Is Politics a Cult?

[Neo]

If so, why? If not, why not? Everyone's thoughts on this please.

Without defining what I mean by 'cult' (please define what you mean by 'cult' in your response), I hope it's obvious that I mean something bad, negative, that should be done away with.

What is a cult? How does one spot one? Does all of politics therefore qualify?

[Candy]

A political movement CAN be a cult, just as a religious movement CAN be one. Stu made that point to me some time ago on a different thread.

Distinguishing between a healthy movement and an unhealthy one, however, can be hard. Maybe we can think in terms of each movement's having its own Matrix ... and then it becomes a question of how strong or weak that matrix is, how emotionally dependent on it people are, and what lengths they'll go to in order to keep it intact. Also what it does to their lives.

I'm struggling to find a connecting metaphor, but it's in a sense the same thing as I've been saying about porn, all along. There are fictions that enlighten people, and fictions that take light away; fictions that tend to dismantle one's presumptions, and fictions that -- are only good, really, for playing with oneself --

[Spartacus]

I'll answer "yes, politics is a cult." And here's my definition of cult within the context of this thread: a cult is a group of people who don't act or think rationally; the cult members place great faith in the cult "leaders" (in politics, this may be one man, e.g., the "President of the U.S.," or a relatively small number of people (Congress, the "courts," the mainstream media, "experts, " such as those who have degrees from prestigious universities, etc.) )and allows the cult leaders to do its thinking for it, rather than rationally & objectively examining issues for themselves; and finally, (although I could go on at much greater length), and most frighteningly, cult members justify any action-including murder, theft, vandalism, etc.- based on the principles and teachings of the cult.

In the political cult, there are degrees of adherence: the vast majority of the cult is simply disinterested in hearing and discovering that they are, in fact, cult members. The next level are the "active members;" they campaign for politicians, vote & argue passionately about political issues. The most dangerous level is that of the propagandists and enforcers-i.e., the military, the IRS, DEA, FBI, SEC, etc. (and whatever other agencies you can think of).

There are, generally speaking, two possible response to showing the political cult members that they are in a cult. The first and, unfortunately, more common, reaction is to deny, mount ad hominem attacks, etc. and, most curiously, actually increase their belief in and devotion to the cult. This is a phenomenon that many observers have indicated in those types of cults that predict, with great precision and conviction, the end of the world. These cults, based on certain documents and writings confidently proclaim that on such and such a date, the world will end. When that day arrives & then passes, do they then say, "no, we were wrong; the principles of this group (cult) are not valid."? No, their belief in the cult actually grows stronger and they say that the world didn't end on that particular day because they made a slight miscalculation in their equation and will go back to the drawing board.

The second response is "yeah, you know, you may be right, I'd like to hear more about it." Of course, the percentage of people who admit this is very small (or maybe it's much larger-I hope so).

Neo, perhaps a bit longer response than you were looking for but I hope it sums up the issue.

[marc stevens]

Good post spartacus.

I've said for a long time, the "state" is the only service that comes with it's own religion.