Prayer Breakfast

President Obama took the opportunity at the national prayer breakfast to remind Christians that they also have violence in their history. 

My first response was to link to some discussion of history that I had written before. I put in some additional historical information in a comment over at Grim's Hall.  I am not the only one who went straight to the arguing over history part. Many of Obama's critics and supporters also went straight to the historical arguments, with all its Huguenots, Roundheads, Albigensians, Seljuqs, and Abbasids.

My inclination would ordinarily be to join them, trying to use a balanced understanding of history to inform current attitudes.  I expect I would learn something from both allies and opponents in the exchange, and hope that my original view was indeed closest to the facts.  That would be logical and wise.

That has nothing to do with what is happening here.  It took Governor Jindal's comment to shake me loose.  

It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast. Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today

.

I was amused, but part of me thought that was also beside the point. I keep thinking getting to the truth of 1098 will be the foundation to getting to a correct answer now.  I expect that to be the long view, the Longfellow view: 

Though the mills of God grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.

This is madness on my part.  Barack Obama does not hold his views because he misunderstands Medieval history.  He misunderstands Medieval history because of the modern  views he holds. That is absolutely true of the majority of his critics as well.  They have only superficial understanding of Medieval history, but use the chance fragments which flow their way in service of their modern attitude, discarding those that don't fit. It may be a glass houses problem for Obama to squawk about self-righteousness, but it is true nonetheless.  There are not only some reflexive jingoists out there, there are lots of 'em, and they won't shut up.  If Jay Walking and all the man-on-the-street, ambush-the-rubes videos have taught us anything, it is that no one out there knows much history, civics, science, or religion at all. (Favorite soapbox: this is not new.  It has always been this way.  It was not better in Ye Goode Olde Days.)

Where was I?

Yes, yes, all this by way of introduction.*

Getting the history wrong is not what Obama's critics are angry about (except maybe a few of us). Nor are Obama's supporters deeply concerned that the hoi polloi haven't taken enough World History 301: 476-1491 AD. They don't want them to have any new information about that thousand years, unless it has been vetted and approved as leading to the correct attitudes now.

For 90% of Americans, my guys, your guys, red fish, blue fish, actual historical information has no relevance except as a place counter in discussions about whose view will prevail today.  Do not quote to me statistics that conservatives are twice as likely to get the facts right, because I already know that only means they are right 21% of the time as opposed to liberals 11%, and at that level, who cares?

This discussion is about attitudes, and history is only brought in as a counter on the chessboard of 2015. Obama thinks the people who disagree with him just don't have the right attitudes, and that is their main problem. This has been characteristic of him throughout his career. Plenty of conservatives take the same attitude - Sarah Palin comes to mind - but they don't tend to get elected as much.  Reagan took a condescending "Yes they are liberals, but they are our liberals" attitude, but there was some affection there. Bill Clinton was nowhere near as bad as Obama, Carter was perhaps even worse.

It goes rather naturally with the territory.  When one is focused on the nation's enemies, the opposition at home is frustrating, but not hateful.  Liberals tend to downgrade the enemies abroad, focusing on their competitors for power here.  The reasons for this are varied - not all on the left would explain that the same way, but it remains so.

Yet that is secondary.  The focus on the attitude of the opposition, in and of itself, leads dangerously to the belief that one knows what their motives are.  One comes to believe in the ability to read minds - of black kids in Ferguson or white cops; of ISIS volunteers or Chris Kyle. We may guess, but we do not know.  Conservatives are still debating why it is that Obama believes the things he does, and we are nearly at the end of the period where it matters one whit. Liberals guess badly - with great assurance but badly - why the great unwashed, who are, incidentally, slightly better educated than they, believe what they do. Their guesses are more than a little evil.  I have read guesses by conservatives that are deeply evil about liberal motives

This flows from focus on attitude rather than behavior.  I give that to you for free as marital, parenting, and management advice as well.

*That's really my favorite line these last forty years, isn't it?