The Spirit of Sympathy
By DAVID BROOKS
The use of reconciliation threatens to destroy the humanizing function of the Senate.
That's the intro for David Brooks' latest that appars on the NY Times editorial page this morning, and my jaw really did drop as I read it. It is obvious the Senate is driven by corporate interests that express themselves with campaign donations. For as long as I can remember the only way one can find a humanizing factor in there is if you count legal persons as human.
But then, we do exactly that nowadays, don't we?
Human beings, the philosophers tell us, are social animals. We emerge into the world ready to connect with mom and dad. We go through life jibbering and jabbering with each other, grouping and regrouping. When you get a crowd of people in a room, the problem is not getting them to talk to each other; the problem is getting them to shut up.
To help us in this social world, God, nature and culture have equipped us with a spirit of sympathy. We instinctively feel a tinge of pain when we observe another in pain (at least most of us do). We instinctively mimic, even to a small extent, the mood, manners, yawns and actions of the people around us.
It's biologists that tell us we are social animals, which fact changes the ground of any assertion such as Brooks would make about it.
In the United States, leaders in the House of Representatives have done an effective job in getting their members to think in group, not person-to-person, terms. Members usually vote as party blocs. Individuals have very little power. That’s why representatives are often subtle and smart as individuals, but crude and partisan as a collective. The social psychology of the House is a clan psychology, not an interpersonal psychology.
The Senate, on the other hand, has historically been home to more person-to-person thinking. This is because the Senate is smaller and because of Senate rules. Until recently, the Senate leaders couldn’t just ram things through on party-line votes. Because a simple majority did not rule, and because one senator had the ability to bring the whole body to a halt, senators had an incentive, every day, to develop alliances and relationships with people in the other party.
There's a personal concept I use in analyzing stuff that Brooks and his ilk produce. I call it the Möbius point.
This is the thing I look for in a reasonable-sounding article that comes to a wholly wrong conclusion. The Möbius point.
You know what a Möbius strip is?
The Möbius strip or Möbius band (pronounced /ˈmøbiʊs/) is a surface with only one side and only one boundary component. It has the mathematical property of being non-orientable. It was co-discovered independently by the German mathematicians August Ferdinand Möbius and Johann Benedict Listing in 1858.
A model can easily be created by taking a paper strip and giving it a half-twist, and then merging the ends of the strip together to form a single strip. In Euclidean space there are in fact two types of Möbius strips depending on the direction of the half-twist: clockwise and counterclockwise. The Möbius strip is therefore chiral, which is to say that it is "handed".
Because of that half-twist, if you run your finger along the top surface of the Möbius strip you wind up on the bottom. Somewhere in an article like Newt's you will find the point at which some meaning is inverted in a way that, if you "translate your words into the facts they represent," is obviously absurd.
Since the Times has put Douthat back in a blog where he belongs and put Brooks back where he can continue using putting Republican's inchoate fears of loss of status into an intellectual format, I have applied this principle to everything he's written. I find his writing not just twisted but it is that very twist that inverts the conversation...and nothing else.