War or. . .What? A Tale of Two (or More) Memes

Most folks remember encountering a new idea and thinking: "Wow--yes! That makes sense; wish I'd thought of it." And thereafter, we integrate the concept into pre-existing positions and arguments. It's useful--so we adopt the idea and try to spread it.

Sophisticated PoMos have a name for this phenomenon: a meme (rhymes with dream)--"an idea that is passed on from one human generation to another." The term was invented by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 sociobiology blockbuster "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins speculated that memes were an adaptive mechanism in addition to natural selection, not shared by other species, which allowed humans "to surmount challenges more flexibly and more quickly than through the longer process of genetic adaptation and selection." Outside of evolutionary biology, however, a meme is defined more generally as "a unit of cultural transmission."

Senator John Edwards broke ground by designing his campaign around a meme. In every speech, he claimed we inhabited "two Americas, one for the privileged few, and another for everybody else." Edwards' meme didn't persuade me (see tpfp post 3/4 4:03pm) and it didn't convince Democrats. And because he didn't seek reelection, Senator Edwards will revert to citizen/ambulance-chaser Edwards early next year, trailing his flawed meme.

Though Edwards' meme is no more, I'm become a believer in "two Americas." Oh, not in the dyspeptic disparagement version pushed by economic populists (you listening Al?). No, I'm convinced by a new meme of two Americas, as set forth by two savvy minds in Minneapolis (blogger FrozenNorth and Star-Tribune columnist James Lileks), law professor/talk radio star Hugh Hewitt, with an assist by National Review's Victor Davis Hanson. These four independently published articles within a span of 36 hours (March 4-5th) reaching an essentially identical conclusion.

My eureka moment came when reading FrozenNorth on March 5th:

[T]he biggest political division in America right now is the division between those who believe we are at war, and those who don't.

"Wow--yes!" FrozenNorth's idea essentially is a one sentence distillation of Steven Den Beste's debate questions (see tpfp post 2/18 3:28am). And FrozenNorth details the differences:

In the "We Are At War" camp, the events surrounding and following 9/11 are central. The lack of another attack on American soil is the result of either good luck or good leadership. In either case, al Qaeda and groups like it remain an imminent threat, and another attack in the U.S. is not only a possibility, but likely. The bear may be wounded, but that just makes it angrier. The war in Iraq is either necessary (Republicans), or a dangerous distraction from the real threat (Democrats).

In the "We Are Not At War" camp, 9/11 was important, but other issues have since become more important. The fact that there hasn't been a follow-on attack to 9/11 proves that al Quada is no longer an imminent threat, probably because our attack in Afghanistan and subsequent events have effectively eliminated much of the organization. Other issues, like the economy, the ballooning federal deficit, social issues, and threats from places like North Korea, are of more immediate importance than what is now a mop-up operation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"That makes sense!"

FrozenNorth's post is merely descriptive. Lileks' version (already quoted here, see tpfp post 3/4 4:03pm) takes sides:

[I]t's the war. That's what counts. If I had a choice between an isolationist Republican who would withdraw all American troops from everywhere and cast Israel adrift, OR a Joe Lieberman Democrat who understood the threat and wanted to take the fight to them - and nevermind what our valiant allies thought, like Russia - I'd pull the lever for the D. As I've said before: we can argue about the future of Western Civilization after we've ensured Western Civilization will survive.

"Right again!" I shouted, remembering that Victor Davis Hanson said much the same also on March 5th (see tpfp post 3/7 1:16pm).

Hewitt uses different words, but describes the same dichotomy:

The dividing line between Americans runs between those who are serious about the world and the nation and those who are silly on these subjects.

Silly people listen to Michael Moore. Silly people issue marriage licenses to couples ineligible to receive them because they feel that it is important to do so. Silly folks think Dick Cheney is still running Halliburton and that Halliburton is running the war. Silly people make ads for websites that feature George W. Bush morphing into Hitler. Silly people think we've got Osama bin Laden stashed away in a cave waiting for a September debut. Silly people look to Maureen Dowd for insight into the world.

"I wish I'd thought of that!"

Four different writers, Lileks, Hewitt, Hanson and FrozenNorth, wrote essentially identical points essentially simultaneously. I agree--wholeheartedly!--with their idea. In other words, those writers culturally transmitted their concept to me. So I present the latest meme: the division of America into those who believe we're at war and those who don't.

I secured early admission to group one. I'm baffled by the second bunch; weary of debating them too. Especially after today's horrifying bombings in Madrid--nearly 200 dead, over 1200 wounded--for which Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. This war is anything but cold.

But undecideds remain. So those in group one should step-up efforts to propagate the accurate "two Americas" concept. Spread the meme, baby! Because if you can convince 'um America's at war, they'll quit being silly. And a citizen 18 years or older who's serious will vote for President Bush.

Serious voters vote Bush. Call that a third meme. It's cultural; it surmounts challenges flexibly and quickly. I'm transmitting.

Anyone receiving?