RWs are not stupid; it's much worse than that

[BrainGlutton]

In journalist Chris Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science -- and Reality (which I'll actually read when my hold-order at the library comes through -- I'm basing this on more accessible magazine articles Mooney has written about it), he argues that conservatives and liberals might have brains differently wired. We've seen this idea floated before -- Wiki even has a page now on Biology and political orientation.) However, in this Mother Jones article -- which begins with a discussion of the Conservapedia page on (that is, against) the theory of relativity in physics (no, really, click it) -- he is at pains to point out:

Let's be clear: This is not a claim about intelligence. Nor am I saying that conservatives are somehow worse people than liberals; the groups are just different. Liberals have their own weaknesses grounded in psychology, and conservatives are very aware of this. (Many of the arguments in this book could be inverted and repackaged into a book called The Democratic Brain—with a Spock-like caricature of President Obama on the cover.)

<snip>

But what about liberals? Aren't we wrong too, and dogmatic too?

The typical waffling liberal answer is, "er . . . sort of." Liberals aren't always right, but that's not the central problem. Our particular dysfunction is, typically, more complex and even paradoxical.

On the one hand, we're absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about "death panels." People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim. Climate change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can't comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a fellow liberal say, "I can't believe the Republicans are so stupid they can believe X!"

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we're right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation's defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.

In this, we both underestimate conservatives, and we fail to understand them.

To begin to remedy that defect, let's go back to the Conservapedia-relativity dustup, and make an observation that liberals and physicists did not always credit. Whatever else Andrew Schlafly might be—and no matter how hard it is to understand how someone could devote himself to an enterprise like Conservapedia—the man is not stupid. Quite the contrary.

He's a Harvard law graduate. He has an engineering degree from Princeton, and used to work both for Intel and for Bell Labs. His relativity entry is filled with equations that I myself can neither write nor solve. He hails from a highly intellectual right-wing family—his mother, Phyllis, is also Harvard educated and, according to her biographer, excelled in school at a time when women too rarely had the opportunity to compete with men at that level. Mother and son thus draw a neat, half-century connection between the birth of modern American conservatism on the one hand, and the insistence that conservatives have their own "facts," better than liberal facts thank you very much, on the other.

So it is not that Schlafly, or other conservatives as sophisticated as he, can't make an argument. Rather, the problem is that when Schlafly makes an argument, it's hard to believe it has anything to do with real intellectual give and take. He's not arguing out of an openness to changing his mind. He's arguing to reaffirm what he already thinks (his "faith"), to defend the authorities he trusts, and to bolster the beliefs of his compatriots, his tribe, his team.

Liberals (and scientists) have too often tried to dodge the mounting evidence that this is how people work. Perhaps because it leads to a place that terrifies them: an anti-Enlightenment world in which evidence and argument don't work to change people's minds.

But that response, too, is a form of denial—liberal denial, a doctrine whose chief delusion is not so much the failure to accept facts, but rather, the failure to understand conservatives. And that denial can't continue. Because as President Obama's first term has shown—from the healthcare battle to the debt ceiling crisis—ignoring the psychology of the right has not only left liberals frustrated and angry, but has left the country in a considerably worse state than that.

IOW, the problem appears to be, not that RWs are not intelligent, but that they won't use their brains to deal with facts, but only to rebel against them and substitute "facts" more to their liking and defend those.

Well.

What can we do about that?!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What can we do about that?!

Here's my predictions for how conservatives will handle it:

1. Deny it.
2. Ignore it.
3. Shoot the messenger. Chris Mooney is clearly a socialist.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In journalist Chris Mooney's new book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science -- and Reality (which I'll actually read when my hold-order at the library comes through -- I'm basing this on more accessible magazine articles Mooney has written about it), he argues that conservatives and liberals might have brains differently wired. We've seen this idea floated before -- Wiki even has a page now on Biology and political orientation.) However, in this Mother Jones article -- which begins with a discussion of the Conservapedia page on (that is, against) the theory of relativity in physics (no, really, click it) -- he is at pains to point out:



IOW, the problem appears to be, not that RWs are not intelligent, but that they won't use their brains to deal with facts, but only to rebel against them and substitute "facts" more to their liking and defend those.

