An Offense to Keep Arms

Do you all know who Joseph Story was? I didn't before this morning, so I'm grateful to the Tea Party for providing the impetus for me to learn about him.  He was a Massachusetts lawyer who served in the state legislature and the Congress.  In 1810, at the age of 32, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Madison, where he remained  a member until his death in 1845.

The words in this meme are directly and easily attributable to Joseph Story, but his sentence is intentionally truncated to allow it to stand alone out of context.

The context for the quotation was included in Story's 1840 work, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. 

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia."

Reading only a few paragraphs, it is clear to see that Story's primary concern about the Second Amendment was question of whether the militia should be replaced with a standing army:

"The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.  The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

              The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject.  The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.  It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.  The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.  And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.  There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

I think Joseph Story's words on the subject of gun rights in the United States provide an interesting additional dimension to the currently raging debate.

I also think it's safe to say that the Tea Party is not interested in disbanding the standing armies of the United States.  So one would think they surely wouldn't want anyone reading too much Joseph Story, right?

This meme was shared four days ago and has received 27,700 'likes', 17,591 'shares' and 1539 comments.  Clearly, this is a hot topic.

The comments are spirited, indeed.  Many are writing to support the right to bear arms, many are writing to support gun control measures.  Many are against President Obama and many are for him.

None of the comments I read asks who Joseph Story was or questions the context of his words or expresses any intellectual curiosity whatsoever.

All of the comments I read were written by people who firmly entrenched in their positions.  No one on either side wants  to participate in open and honest dialog.  Everyone seems to enjoy pounding fists and pointing fingers.

The person who created this Internet meme is betting on the fact that we are too intellectually lazy to do any thinking for ourselves.  Of course we will believe whatever we are told.  Of course we will not question. Of course we will be manipulated.

Based on the response this meme has drawn over the last few days, I'd say that's a good bet.

Cognitive Dissonance

I saw this Internet meme on the facebook page of a group called, Conservative Women Rock, where it had been shared from the page of a group called Uncles Sam's Misguided Children.  

Although the President is not directly quoted in this image, clearly the creators of this Internet meme want the viewer to understand that the President has espoused the two views shown in the top portion:  that football is too dangerous for young men and that young women should be in combat. 

The conclusion drawn at the bottom of the meme is that a person who is capable of espousing both those views suffers from "cognitive dissonance", which must be some sort of a disease or a disorder -- at any rate, something very undesirable -  and that typically someone afflicted with is condition is comparable with homeless people (because who else but homeless people push shopping carts through parks at night, right?) Or something like that, anyway.  

So let's start at the top and work our way down. 

First, did the President say that football is too dangerous for young men? Here's what the he said in an interview with The New Republic:

"I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.

I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies. You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about." 

And what is his position on military women serving in the military? Here are his comments as reported by the Department of Defense:

“Today, by moving to open more military positions -- including ground combat units -- to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens,” the president said in a statement. “This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military.”

More than 150 women have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the president noted, calling them “patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.”

(Myself, I think whoever coined the phrase, "valor knows no gender" deserves a raise; that's pretty good stuff.)

So the President is a football fan who loves the sport but thinks it will probably change gradually to reduce some of the violence. And if he had a son, he would think long and hard before letting him play football.

And the President supports the decision made by the armed forces to open more military positions (including ground combat units) to women and acknowledges that women have rendered courageous and patriotic service to the U.S. military.  

Based on the direct quotes on these two topics, we could change the words at the top left of the meme to read, "I'm a big football fan. . .", and the ones at the top right to read, ". . . valor has no gender."  That would sure change the tone a bit, wouldn't it?

But for the sake of this discussion, let's give the meme's creators a pass on the veracity of the top two statements as presented and move on to the bottom portion, which is much more complicated and confusing.

There's this mention of "cognitive dissonance".  Not being a psychologist, I had to look that up.

Here's what I found out:  it's not a disease or a disorder or even a condition.  It is theory.  A very interesting and important theory in social psychology, well tested and generally regarded as viable.

The theory, which was introduced by Leon Festinger in 1956 seeks to explain why people of strong convictions are so resistant to changing their beliefs even in the face of undeniable contradictory evidence.

Festinger explained that dissonance is uncomfortable and that people take various measures to alleviate this discomfort: 

"The person may try to change one or more of the beliefs, opinions, or behaviors involved in the dissonance; to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and, thus, cause the total dissonance to be reduced; or to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship." (Festinger et al. 1956)

If you do a Google search on the term "cognitive dissonance", the site which comes up first, predictably, is Wikipedia, which begins their article on the theory with this statement:  "In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions."

(I must say that the words which came  immediately to my mind when I read the phrase, "two or more conflicting ideas" were F.Scott Fitzgerald's, from his 1936 essay, "The Crack Up":  "Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation -- the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  But since I am unaware of Fitzgerald having conducting any scientific research on this theory, we'll leave it as an aside for now.)

So here we are, still left with this Internet meme staring us in the face.  I will now leave it to you to judge the motives of its creators and the veracity of its claims.

Do you believe the President is suffering from a chronic condition called Cognitive Dissonance?

Are all parents who think twice about allowing their sons to play football also suffering from the same affliction?  How about the rest of the folks in the Defense Department who were in on the decision to allow women to serve in combat positions?

One explanation of cognitive dissonance which I read gave the example of Aesop's fable "The Fox and the Grapes" as an example of behavior explained by this theory.  The hungry fox strongly desires the grapes but cannot reach them no matter how hard he tries.  The sense of failure is dissonant with the desire for the grapes.  This makes him feel uncomfortable.  Since he cannot change the fact that he cannot get the grapes, he changes his attitude toward the grapes, converting them from objects of desire to objects of disdain.  

Is it possible that  the two cognitions -- one about football safety and one women serving in combat -- are not dissonant at all?  Is it possible that,  like most cognitions, these two are not sufficiently in conflict to cause any discomfort at all to the President -- or even to people pushing shopping carts through parks at night?

Lastly -- and of most concern to me -- do you take issue with the meme's characterization of homeless people?  Given the fact that whoever created this meme appears to hold President Obama in low esteem, it follows that any comparison with him  reflects an attitude of disdain.

President Obama chose to subject himself to public scrutiny.  He expected to be subject to ridicule.  It comes with the territory, unfortunately. The same cannot be said for those who are "pushing grocery carts through parks at night."

As I said, I'm leaving it up to you to make your own judgement, but for me, the judgement as to this meme's veracity is colored by the creator's choice of metaphor.

Essentially the message boils down to:  "President Obama is as crazy as a homeless person."  I am not OK with that.  What does it say about all those who "like" and "share" this meme that such a message resonates enough to merit endorsement?