The magazine Skeptical Inquirer has an article in the current issue called “Critical Thinking — What Is It Good For? (In Fact, What Is It)?”. In that article I found a quote that led me to this more extended passage from a Town Hall column:
From Thomas Sowell:
Mere facts cannot compete with shibboleths when it comes to making people feel good. Moreover, shibboleths keep off the agenda the painful question of how dangerous it is to have policies which impact millions of human beings without a thorough knowledge of the hard facts needed to understand just what that impact has actually been. Shibboleths are the life blood of the media. Stories which seem to support the side of the angels are trumpeted from coast to coast, while stories which support the other side are either downplayed or ignored altogether. For example, vicious crimes committed by white people against black people are big news because these stories fit the shibboleths which establish the moral identity of the journalists who tell these stories. Vicious crimes committed by blacks against whites are not big news because these stories undermine the shibboleths — or, as it is phrased, “feed stereotypes.” Ditto with stories about the homeless, homosexuals and others favored by current shibboleths. Shibboleths are dangerous, not only because they mobilize political support for policies that most of the supporters have not thought through, but also because these badges of identity make it harder to reverse those policies when they turn out to be disastrous.
"Shibboleth” is an interesting word, with an interesting history. The best source I found on the subject was Wikipedia, and I encourage you to go read the entire article to get the history. Here’s how Wikipedia describes the modern usage of the word “shibboleth":
Today, “shibboleth” refers to words and phrases that can be used in a similar way—to distinguish members of a group from outsiders. The word is also sometimes used in a broader sense to mean specialized jargon, the proper use of which reveals speakers as members of a particular group or subculture. For example, people who regularly use words like “stfnal,” “grok,” “filk,” and “gafiate” in conversation are likely members of science fiction fandom. Shibboleths can also be customs or practices, such as male circumcision.
Cultural touchstones and shared experience can also be shibboleths of a sort. For example, people about the same age tend to have the same memories of popular songs, television shows, and events from their formative years. Much the same is true of alumni of a particular school, to veterans of military service, and to other groups. Discussing such memories is a common way of bonding.
A shibboleth can also be the manner in which a word is spelled. For example, the Perl programming language is sometimes rendered as PERL (in all capital letters, as if it were an acronym), which is a clear sign to Perl community members that the document lacks respect for the published materials, and is therefore from an outsider. This is frequently used to sort out “good” job offers (where the job shop understands Perl culture) from “bad” job offers (where they are not aware of cultural conventions) or to detect that a book on Perl probably is not useful, since the typography shows a lack of familiarity with the conventions of the language. Likewise, rendering Ada as ADA is a sign that the writer is unfamiliar with the Ada programming language, which was named in honor of Ada Lovelace.
My first thought, as I read the quote from Mr. Sowell, was the liberal moonbat realm, which is chock-a-block full of shibboleths — with the media yapping happily in the same vein. The notion that George W. Bush is dumb as a stump is one such liberal shibboleth; there are many more. The observable, confirmable facts about Mr. Bush’s IQ show him to be well ahead of a stump — but as Mr. Sowell says, facts cannot compete with shibboleths when it comes to making people feel good.
The last line I quoted from Mr. Sowell is the one that really got my attention: “Shibboleths are dangerous, not only because they mobilize political support for policies that most of the supporters have not thought through, but also because these badges of identity make it harder to reverse those policies when they turn out to be disastrous.” That one line is a beautifully concise explanation for the phenomenon of (as an example) the DailyKos (a favorite web hangout of moonbats). Every time I visit the DailyKos, after the requisite shower to wash off the disease-bearing filth, I’m left wondering how on earth the inhabitants of that loony bin could possibly believe their spew. Mr. Sowell has the first explanation I’ve heard that I can wrap my brain around: it feels good, it’s a way of being included, and they don’t even bother thinking their assertions through because that isn’t the point of their “membership”. The shibboleths let them identify their own, and they provide a fantasy world in which they are accepted.
If all this phenomenon did was to raise the self-esteem of the participants without causing harm to others, I’d ignore the whole thing. The problem is that these shibboleth-bearing moonbats are competing with serious folks in the world of politics. It’s shibboleths versus reality out there in the political world, and the unserious moonbats don’t even care whether the policies they favor make any sense — that’s not the point!
A contemporaneous example: Russ Feingold’s effort to censure President Bush. Moonbat Russ doesn’t care whether the censure motion makes any sense, or is based on anything like objective reality. His censure motion is a great, big, fat shibboleth. It’s a way of announcing to the moonbats he wants votes from (when he runs for President in 2008) that he’s one of them. He knows the secret code! And the shibboleth-loving media, of course, is all over it.
Mr. Sowell has given me a new power tool for analyzing political behavior. I feel a bit like I just came home from Home Depot with the biggest, baddest power drill avaialble (the kind they use to bore tunnels)…