Well.

What can we do about that?!

What set of 'facts' are you referring to. I am not talking about fringe issues like the birther movement. That is just a straw man and both sides have their own versions of them. Once again, the 'progressives' (note the presumptuous name) think that they know the one true right way and everyone would agree with it if they simply knew as much as they do about everything.

More likely, some people just have different worldviews and don't want the same outcome given the same starting set of circumstances. I am not socially conservative but I am economically conservative. Economic liberalism turns me off because I simply don't care about economic equality of outcomes or even think it is a good thing to trend towards. Other people think that everyone is in this together and we all must make sure that the government provides for people who can't or won't do as well on their own. That is a philosophical issue just like it always has been. No set of facts or convincing can change that.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

What set of 'facts' are you referring to. I am not talking about fringe issues like the birther movement. That is just a straw man and both sides have their own versions of them.

The left-wing version of birthers aren't driving policy.

Once again, the 'progressives' (not the presumptuous name) think that they know the one true right way and everyone would agree with it if they simply knew as much as they do about everything.

There are things that are opinions and there are things that are facts. Conservatism lives in a space where facts are optional. Evolution: Optional. Global Warming: Optional. Government is the spender of last resort in a recession: Optional.

Obviously many conservative policy positions are based on opinion, like, say birth control support or abortion.

More likely, get this this, some people just have different worldviews and don't want the same outcome given the same starting set of circumstances. I am not socially conservative but I am economically conservative. Economic liberalism turns me off because I simply don't care about economic equality of outcomes or even think it is a good thing to trend towards. Other people think that everyone is in this together and we all must make sure that the government provides for people who can't or won't do as well on their own. That is a philosophical issue just like it always has been. No set of facts or convincing can change that.

Facts can show you that your position produces worse results. Facts can show that some form of universal health care would be cheaper, and produce better outcomes for our citizens.

You have the right to ignore those facts and cling to ideology, but don't pretend that you're doing it for any but ideological reasons.

[Max Torque]

Stephen Colbert put it best: "I'm not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are."

[HumanBear]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Facts can show you that your position produces worse results. Facts can show that some form of universal health care would be cheaper, and produce better outcomes for our citizens.

I agree that there are facts in many cases that are ignored by groups of people because of ideology, but this is not good example. It may be a fact that universal healthcare would benefit the majority, but it's a perfectly reasonable argument to say it wouldn't be of benefit to a particular individual and in fact may ending up costing that individual, for example in raised taxes. I'd prefer a society where people think of others, not just themselves, but as with anything the argument is about where these limits should be, e.g. how much is too much when it comes to taxes.

I'd also like to say I doubt there is in general a difference between right and left wing brains, especially as there isn't really a left wing in the USA, but don't forget that the right wing is currently imploding in the USA and those who are vociferously supporting the Republican party at the moment are not necessarily your standard Republican party voters of old.

[Oakminster]

Gee, what an insightful OP.

[gaffa]

Originally Posted by HumanBear

I agree that there are facts in many cases that are ignored by groups of people because of ideology, but this is not good example. It may be a fact that universal healthcare would benefit the majority, but it's a perfectly reasonable argument to say it wouldn't be of benefit to a particular individual and in fact may ending up costing that individual, for example in raised taxes. I'd prefer a society where people think of others, not just themselves, but as with anything the argument is about where these limits should be, e.g. how much is too much when it comes to taxes.

As singer/songwriter Fred Eaglesmith said: You all call it "socialized medicine". We just call it "sharing".

[BlinkingDuck]

Sorry OP. I am not a RW but I have plenty of experience with 'Liberals'. They are just as dogmatic and refusing to consider facts contrary to their opinion as RWs.

However, to bring them up would make you go...but but but...that is wrong and my stance is right!...which is just what RWs do.

