Dreher Syndrome.
The comic book series Sleeper -- now available in trade paperback form, complete in four volumes -- presents the interesting protagonist of Carver Holden, a sleeper spy embedded in the criminal organization of a villainous mastermind. Trapped because the only agent who knows his real purpose is in a coma, Holden has superpowers that are appropriate for the dark universe of WildStorm comics:
The important thing is that his inability to feel pain is coupled with enhanced healing powers: without that, immunity to pain would be more of a curse than it was. Pain is a good thing in that it causes the body to pull away from a hot stove to limit the damage done.
Physical pain keeps a person from harming itself.
Similarly, cognitive dissonance keeps a person from looking like a fool for saying wildly inconsistent things.
I've never really wondered what a person would act like freed from those particular constraints, but I think I've seen it in action. So far as I can tell, Rod Dreher is incapable of experiencing cognitive dissonance.
It's probably some heretofore unknown psychological affliction. Since Rod may be the first to be diagnosed, I propose that we call it "Dreher Syndrome."
There's a good bit to discuss over Rod's NPR commentary and other related comments, but so much of it boils down to the hypocrisy and inconsistency that would result in cognitive dissonance in a physiologically healthy human being:
There's substance to be argued, too. It could be that our difficulties in Iraq were unavoidable and simply need to be endured in order to win, or it could be that, rather than vindicate Pat Buchanan, they vindicate Reaganism in that the "small-footprint" approach displayed too little resolve rather than arrogance and hubris. But these points are hardly worth making when Dreher Syndrome is on such full display.
And I haven't even touched the hypocrisy outside the serious discussion of issues. Rod's behavior to those who disagree with him -- us, certainly, but also other rank-and-file conservatives and even Rod's fellow professional writers -- clearly demonstrates that he is in no position whatsoever to criticize Bush for having no room for disagreement. And someone should tell Rod that he hasn't yet matured from his days as a movie reviewer, that he hasn't yet truly put aside "callow cruelty, of which there is too much in the world."
(Ask Diane or Kathleen.)
Even though I suspect that this acute case of Dreher Syndrome is the result, not of genes or a chemical imbalance, but of the vice of vanity, Rod still deserves our pity and compassion to the extent it can be given.
But he is not to be taken seriously as a writer.
His position on Iraq does not preclude the possibility that there are intellectually compelling arguments for an immediate withdrawal (though I'm skeptical), just as his young faith as a Christian does not preclude the validity of Christianity's truth claims. There's room at the table for discussions about foreign policy, the size and scope of government, theology: all sorts of subjects.
It's just that his Dreher Syndrome consistently disqualifies Rod from the table.
That may be my last word for a while as I return to more important things in my own life, but I may return to this particular arena, not because the fights are enlightening, edifying, or even interesting, but because somebody ought to respond to Rod's inconsistent and over-emotional gibberish.
Holden's superpowers are caused by an alien artifact that merged with his nervous system. Whenever he experiences physical trauma, he feels no pain and instead stores the pain, which he can then direct via touch into someone else. Enough pain would kill a person without any trace, making Carver an ideal assassin for [supervillain] Tao's purposes. Holden had little control over his power and would cause pain to anybody who touched him. Another downside was that he was also incapable of feeling anything else, though during sex a combination of pain and pleasure could make him feel pleasure. The artifact made his thoughts unreadable to all telepaths and protected him against many mental attacks, though not all. The artifact also quickly repaired all damage done to his body.
The important thing is that his inability to feel pain is coupled with enhanced healing powers: without that, immunity to pain would be more of a curse than it was. Pain is a good thing in that it causes the body to pull away from a hot stove to limit the damage done.
Physical pain keeps a person from harming itself.
Similarly, cognitive dissonance keeps a person from looking like a fool for saying wildly inconsistent things.
I've never really wondered what a person would act like freed from those particular constraints, but I think I've seen it in action. So far as I can tell, Rod Dreher is incapable of experiencing cognitive dissonance.
It's probably some heretofore unknown psychological affliction. Since Rod may be the first to be diagnosed, I propose that we call it "Dreher Syndrome."
