Dealing with stubbornness in US politics

Politics & Elections
1

Overwhelmingly, the problem in US politics isn’t a lack of education or knowledge (as much as some may argue that it is) - it’s people being stubborn.

Increasingly, voters are hardened and embittered, and no amount of facts or information will budge them out of an entrenched viewpoint. We saw/see this in the pandemic, where all the facts in the world - even many thousands of deaths - won’t budge the antivaxxers and antimaskers out of their stance. The Internet makes everything available at everyone’s fingerprints but it doesn’t unite, everyone just hardens further.

As long as the obstinance (is that a word?) continues, we’re doomed to have a deeper and deeper Red-vs-Blue split that will only worsen. What’s the solution to this intractable stubbornness?

2

I think there are entrenched social institutions which sustain and/or are sustained by the “football team” kind of intense-but-blind loyalty that comprises US politics.

I doubt that it is consciously planned (i.e., I’m not suggesting deliberate conspiracy or anything of that ilk) but when people at the individual level can’t participate (much) in politics, but you still want their fervent support, you have to offer them something to keep them immersed and obsessed. Sports teams keep their fans immersed and obsessed without being truly involved as participants with a lot of cheerleading and pride in Our Team and fomenting a sense of group identity associated with the team and its winnings. Since that same recipe works for political partisanship, and political partisanship means donations and votes, and since our politicians don’t actually want to extend anything akin to participatory democratic involvement to the people who vote for them, that’s what gets embraced.

It doesn’t lead to actually thinking about the issues or solutions to problems or strategies for long-term improvement. It does foment a lot of “Four legs good! Two legs bad!” level of adversarial competitiveness though.

3

Well, this sort of begs the question of whether wings can be considered legs?? (Sorry, had to get that out of my system before I could concentrate.)

I believe the stool that supports this tribalism has three legs and they all have to be addressed. This isn’t a situation where if any one leg fails the stool falls over. There are Seventy-Four Million – or Eighty Million asses on that stool (depending upon which direction you are looking) and all three legs have to falter before the problem collapses.

The first is Trump and his misinformation. He will eventually fade away but that is not happening nearly fast enough and we do not want him to fade away until his crimes and lies are revealed. He has a personal connection with most of these wingnuts and he needs to be proven to be untrustworthy. He cannot just die and solve the problem, that would only delay the problem for a decade or a generation. Courts in America have to examine his lies and call them out. He must be publicly humiliated so even conspiracy theorists can eventually drop the lies and move on. Someone needs to say the king is wearing no clothes so that everyone can say the king wears no clothes.

The second is right wing media and their lies. FOX and Newsmax and OANN need to be called out in public and made to pay for their deceptions. Even some like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirke have to be recognized as untrustworthy. If some of the fire breathing knobs who reach less than 500 people survive that might be okay. But Dominion needs to be paid on camera by Tucker Carlson and Sydney Powell and Laura Ingraham and Mike Lindell. They need to make public service confessions where they admit there was never any evidence and it was all a scam.

The third leg is the highly destructive White Nationalist Churches and the supporting political apparatus which all pretend to be Christian organizations but are strictly political in nature. The Heritage Foundation, The Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Wallbuilders, The Lindsey Family Foundation, and Faith Wins to name a few. I absolutely believe in complete freedom of religion and the right to practice any faith at all, but these organizations are very different. They are used to manufacture fear and limit the information certain people are given to influence them to donate and vote in a certain desired manner and I do not believe it is much different from brain washing. These organizations are the flip side of limiting access to the polls for people of color and others who tend to vote for the Democratic ticket. They actively encourage and court wealthy white voters who tend to vote for Republican candidates and initiatives. They make sure their voters are given every opportunity to vote while limiting the options for opposition populations to vote.

I have mentioned numerous times my friend and her family who get 100% of their news from “Christian” blogs which portray Christianity - - - - hardly at all. (And I know of which I speak, I have attended a Bible College in my youth and been involved in numerous churches and ministries.)

An except:
From 2019 to 2020, the Lindsey Foundation funneled at least $500,000 to a new organization, Faith Wins, intended to mobilize pastors at conservative churches to bring out the pro-Trump Republican vote. Faith Wins is part of a Lindsey-backed coalition called The Church Finds Its Voice. In many respects, the Lindseys’ investment in Faith Wins and The Church Finds Its Voice follows a long-standing pattern in the Christian nationalist movement of backing projects to turn America’s network of tens of thousands of conservative churches into a powerful partisan political machine.