You want an example?

- In a company where the upper management is 100% White but the rank and file is White/Black proportionate to the population... it is perfectly acceptable to chose a Black candidate for promotion to upper management if he is equally qualified with a White candidate wishing for the same promotion.

In addition, a very liberal person seems to be much more willing to try to damage your career for a difference of opinions than a very conservative person. YMMV

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by OP

...he argues that conservatives and liberals might have brains differently wired...

Emphasis added.

He "might" be right. But then, he "might" be wrong. Then again, he "might" not know what he's talking about if he actually uses that phrase. Actually, he probably doesn't, if he uses that phrase.

And the example given tells us more about the mind of a religious fundamentalist than anything else. Granted, RFs are more likely than not to be RWs, but that doesn't mean RWs are more likely than not to be RFs.

[SeldomSeen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What can we do about that?!

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Here's my predictions for how conservatives will handle it:

1. Deny it.
2. Ignore it.
3. Shoot the messenger. Chris Mooney is clearly a socialist.

Originally posted by Oakminster
Gee, what an insightful OP.

I see what you did there....

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

IOW, the problem appears to be, not that RWs are not intelligent, but that they won't use their brains to deal with facts, but only to rebel against them and substitute "facts" more to their liking and defend those.

Well.

What can we do about that?!

In the various Zimmerman / Martin shooting threads, I believe the trend I see is liberals substituting "facts" more to their liking.

Granted, I see apparent conservatives doing this too. My point is that in this example, liberals do not seem to be fact-driven.

Other examples include nuclear power -- the bulk of protests against it seem to come from reliably liberal groups and are not fact-based.

What is your -- or Chris Mooney's -- explanation for this?

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In the various Zimmerman / Martin shooting threads, I believe the trend I see is liberals substituting "facts" more to their liking.

Granted, I see apparent conservatives doing this too. My point is that in this example, liberals do not seem to be fact-driven.

Other examples include nuclear power -- the bulk of protests against it seem to come from reliably liberal groups and are not fact-based.

What is your -- or Chris Mooney's -- explanation for this?

Do you have any statistics on the amount of liberals or democrats that don't support nuclear power? As a liberal, I've never understood this myself. It's the cheapest, cleanest, most abundant power source available ATM. Sure the cleanup is a bit of a mess, but if done properly, no worries. I always thought it was the hardcore environmentalists that railed against nuclear power. But nobody listens to them anyway.

As for ZimmermanMartin thing, I didn't like the way the police just dismissed it from the outset. I thought there should be a more thorough investigation. I thought Zimmerman's story was questionable on a number of points. That's all. Just more investigation and no white-wash (no pun intended).

[Sinaptics]

Further, I've always thought the real problem with nuclear power is that nobody (D or R) wants a plant or a storage facility in their backyard.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

However, in this Mother Jones article -- which begins with a discussion of the Conservapedia page on (that is, against) the theory of relativity in physics (no, really, click it) -- he is at pains to point out:

IOW, the problem appears to be, not that RWs are not intelligent, but that they won't use their brains to deal with facts, but only to rebel against them and substitute "facts" more to their liking and defend those.

Mooney's article in Mother jones is, frankly, stupid. First of all, it devotes a huge amount of time to an article in Conservapedia about the theory of relativity. No one can know who wrote the article or whether or not it was intended as a joke. Hence it proves nothing about whether any group of people are or are not willing to accept facts. If Mooney wanted his thesis to be taken seriously, he should have found a much better principle example of his point.

Then he goes on to a long list of positions that conservatives hold certain positions that are not only "wrong", but supposedly "can be shown to be through simple fact checking mechanisms that all good journalists, not to mention open-minded and critically thinking citizens, can employ." In most cases he gives neither evidence that most conservatives hold these positions nor evidence that the positions are incorrect. To give just one example of a supposedly incorrect position, "they think [Obamacare] will increase the federal budget deficit". The effects that Obamacare will have on the federal budget deficit are unknown. All predictions about that matter depending on predicting future costs, future numbers of people enrolled in various programs, future tax receipts, future employment, and other future data that can't be known now. Hence there's no way for Mooney to make a factual assertion that he's right and the conservative are wrong about what Obamacare will cost.

