed overnight, as many architects of assorted utopias have discovered to their grief over the years.  The zealots have ye always with you.  One must bear with it, and hope the fashionable cause in ones own time isn’t quite as destructive as, say, Communism or Nazism.