But there is also something novel in the Faith Wins project, and it sheds much light on the direction of the movement in the aftermath of the Trump presidency. Unlike pre-Trump get-out-the-pastors projects, Faith Wins has made concerns about “elections integrity” a central part of the message for its target audience. The pretense is that this is intended to shore up public confidence in elections. The reality is that the group is consciously helping to lay the foundations for the next iteration of the Big Lie. If Trump runs again, and if the Big Lie works next time around in securing him the presidency, Faith Wins and its collaborators will have played a critical role in making it happen.

In summary:

  1. The church needs to go back to its foundation and be a faith first entity that should certainly vote its conscious but stop being a political entity, especially one that peddles lies and frightens people to vote a certain way. Faith is the business of the church- let them focus on that and keep the government separate.
  2. News media needs to return to being news! Programs that only spin for one ideology need to be labeled that way. A disclaimer need to be presented verbally and visually at the top and end of the show and at every station or commercial break:
    NOTE: This program consists of partisan opinion and should not be considered a neutral news source. There is an attempt being made to persuade your views to a particular point of view. I believe Rachel Maddow will need the disclaimer as much as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.
  3. Trump needs to be publicly exposed for his crimes, lies, and lack of character. All of his lies and crimes need to be presented publicly for posterity even if some stubborn voters insist they are all lies in the short term. And of course Trump himself should never be exposed as that would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment for any and all who had to view it.

Lastly, almost all of my friends and family are devout and sincere Christians. I myself have been a believer in the past and hold many tenets of the faith as fundamental in my life (it is so ingrained it is just part of me now despite my lack of faith in the miraculous aspects of it). But if the American church – which is actually a political entity for the most part-- is not checked, we will enter a modern dark ages and generations will suffer for it. I highly encourage everyone to read several of the Katherine Stewart articles available online and if you can, her book The Power Worshipers.

4

Excellent post, my only contention being:

I think this is an unfair equivalence. As much as? Nope. You seriously feel she’s as biased and misrepresentative in her reporting as the other two?

5

If the proposal is for a government mandate requiring such a disclaimer, the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination.

6

Nah, just a network mandate.

7

No, I do not believe she is at the same level as the outright liars on Fox and the other misinformation machines. That being said, she does have an agenda and a point of view that is unfriendly toward Trump and the entire right wing (and yes I agree, what sane person does not). My point is that I want to hold “us” to the same high standard that I want to hold “them” to. Frankly, I do not think Anderson Cooper needs the disclaimer - - but it does occur to me that the reason for that might be my own bias. Still believe Chris Hayes does despite agreeing with him most of the time.

In fact my two favorite journalists would need the disclaimer in my opinion despite me agreeing with them both at every turn. Stephanie Ruhle and Erin Burnett are about as smart and insightful as they make 'em, but they are both progressive and unfailingly opposed to the Orange Menace and all of his minions. They only have opposition voices on their respective shows to beat them over their narrow heads with their own words. I trust either one of them more than my own family-- but they have a bias and we should be honest about it.

(They are also both as lovely as a Spring Morning [despite the fact that they are also both devoted moms and pretty down to earth for being so rich and so in the spotlight and so freaking HOT]. I really try not to objectify them, I really do- and I see them as much, much more than a couple of pretty faces . . . but damn! Would I love to be a news source they both wanted to interview. One at a time a few days apart over a candle lit dinner in a dark place with soft music in the background . . . “more wine my dear?”
No. No one deserves the disclaimer, NEEDS the disclaimer like those on the right wing; Carlson, Ingraham, Hannity and those newer sources I have never seen might have worse. But we cannot set up rules for them without living up to them ourselves. Fortunately, we can do it with little or no change. They would have to revamp reality to live up to being genuine journalists.

How about a viewer mandate??
How about as consumers of “news” we insist there be some good faith effort at telling the truth?

8

The shorter, better version-

Should read:
I believe Rachel Maddow will need the disclaimer as well as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

9

I can’t see any network–FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC, et al. doing that.

10

How come?