Lastly, he claims to have scientific evidence of psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. He doesn't give a single citation for this. He probably should.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

What set of 'facts' are you referring to. I am not talking about fringe issues like the birther movement. That is just a straw man and both sides have their own versions of them. Once again, the 'progressives' (note the presumptuous name) think that they know the one true right way and everyone would agree with it if they simply knew as much as they do about everything.

Mooney lists these as examples:

Consider, just briefly, some of the wrong ideas that have taken hold of significant swaths of the conservative population in the U.S:

The Identity of the President of the United States. Many conservatives believe President Obama is a Muslim. A stunning 64 percent of Republican voters in the 2010 election thought it was "not clear" whether he had been born in the United States. These people often think he was born in Kenya, and the birth certificate showing otherwise is bunk, a forgery, etc. They also think this relatively centrist Democrat is a closet—or even overt—socialist. At the extreme, they consider him a "Manchurian candidate" for an international leftist agenda.

Obamacare. Many conservatives believe it is a "government takeover of health care." They also think, as Sarah Palin claimed, that it created government "death panels" to make end-of-life care decisions for the elderly. What's more, they think it will increase the federal budget deficit (and that most economists agree with this claim), cut benefits to those on Medicare, and subsidize abortions and the health care of illegal immigrants. None of these things are true.

Sexuality and Reproductive Health. Many conservatives—especially on the Christian Right—claim that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer or mental disorders. They claim that fetuses can perceive pain at 20 weeks of gestation, that same-sex parenting is bad for kids, and that homosexuality is a disorder, or a choice, and is curable through therapy. None of this is true.

The Iraq War. The mid-2000s saw the mass dissemination of a number of falsehoods about the war in Iraq, including claims that weapons of mass destruction were found after the US invasion and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were proven collaborators. And political conservatives were much more likely than liberals to believe these falsehoods. Studies have shown as much of Fox News viewers, and also of so-called authoritarians, an increasingly significant part of the conservative base (about whom more soon). In one study, 37 percent of authoritarians (but 15 percent of non-authoritarians) believed WMD had been found in Iraq, and 55 percent of authoritarians (but 19 percent of non-authoritarians) believed that Saddam Hussein had been directly involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Economics. Many conservatives hold the clearly incorrect view—explicitly espoused by former President George W. Bush—that tax cuts increase government revenue. They also think President Obama raised their income taxes, that he's responsible for current government budget deficits, and that his flagship economic stimulus bill didn't create many jobs or even caused job losses (and that most economists concur with this assessment). Perhaps most alarming of all, in mid-2011 conservatives advanced the dangerous idea that the federal government could simply "prioritize payments" if Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling. None of this is true, and the last belief, in particular, risked economic calamity.

American History. Many conservatives—especially on the Christian Right—believe the United States was founded as a "Christian nation." They consider the separation of church and state a "myth," not at all assured by the First Amendment. And they twist history in myriad other ways, large and small, including Michele Bachmann's claim that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to put an end to slavery.

Sundry Errors. Many conservatives claimed that President Obama's late 2010 trip to India would cost $200 million per day, or $2 billion for a ten day visit! And they claimed that, in 2007, Congress banned incandescent light bulbs, a truly intolerable assault on American freedoms. Only, Congress did no such thing. (To give just a few examples.)

Science. In a nationally representative survey—only 18 percent of Republicans and Tea Party members accepted the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans, and only 45 and 43 percent (respectively) accepted human evolution.

[Freudian Slit]

I'm assuming the R in RW stands for Republican, but what does the W stand for?

[silenus]

Right Wingers, I'd guess.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

I'm assuming the R in RW stands for Republican, but what does the W stand for?

