POLITICS AND GENES

Sometimes it seems impossible to figure out what drives politicians. I have adopted a rule, when all logic fails look to genes, which probably explains why I was thrilled to read +George Lakoff’s books, a professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics, although I have to admit I have never ever heard of such a disciple. In the text of those books, he created a family model to explain government organization. The interface of science and the popular press is always a rocky road, at best as he soon found out after the release of his book. Such writing often offends both the scientists and the nonscientists. I assume many of us are aware of the push back—often venomously offensive—on writing about politically sensitive topics. Therefore, highly charged rhetoric was expected after the much-maligned books, the Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by an American psychologists and Nicolas Wade’s book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History. They argue that races are different and that races evolved differently (Wade) and that scientists should pursue that lead; that was all. 

Equally, offensive and hate provoking for some are writings about the genetics of politics; these two words do not belong in the same sentence. Obviously, I disagree. In my mind, it is impossible to separate hierarchy dominance from political structure and gregariousness from social structure to give two superficial examples. No one can deny that the earth’s biota preserve both gregariousness and hierarchy. They are well preserved genetic traits or behaviors; biologists see examples of both in all branches of the “genetic” tree. Yet, some highly intelligent people are deeply offended to think anyone could even suggest that we share something as primitive and crude as peck order with lowly chickens. Their position should make it obvious that intelligence is not the same as common sense. Yet, it is equally obvious, or should be, that although chickens act like chickens, dogs act like dogs, and people act like people, there is something about human behavior that that animals don’t have and cannot have. People have the ability to modify behavior, at least to the same extent; although, we cannot change basic genetic behavior, we have the ability to modify that behavior gnetically. Political scientists are starting to study that association much to the chagrin of geneticists, with interesting results. However, some geneticists seem to consider themselves to be real scientists and seem to believe that even epigenesists are not scientists. Can you imagine what both of them think of political scientists and psychologists? They should read E. O. Wilson’s book, Consilience.  

There are many things happening in Washington D.C. that do not make sense. Republicans are offended when accused of being cruel for cutting the food stamp budget just as they are offended when it is suggest they should compromise on an issue when they have a majority. The people of the United States elected them to do a job as they see fit—period. The argument that 49% of the people voted for the other person; therefore, compromise is called for, makes no sense to them—it is illogical. Think of this in the broader sense of leadership. If a person owns a factory and hires workers, he or she has supreme authority over the lives of those workers. If a general, gives and order soldiers follow that order. At one time, a captain of a ship had life and death power over the crew; he could hold court and order the crew to hang a mutineer and they would do it. Think in terms of family and gender differences; the bigger and stronger husbands was in charge over women and children; however, apparently women chose to partner up with the biggest strongest male they could find; somehow, none of this is science; once you enter Washington D.C. none of this has anything to do with gregariousness or hierarchy dominance.

Cutting food stamp budget and unwillingness to compromise is just human behavior that comes out of outer space. I beg to differ. A Republican or a Democrat has at least 33% of his politics in his or her blood.  A candidate for political office, that is a practitioner of politics, would be expected to have more than 33% in his or her genes.  The message is that political party affiliation is highly significant; a Republican is more likely to act as a Republican and a Democrat is more likely to act as a Democrat regardless of what they say on the campaign trail. Republicans do not want to harm the children on the boarder any more than they want to harm food stamp recipients. For them, the real issues are that it is their territory and their hard-earned tax money they are protecting; they told you that when they called themselves Republicans before you voted for them. If you did not want them to act accordingly, you would not have voted for them—no soy marinero, soy capitán. I am not a sailor; I am the captain. I am the husband; not the wife. I am not the worker; I am the owner. I am not the Democrat; I am the Republican.

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated