What is the name of this logical fallacy

The fallacy where you have a pre-existing ideology and when presented with a problem you find a way to convince yourself that the problem exists because of deviations from your ideology and that the solution is to have more of the ideology.
For example people on the left prefer government intervention and oppose private plutocracy, people on the right oppose public intervention. So when the problems with our health care system come up (unaffordable, unreliable, etc) people on the left assume it is because of private greed and lack of regulation and the solution is a single payer system while people on the right assume it is because of public meddling and the solution is more free market interventions.

Or on the subject of crime people with strong religious beliefs may say the problem is lack of religion in public and the solution is a more religious life.
Basically you find a way to convince yourself that problems and solutions can fit into and be used to promote your pre-existing ideology rather than address or investigate problems on their merits. What is that fallacy called?

I would call it a form of Confirmation Bias.

It could be affirming the consequent. If A then B. B, therefore A.

The government causes inefficiencies. There are inefficiencies, therefore they are caused by the government.

I am reminded of Maslow’s Hammer, along the lines of:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins looking like a nail.

And similarly, from Abraham Kaplan, I think:
I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.

See here for a Wikipedia discussion of the Law of the Instrument.
“The sentiment that people look for cure-alls, and over-use familiar tools, is likely traditional; see panacea. Likewise, the use of a hammer and nail as imagery are likely as old as hammers and nails, or even the use of rocks as tools, which the hammer evokes.”


It is a self-sealing argument. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CnZy_8F3NG4J:www.csub.edu/~jkegley/phil102/documents/AdHominem.ppt+self+sealing+argument&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a has a bunch of definitions of fallacies.

Historian Barbara Tuchman, in her book The March of Folly, simply referred to it as “wooden-headedness”: rejecting all evidence that your theories could be wrong, and regarding all problems as the result of the insuffcient application of the “correct” answer. An especial example of this principle is high-handedness- responding to smoldering resentment with counter-productive crackdowns. Tuchman mentions the Biblical example of Rehoboam and the British response to the grievances of the American colonies.

Choosing only to see (or look for) evidence that supports your initial opinion, and not to see (or look for) any contrary reasoning or evidence, is Confirmation Bias. (The way I like to summarise this is that a chessboard only has white squares, if you’re selective enough.)

When searching online, you might also like to look at ‘belief perseverance’ or ‘belief persistence’, terms used to describe the fact that people have a strong tendency to stick to their Day 1 opinion, even when faced with new evidence that should lead to revision or re-assessment.

A term I also use sometimes when lecturing on these kinds of subjects is ‘intellectual / mental inertia’, although this isn’t a term used in psychology textbooks. It simply refers to the fact that people tend to stick to what they already think and believe because this is the easy option, whereas re-evaluating a position involves work and effort.