Wing

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

I'm assuming the R in RW stands for Republican, but what does the W stand for?

RW=Right Wing.

[Freudian Slit]

Oops, thanks.

[BrainGlutton]

Ir does seem to me, though, that the studies on which Mooney is relying are limited by a bipolar approach. There are more than two sides here, and if they're different kinds of people, then there are more than two different kinds of people, politically/psychologically speaking. If we have one set of psychological generalizations applicable to (what is usually meant by the word) conservatives, and another applicable to (wiumbtw) liberals, then I doubt either set of generalizations would apply to libertarians or communists or fascists; each of those sets -- I expect -- would have its own very different psychology. I hope that will be studied in the future.

[BrainGlutton]

Here's a RW response to Mooney's book, from Jonah Goldberg.

[BrainGlutton]

From an In These Times interview with Mooney:

For years, the left has been very critical of scientific research on genetics and intelligence. Do you think that this was a case of the left rejecting science for ideological reasons? What are the differences between left-wing and right-wing approaches to opposing science?

I’m prepared to say that any liberal or leftist who seriously wants to deny that humans are the product of evolution, and that this is a central key to understanding our present day behavior—including our political behavior—is guilty of science denial.

But that said, you’ve got to get the evolutionary logic right. There is definitely bad science out there that seeks to apply evolution incorrectly to who we are today.

I think that the left campaign against “sociobiology” was definitely ideological in nature. It was driven by misplaced egalitarianism. That’s a chief liberal value and chief liberal emotion: We care about equality. It’s a wonderful thing, but it can certainly drive biased reasoning in some cases.

The difference between how left and right use science is both psychological—e.g., science is more friendly to liberals, because they’re more tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity—but also moral and emotional. Both sides like science when it supports their values; but they have very different values. The left uses science to promote equality and to protect people from harm and to make the world better. The right prizes using science to support free enterprise and its other ideological goals.

Because liberals are emotional creatures too, there is nothing that says they can’t err or misuse science. However, they do so for very different reasons, and they also change and update their views more easily over time. So the misguided left campaign against “sociobiology” from the 1970s is basically, at this point, a historical relic. And thank goodness for that.

[Wesley Clark]

The articdle Political conservatism as motivated social cognition is a good read.

But Right Wing Authoritarianism is correlated with dogmatism, so I don't see why this would be surprising. In the US the RWA'ans have overtaken the conservative movement, pushing out the libertarians and more moderate GOPers. Goldwater was offended by the 90s GOP, which was fairly moderate compared to todays.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Sinaptics

Do you have any statistics on the amount of liberals or democrats that don't support nuclear power? As a liberal, I've never understood this myself. It's the cheapest, cleanest, most abundant power source available ATM. Sure the cleanup is a bit of a mess, but if done properly, no worries. I always thought it was the hardcore environmentalists that railed against nuclear power. But nobody listens to them anyway.

As for ZimmermanMartin thing, I didn't like the way the police just dismissed it from the outset. I thought there should be a more thorough investigation. I thought Zimmerman's story was questionable on a number of points. That's all. Just more investigation and no white-wash (no pun intended).

Well, then you would be a liberal for whom my examples don't apply.

As I would contend I am not a conservative to which the OP's examples apply.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Gee, what an insightful OP.

Prove it wrong, then. Show us somewhere where your opinion on a political issue has changed due to the revelation of new facts.

Because that's all the OP asserts--that conservatives will not listen to liberals when they present fact after fact--that a conservative just doesn't think that way.

As for me, I think there is a different way people think, but I don't think it clearly lines up with right wing vs. left wing. It's just all about how well you accept things that differ from your preconceived notions--how resistant you are to change. Someone with a "conservative" mindset who grew up with American liberal teachings would cling as much to that ideology.

The fearful thing sure doens't hold up, as I'm fearful but also liberal. I may have thought I was a conservative, but I'm not.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

No one can know who wrote the article or whether or not it was intended as a joke. Hence it proves nothing about whether any group of people are or are not willing to accept facts.

