Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Ben Carson is ‘Bad Jackie’

Ben Carson is ‘Bad Jackie’

Last updated on: November 9, 2015 at 12:32 pm by Fred Clark

Ben Carson is ‘Bad Jackie’ 2015-11-09T12:32:30-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The reference to “Bad Jackie” in the title here is to a post or parable from back in 2010, Jackie at the Crossroads. I refer back to that a lot because it’s my best attempt to describe something that happens to all of us: We find out we were misinformed. And when we realize that, we have a choice to make. We can take the opportunity to learn, even if that involves the minor embarrassment of admitting that we were misinformed. Or we can double-down, defending ourselves and projecting ourselves to others as people who are never wrong.

This often happens in seemingly small ways involving minor points or trivia, rumors, or urban legends. It can be some small thing we’d heard or read somewhere and innocently believed. But even if the substance of that misconception is inconsequential, the choice we make when we have the chance to learn better is not. It’s the kind of decision that forms our habits, which in turn forms our character.

In this parable of Jackie at the Crossroads, the difference between a Good Jackie and a Bad Jackie is partly that Good Jackie is willing to admit that she’d been misinformed and to learn better, while Bad Jackie doubles-down, angrily defending her misconception. That’s a crossroads because it changes the nature of the thing. Up until that moment, both versions of Jackie can be said to be mostly innocent. They have been deceived, led astray. If we’re feeling ungenerous, we might say they’ve been gullible or naive or not as vigilantly skeptical as we might think everyone ought to be at all times, but mainly they’re guilty of nothing more than the human condition. At this point, their fault is that they’ve trusted some source that was not trustworthy, and when that happens — as it does and will for all of us at some point — the guilt ought to lie primarily with the untrustworthy source, not with those who have been tricked by it.

The choice to double-down on that untrustworthy untruth, though, changes one’s relationship to that falsehood. It changes you from being its victim to being its champion. It means that you are no longer merely deceived, but that you are choosing to deceive others — that you have decided that leading others astray would be, for whatever reason, preferable to admitting that you’d ever been led astray yourself.

And that’s the difference between the two Jackies in our parable. It’s the difference between Good and Bad.

In that story, Good Jackie found it easier to admit she’d been honestly deceived because she had been more honestly deceived. She’d believed the urban legend about the deadly South American airport spiders because her co-worker had insisted that she’d read about it in a magazine and that a friend’s cousin knew the person who died from being bitten. Those details had made the story more convincing to Good Jackie, but she’s later able to recognize that those details were dishonest embellishments made by her co-worker.

But when Bad Jackie had repeated that same story, she had, almost unconsciously, appropriated those claims for herself. She had assured others that the story was true because she had read it in a magazine, and that her friend’s cousin, or her cousin’s friend, personally knew the victim. Those claims were not true, but when she had made those false claims, she didn’t really feel like she was lying. It was more that she’d just gotten wrapped up in how she’d learned that this kind of story is supposed to be told. After you explain the part about the deadly spiders living under the toilet seats in airport bathrooms, you get to the part where you underscore the impact of that by explaining that you’d read this in a respectable magazine.

Such embellishments do, indeed, make for a more effective story, but I think they also reveal something crucially important about the character of the storyteller. This is a red flag — a warning sign that deserves our attention.

So pay attention to this, because it’s important. It’s a way to prevent becoming misinformed and a way to identify people who do not deserve your trust.

You’re talking to a friend or reading Facebook and you find you’re being told some wild story. Pay attention to the details about the source of that story. The difference is subtle, but it’s hugely revealing.

Sometimes you will hear something like this: “Scientists have found Joshua’s missing day.” Or like this: “The CEO of Procter & Gamble was on Oprah and said that part of their profits go to the Church of Satan.”

And when you hear that, you are dealing with someone who has been deceived. The person passing along this misinformation has been misled — perhaps mostly innocently.