11

They don’t seem to have any incentive to do so, unless I’m missing something?

12

ISTM that one major issue is the blurring of lines between “News” and commentary. I believe that this is intentional.

The producers in the media are relying on the idea that most people have an inherent belief that “News” is intended to be factual and generally unbiased. So, they name their networks as x-NEWS-network. This tricks the viewer into sub-consciously categorizing all of the network’s content as “News-ish”.

Whereas many viewers aren’t too sharp on the idea that commentary has a different purpose and may not be entirely factual (although I believe it should not include deliberate falsehood). And so when commentary appears on the x-NEWS-network, the viewer doesn’t make a strong distinction. They will report on surveys that “they get their news from Tucker” or “from Rachel”. One can certainly make valid points about the journalistic integrity comparing those two, but the fact remains that they are both engaged in commentary, rather than hard news.

13

True, I don’t see Fox or OANN or Newsmax having any incentive to do so, considering they lack the reponsibility (or awareness?) to so do.
A weak attempt to equate that to CNN coming in 3…2…1…

14

I disagree. If your analysis was correct, then one side or the other would have “won” by now. The reason that hasn’t happened is because it’s only the right that is entrenched in their voting habits. Those on the left may be entrenched in their views, but not in their voting. If the people running are incumbents who they view as not having done enough for the left wing causes, they will stay home or vote third party. Same for the moderates, who will sometimes vote Republican and other times vote Democratic depending on who is on the ballot. That’s why get the mid-term wave elections that favor the party out of power.

15

Sorry, I don’t get it.

I believe that vaccines, while not perfect, provide a clear a net benefit to both individuals and communities.

I believe that the 2020 election, while not perfect, was the most secure ever.

Regardless of how I feel about his job performance, I believe that Joe Biden is the legitimate President of the United States.

I believe that the January 6th insurrection attempt was performed by right-wing Trump supporters, not left-wing activists or Antifa.

Are you suggesting that these beliefs are rooted in stubbornness?

Are you suggesting that I should be more flexible regarding these beliefs in order to appease people that don’t believe these things?

Or are you just playing the “both sides” card, because you think it’s wrong to disparage a Republican unless you also disparage a Democrat?

16

Uh …

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

– John Adams

So … yes ??

17

You got me.

Reality is a stubborn thing, isn’t it?

18

I really can’t say. I opted out long ago.

To @Velocity

I do think there’s far too much bothsidesism inherent in your OP.

Lots of threads have covered this basic notion, but I think there’s some neurology at work, and I do think it manifests itself more dramatically and more consequentially in the conservative part of the spectrum.

And that is the keyboard study (small PDF) to which I’ve linked before.

“A study by scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found differences in how self-described liberal and conservative research participants responded to changes in patterns. Participants were asked to tap a keyboard when the letter “M” appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a “W.” The letter “M” appeared four times more frequently than “W,” conditioning participants to press the keyboard on almost every trial. Liberal participants made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw the rare “W,” indicating to the researchers that these participants were better able to accept changes or conflicts in established patterns. The participants were also wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in their anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency and a more appropriate response. Liberals were significantly more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts during the experiment, and this correlated with their greater accuracy in the test.”

So while there are probably very provable brain differences that lead to varying degrees of confirmation bias in all of us, I think this one plays a significant role.

I also think a tendency to eschew proof and believe fairly outlandish claims is a bit of a feature in many ‘evangelicals,’ making them easy prey for the cynical.

Then there’s the tendency for no end of cohorts to be easily frightened. Constantly hammering on those fears makes it relatively simple to offer them the promise of succor.

So “stubborn,” IMHO, might well describe a manifestation of much deeper, more primal, and baser instincts. I went into it a bit with this post.

Are there equivalents to be pointed to on/from the Left ? Sure. But degree matters a great deal, and I think it’s nowhere near as bad on the political Left.

19

Many republicans are as nutty as flat earthers.

When a riot that sent 140 to the hospital, got people killed and caused millions in damages is called ‘Legitimate political discourse’, there is not any way facts will reach them.

Is it stubborn to roll your eyes and give up? If they actually WANT legitimate political discourse, they are welcome to bring those discussions forward.

20

What incentive would MSNBC or CNN have? Again, not seeing any reason to do so.