On the contrary, the fact that one can't tell whether it's a joke says a lot.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

IOW, the problem appears to be, not that RWs are not intelligent, but that they won't use their brains to deal with facts, but only to rebel against them and substitute "facts" more to their liking and defend those.

Well.

What can we do about that?!

Wait until they die. A great many people will never change their mind no matter the evidence, and can only be dealt with by enduring them until they die and are replaced by equally inflexible people with a more advanced set of inflexible dogma. Who in turn need to be waited out by the progressives of their generation.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

On the contrary, the fact that one can't tell whether it's a joke says a lot.

Well, I've never before heard of Poe's Law (Conservapedia has something to say about that, too, and it ain't no parody) being manifested in something as elaborate as an alternative theory of physics. Not that this couldn't be the first time.

[BigT]

(Honestly, I think most of the Christian Right Wing are not actually conservative, save for on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.. And my opinions on both of those have changed--I'm moderate on the first, and completely left-wing on the other.)

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by BigT

As for me, I think there is a different way people think, but I don't think it clearly lines up with right wing vs. left wing. It's just all about how well you accept things that differ from your preconceived notions--how resistant you are to change. Someone with a "conservative" mindset who grew up with American liberal teachings would cling as much to that ideology.

That is a good point. Conservative and liberal are relative and ever-changing terms. There are plenty of old school 70's hippie types still around who are remarkably impervious to new facts as well. That applies to holdovers from any philosophy or political orientation including some radical leftist ones yet they are quite 'conservative' by at least one dictionary definition of the term. If there is such an innate mindset, you may just see it more often in older right wing people today because larger numbers of them were raised that way but that doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the different general political orientations in today's terms.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

That is a good point. Conservative and liberal are relative and ever-changing terms.

Well . . . here's a somewhat contrary view from The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge:

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of "conservative" offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are "adverse to rapid change" and "moderate, avoiding extremes." Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. "Conservatism" -- no less than its foes "liberalism" or "communitarianism" -- has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism. Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, "preferred the past to the present and the present to the future."

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke's principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in "schemes and speculations" like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke's last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don't know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right -- unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a "prophet of the past." Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated "clerisy" of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the "silent majority." In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president's son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots -- on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BigT

Prove it wrong, then. Show us somewhere where your opinion on a political issue has changed due to the revelation of new facts.

For my part, I used to be anti-nuke like any good environmentalist, but my brother, who an engineer (and a self-ID'd "radical libertarian") convinced me the plants are safe and clean with today's technology. Which is something I really want to believe, because I don't want every single drop of oil and lump of coal and cubic yard of natural gas remaining in the Earth's crust to be pumped out or dug up and burned to release its CO2 into the atmosphere; nor do I want this wonderful industrial civilization to collapse for lack of a power supply (no, small ain't beautiful); there's got to be a third option. (I might have to re-evaluate yet again in light of Fukushima . . .)

[John Mace]

Here's the thing: Partisans, whatever the slant, are more likely to believe something negative about the other side without examining it critically. We see it here all the time. Studies even back that up:

Link.

A few years ago, an Emory psychologist scanned the brains of self-described partisans. Partisans were able to notice the hypocritical statements of the opposing candidate but not the inconsistencies of their preferred candidate. Ideology, it was determined, showed effects similar to drug addiction.

I'm sure the OP does not need to be reminded of the large number of Democrats who thought Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. If not, it's in the same link. Or, the persistent belief that Citizens United somehow created the idea of corporate personhood. Or that we need to "eliminate corporate personhood". Or that GW Bush had a fake Texas accent.

What the thing RWers have "going" for them is an entire media complex (mainly talk radio) devoted to feeding them misinformation. They believe it because it's what they want to believe, and there are any number of "experts" out there telling them, with an air of authority, any number of falsehoods.