But sometimes you will hear, instead, something like this: “A scientist told me that they’ve found Joshua’s missing day.” Or like this: “I saw the CEO of Procter & Gamble on Oprah …”

And when you hear that, you are dealing with someone who is trying to deceive you. The person passing along that misinformation is lying to you. This is an untrustworthy person — someone who is either deliberately lying, or else who is “bullshitting” in the Frankfurt sense of the word, someone who is wholly unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of anything they say. This is someone who, in Douglass’ phrase, requires heat, not more light.

Which brings us to Ben Carson, the distinguished neurosurgeon now reinventing himself as a right-wing politician.

Ben Carson is Bad Jackie. He is doubling-down on his misconceptions because, like that version of Jackie, he has invested his own integrity and identity in them. Carson has said a host of outrageous, inaccurate and untrue things. Doug Muder offers a partial run-down of some of them:

The Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if Germany’s Jews had been armed; anarchy might force the 2016 elections to be cancelled; Russian president Putin, Palestinian leader Abbas, and Iranian leader Khamenei were all students together in 1968; Medicare and Medicaid fraud amounts to half a trillion dollars; Satan motivated Darwin to create the theory of evolution; and the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience. He found fault with the victims of a mass shooting. He told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away.” He wants to use the Department of Education to police liberal (but not conservative) bias at colleges and universities (and justified the need for such policing by citing an event that didn’t quite happen the way he claimed).

(Muder provides links for all of those, click through to his post for the full backgrounds. See also this list of Carson’s untrue statements from Kevin Drum.)

One often gets the sense that many of these stranger statements involve Carson repeating misinformation he’s received from elsewhere. He says these things with the attitude of someone accustomed to spending most of his time in a community of misconception where these ideas are generally “known” as common knowledge — things that do not need to be examined or scrutinized because they are simply known and accepted and circulated within that community. That’s part of why Carson often comes across as indignantly startled or defensive when he is challenged to verify any of these claims.

But it’s more than simply that with Ben Carson. He has not been passing along this misinformation as someone who was, himself, innocently deceived. He has consistently gone beyond that, appropriating the details of these claims for himself by adding as embellishment and flourish the claims that he, personally, can assure you of the truth of these claims because their truth has been verified to and by him personally.

Many of the odd things he has said might be widely shared and believed by other members of his primary community of misconception, but when most of those people repeat such misconceptions, they do so without inserting themselves as the supposed source — without staking the credibility of the claim they’re repeating to their own credibility. They’ll tell you that they heard it somewhere or read it somewhere from some scientist or something. Ben Carson will tell you that he spoke to the scientist personally, because he’s someone who regularly does that, routinely dazzling those scientists with his superior intellect and leaving them speechless because he is able to cut through all the nonsense of their supposed expertise.

That’s the red flag. And in Carson’s case it’s particularly egregious because of the common theme and common thread he weaves through his retelling of all these stories. That theme is this: the greatness of Ben Carson. That is the message he is constantly, urgently, desperately trying to convey: Me, me, me.

And that separates Carson from most of the people you’ll hear sharing his misconceptions about evolution, or addiction, or poverty, or whatever else the apparent subject may be. Most of the people passing along urban legends that supposedly disprove evolution do so because they’re trying to convince you not to “believe” in evolution. Carson recasts those legends into something else — stories meant to convince you that he, Ben Carson, is superior to anyone who disagrees with his misconceptions.

If there’s a moment at the crossroads that separates Good Jackie from Bad Jackie, Ben Carson passed that crossroads a long way back. This is a look at the dismal, foolish future that awaits anyone who has decided that they have never entertained any misconceptions and that they can never be wrong.

This is what an untrustworthy person looks like.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 8, 2015

Sunday WTF?

Next Post

November 9, 2015 I believe in conversion, but not in 'conversionism'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What were the Ten Commandments written down on?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Ark of the Covenant Stone tablets Scrolls Papyrus