There's a good bit to discuss over Rod's NPR commentary and other related comments, but so much of it boils down to the hypocrisy and inconsistency that would result in cognitive dissonance in a physiologically healthy human being:
Reaganism. Insofar as the term is ideological and not merely an indication of finding appealing a particular political figure, Rod Dreher is not and probably has never been a stalwart Reaganite. Beyond his youthful dalliance with campaigning for Mondale, Rod currently vilifies those fiscal conservatives who defend the free market; and anyone who lauds Carter's "malaise" speech and loathes the values and choices of middle-class America can hardly be said to share Reagan's optimism for us. That doesn't stop him from claiming the mantle of, not just conservatism, but the much more specific Reaganism.
The Left. Despite his protestations, Rod's leaning ever closer to joining the left, as he often finds it quite easy to join their ranks de facto if not yet de jure. Even though he eschews the anti-war left, he joins them in their hyperbolic ranting about Bush and Iraq. Even though he says this country doesn't need Ted Kennedy's leadership on foreign policy, he did support the Dems in November. (Just what did he think would happen? Kennedy wouldn't have a leadership position in a Dem-controlled Senate?) And though he says his conservatism is "primarily social/cultural/religious", he had the gall to redefine what it means to be pro-life to support the pro-abortion Jim Webb because of his opposition to our continued presence in Iraq.
To put the above another way, Rod implies that he supports a platform that is populist, anti-war, and socially conservative. It seems to me that most who support the free market do so because it is moral, efficient, or both; they don't appeal to its popularity because they don't have to, so I tend to doubt that any form of populism is anything more or other than socialism in disguise. Given Rod's sneering over fiscal conservatives, I doubt seriously that his populism is the exception. So: Rod is an anti-war socialist who's also socially conservative, but his support for Jim Webb tells you exactly which one of those beliefs is the most expendable.
The new war. When it comes to the war against jihad -- the war against Islamic fascism, World War IV as Norman Podhoretz called it -- Rod is a hawk in theory, but a dove in reality. That's the only way he can, on a Sunday, admit that the war will take generations and advocate a "muscular" foreign policy, only to nearly weep about the trauma of war, of killing and being killed, the very next day. The latter post would be relevant during any war, and I suspect he will continue to invoke precisely that emotionalism during engagements he opposes, to hell with all that talk about strength.
There's substance to be argued, too. It could be that our difficulties in Iraq were unavoidable and simply need to be endured in order to win, or it could be that, rather than vindicate Pat Buchanan, they vindicate Reaganism in that the "small-footprint" approach displayed too little resolve rather than arrogance and hubris. But these points are hardly worth making when Dreher Syndrome is on such full display.
And I haven't even touched the hypocrisy outside the serious discussion of issues. Rod's behavior to those who disagree with him -- us, certainly, but also other rank-and-file conservatives and even Rod's fellow professional writers -- clearly demonstrates that he is in no position whatsoever to criticize Bush for having no room for disagreement. And someone should tell Rod that he hasn't yet matured from his days as a movie reviewer, that he hasn't yet truly put aside "callow cruelty, of which there is too much in the world."
(Ask Diane or Kathleen.)
Even though I suspect that this acute case of Dreher Syndrome is the result, not of genes or a chemical imbalance, but of the vice of vanity, Rod still deserves our pity and compassion to the extent it can be given.
But he is not to be taken seriously as a writer.
His position on Iraq does not preclude the possibility that there are intellectually compelling arguments for an immediate withdrawal (though I'm skeptical), just as his young faith as a Christian does not preclude the validity of Christianity's truth claims. There's room at the table for discussions about foreign policy, the size and scope of government, theology: all sorts of subjects.
It's just that his Dreher Syndrome consistently disqualifies Rod from the table.
That may be my last word for a while as I return to more important things in my own life, but I may return to this particular arena, not because the fights are enlightening, edifying, or even interesting, but because somebody ought to respond to Rod's inconsistent and over-emotional gibberish.
posted by Anonymous at 4:43 PM
16 Comments:
is it that dreher cannot experience cognitive dissonance because he is in *constant state* of cognitive dissonance, and therefore cannot discern for himself what it is since he is always in it? just like a for a person with tinnitis doesn't know what true silence is, because for him "silence" always includes the ringing in his ears.
this is sooo deep, man.