[John DiFool]

An ideology can be blind to its internal contradictions as well as facts. Take the "liberty over equality" thing from post #33's excerpt-well that just says it all right there: if some aren't equal to others, then they lack the freedom that these others enjoy, so it just devolves into "freedom for me, the heck with you" to maintain the facade.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by BigT

Prove it wrong, then. Show us somewhere where your opinion on a political issue has changed due to the revelation of new facts.

Because that's all the OP asserts--that conservatives will not listen to liberals when they present fact after fact--that a conservative just doesn't think that way.

Nope, can't be bothered. An OP that poisons the well like that is unworthy of reasoned response.

[John Mace]

People making assertions around here have to prove themselves right. No one is obligated to prove them wrong.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by silenus

Right Wingers, I'd guess.

Sorry, thought all the Dope would know that.

[BrainGlutton]

Science. In a nationally representative survey—only 18 percent of Republicans and Tea Party members accepted the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by humans, and only 45 and 43 percent (respectively) accepted human evolution.

"Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."

-- Woodrow Wilson, 1922

It's really taking longer than we thought . . .

[Grumman]

You lost me the moment you quoted someone who would ever refer to Conservapedia - a wiki edited by non-Right Wing trolls.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Grumman

You lost me the moment you quoted someone who would ever refer to Conservapedia - a wiki edited by non-Right Wing trolls.

Not "edited."

[PBear42]

Chris Mooney (from the OP): So it is not that Schlafly, or other conservatives as sophisticated as he, can't make an argument. Rather, the problem is that when Schlafly makes an argument, it's hard to believe it has anything to do with real intellectual give and take. He's not arguing out of an openness to changing his mind. He's arguing to reaffirm what he already thinks (his "faith"), to defend the authorities he trusts, and to bolster the beliefs of his compatriots, his tribe, his team.

This is as true of the left as it is of the right. FWIW, I'm on the left.

[Latro]

As an outsider what I observe is that although indeed both sides pick and choose their 'facts' from the big pool, there is one critical difference between conservative and 'liberal'.

The liberal believes his truth to be self-evident and that he can convince the people by showing the facts.

The conservative is far more willing to just simply lie to the people.

If the typification upthread is correct, that conservatives are opposed to equality, the reason or even need to lie becomes self apparent. If you want to get supporters, from those that in fact you despise and have no intention to actually represent, you will need to lie to them.

[New Deal Democrat]

Liberals also deny the importance of facts that conflict with what they want to believe. Through the constraints of political correctness they try to suppress mention of those facts.

I am not letting conservatives off the hook. I am just saying that if someone wants to believe something strongly that person is prone to look for confirmation of the belief, and prone to disregard what challenges the belief.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Liberals also deny the importance of facts that conflict with what they want to believe. Through the constraints of political correctness they try to suppress mention of those facts.

That's true of the politically correct on the extreme left. On the right, you can't shake a stick without hitting a big time reality denier.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by Latro

If the typification upthread is correct, that conservatives are opposed to equality, the reason or even need to lie becomes self apparent. If you want to get supporters, from those that in fact you despise and have no intention to actually represent, you will need to lie to them.

Just to expand a little on that.

I can see 3 types of conservatives;

-Those that play the game (being/becomming the elite; aquire wealth and power).
-Those being played.
-Those that are employed by the players to keep them in power.

[Swords to Plowshares]

Conservapedia is almost entirely the work of one man, Andy Schafly. It shouldn't be extrapolated to make any point about conservatives as a whole.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

That's true of the politically correct on the extreme left. On the right, you can't shake a stick without hitting a big time reality denier.

When Lawrence Summers suggested that women on the average have less mathematical aptitude than men he had to step down as president of Harvard. It is safe to agree with An Inconvenient Truth. It can be dangerous to agree in public with The Bell Curve.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

It can be dangerous to agree in public with The Bell Curve.

Probably because of the mendacity of the original researchers and the thorough debunking given to such a concept by Gould and Lewontin. Not so much to do with being a bien pensant as being intellectually honest. Other researchers have investigated gender differences in mathematics honestly without being castigated.