Diane: "He must have had his wrist slapped by BeliefNet, too. But notice how he makes only the slightest passing reference to his own responsibility to be civil. The rest of the post is all about the comboxers. Nice.
But I suppose it's a step in the right direction. We shall see how it plays out."
Meanwhile, hide the sledgehammers and crowbars.
Seriously, can there be any meaningful debate in the comboxes at a blog like Rod's? His meta-narrative is that he deletes comments and has commenters' hands slapped by bnet because they are being harsh and slanderous when it's obvious that the real reason is that he has no answer for the points raised. E.g., who can deny that Rod's religion writing tends to focus on only one thing in his so-called coverage of Catholicism?
I'm starting to think that maybe this blog should morph into something like Coalition for Fog to point out his countless distortions and numerous inconsistencies since it is seemingly impossible to keep him honest.
Diane, like the Robert Burns. Reminds me of a reference to "To a mouse" by blogger pgepps on a very early post.
I looked at that new "Disagreeing agreeably" post and the comments; to me it's a laughable tangle of words that don't mean anything.
The way I've always seen it is that if someone comes over to a blog and shoots off a truly personal attack at me, for example, "Pauli is a poopy-head and his kids are ugly like he is," the best thing I could do toward discrediting him/her is to let the insult sit there like a steaming pile of crap, a testament to the low intellect of the attacker.
But if, on the other hand, I were to hastily delete it because I'm afraid that Kathleen, Bubba, Cube or Diane might think I actually am a poopy-head after reading the comment, then I think I'm safe in saying that my intelligence would deserve to be maligned even further and quite justly.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dreher echoed shea at some point, i think multiple times. much of it was deleted *of course*.
in a way, it's an interesting quandary we are in. of course beliefnet is *technically* right that we are addressing dreher personally. but that is because dreher takes everything personally, distorts it outrageously, and then repackages it as an ostensibly "hard-hitting" blog post that is topical for the news of the day. ( with his cute little disclaimers that he always adds to make himself sound sane and stable.) if we point out dreher's distortions, we are pointing his (considerable and obvious) foibles and biases, and that's "not allowed" by beliefnet because then it's getting "personal".
similarly, it's difficult to call someone a nazi without getting a lot of flack -- even if he *really is* a nazi.
hence the imrpimatur of beliefnet (such as it is -- i think beliefnot is a complete joke) is the perfect smokescreen for rod to indulge his foulest, craziest obsessions. so is the predictable but discouraging credulity of his more harmless and bland commenters. you see, it's not christian to call someone a nazi, even if he really is one.
of course, the sweetest revenge is refraining from commenting over there, because without us the blog is dead boring. we all know dreher reads *everything* over here. clearly we've hit some nerves. that is why we rattle him to the degree we do.
bubba, "sincere" is derived from the latin (i guess)phrase "without wax". dreher is comparable to a man *made of* wax trying to be "sincere", or without wax. it's qualitatively impossible for him to be sincere.
in case you doubt rod reads this blog:
"I don't engage you because of the spirit in which you write, both here and at your blog."
addressed to bubba, 240pm today
To Kathleen's point, you can either take everything personally or barely anything personally. If someone says "We should kill Jews," and I say "You're a NAZI!" all the pointy-heads could have a long discussion about technical meanings and the history of fascism, etc., etc., and conclude in the end that mine was a personal attack and as such it was way out of line. They'd inform me that I should have said "I think this killing of Jews which you propose is a bad idea because it's homicidal and, you know, genocidal and all that."
I probably wouldn't say either, opting for the funnier line "Make sure you stretch the ol' ham-strings before you goose-step to whole way down to the unemployement office, lads, or you'll really be feeling it later."
how long before some helplessly bland soul accuses of "comparing rod to a nazi?!"
There's some really really really constructive work of the blogosphere continuing over here. But as usual, the best stuff is in the combox where Josiah writes:
"Here's a question: why is it that there is a blog devoted to critiquing Mark Shea, and one devoted to critiquing Rod Dreher, but not one devoted to critiquing Amy Wellborn, or Jimmy Akin, or Eve Tushnet? Is it just a fluke? There are these random hateful people roaming the net who have latched onto Mark Shea and Rod Dreher, but who just as easily could have become obsessed (if that's the right word) with someone else in the blogosphere? That doesn't seem likely. It's not just that there isn't an anti-Amy Wellborn blog out there, the very idea of such a blog strikes me as faintly ridiculous.
Of course, the fact that you have a habit of making people angry doesn't automatically mean that you are even partially at fault. It could be just the opposite. But it's something to consider."
Throwing time at an anti-Welborn blog strikes me not so much as "faintly ridiculous" as absolutely preposterous; maybe comparable to an anti-Reader's Digest blog. But the mildness and restraint in Josiah's consideration does not avail him in the least; the next comment from the blog author accuses him of "standing up for the obsessive and nasty ", "slap[ping said author] in the face" and "encouraging rebuke". You can find it here, for now at least. Comments have magically disappeared over there also in the past, if you don't recall....
Another good comment under the "do ya think!?" category comes from "Phil" who, while he doesn't understand our obsession with cowlicks or how the "i" is dotted at Rod's Beliefnet blog, nevertheless wisely posits:
"By saying these things I'm not siding with your critics, Mark. But I do think that your polemical style provides them with plenty of ammo." [bold mine]
Well, if that's true of the man who is Catholic and enjoys it, it also seems to be quite true of the man who used to be Catholic and didn't enjoy it.
In case anyone is wondering, I can't remember any mention of hairs standing up, dots on the lowercase "i" or prepositional criticism directed toward Rod over here. What is noteworthy to me, however, isn't the lack of substantive examples of loathing or despisal at this blog, or the anger boiling over at his, which is "sad, sad, sad" according to commenter Granada. We've all come to expect that. It's not even that he is obsessed with what the contras and foggies have to say about this, that and the other. To me, the most amusing thing is how he begins his post, "I leave for a few days and...". This provided the richest harvest of self-confessed delusion to my mind; the idea that there is no internet access in Birmingham, the insinuation that the man is some sort of moral glue providing cohesion to the blogosphere and sheer chaos ensues upon his absence, the crescendo of firm footsteps accompanied by a growing shadow of a man holding a rolled-up newspaper in the doorway as we cower like his puppies next to our little "accident", etc.
I don't know if these mini-Emporers of the blogosphere realize it, but when they go off like this, it is not so much like "providing ammo" as it is providing an open season by parading naked and disarmed, thus diminishing, if not dooming, their credibility. If pointing out strongly why one thinks someone is wrong is equivalent to "kicking them when they are down", then President Bush would have been kicked to death by a long list of enraged bloggers long before Crunchy Cons ever was published and Contra Crunchy leapt Athena-like from its cloven skull.
Probably VP Cheney also.
yeah, well, my TV is bigger than Rod's is. i'll bet it's bigger than Mark Shea's too.
oh, and over the holidays i watched all the LOTR movies on it -- in HI DEF --so i now know who the witch queen of angmar is.
just wanted to get mark shea a little madder, see if head explodes or something.
hey shea came up with a very clever new name for us "the obsessostalker blog". so that means i'm an "obsesso": yes, all i think about is rod, and mark shea too, 24/7. how can i make their day worse, i wonder? how can i shoot down their arguments? i have nothing else to do with my time.
that also means i'm a "stalker": well, clearly. this weekend dreher made bread, watched 24, and bough a cuckoo clock everybody! how do i know these things: because i'm a stalker? or, um, maybe it's because dreher posted this all on his blog? for all the world to see. even the "obsessos". the thing is, i'm not sure it's possible to stalk someone who is trolling for .... stalkers.
He also has a "dangerous pit bull" in his neighborhood.
Kathleen wrote:
hey shea came up with a very clever new name for us "the obsessostalker blog".
Actually he didn't come up with it. That phrase came from Shea's prag, Zippy.
Yeah, and I wondered what exactly about the man's style was "inimitable". Someone should tell Zippy that inimitable shouldn't be used as a synonym for odd or different.
Speaking of -onyms, I'll bet my wooden leg that Zippy is one of those secreat sooooooood-onyms....
...or maybe just a nickname? Are we allowed those?
i think a better name for Zippy would have been Pinhead.
Post a Comment
<< Home