The Republican Brain (49 page)

So here's an idea: Let's give up on this silly notion of media “balance.” Let's acknowledge upfront that Fox is a misinformation machine. Let's stop pretending that Jon Stewart is as misleading as the station he loves to criticize, or that a half-Pinocchio statement by President Obama is equivalent to the latest rewriting of history by Sarah Palin.

And—this will be the hardest of all—let's cover our politics in a psychologically informed way. When we see liberals acting incoherent and disorganized (e.g., Occupy Wall Street), let's remark on why that is. When we see conservatives exhibiting authoritarian responses and applauding the death penalty and executions, let's explain why
that
is.

And now, let me turn to the liberal contrarians. You know who you are. I'm talking about people who are not actually conservative, but really
enjoy
puckishly attacking their fellow liberals all the time.

Their behavior, ironically, is itself a psychologically liberal one, and a part of the Open personality. Liberal contrarians want to be noticed. They want to be seen as different. So they try to make waves.

I'll acknowledge that this can be a fun game sometimes, and it's one I've played myself. But when it comes to the modern politicized denial of reality by conservatives, it is long past time for liberal contrarians to stop claiming that somehow the two sides are equal, a “pox on both their houses,” and so on. The evidence just doesn't support it. Not remotely. Liberal contrarians can be allowed a measure of dilettantism, but at some point, they too must cop to reality.

And as for
defending
reality itself? That's the trickiest thing of all.

As I've suggested, refuting conservative falsehoods does only limited good. There are more than enough conservative intellectuals out there to stand up “refute” the refutations, leading to endless, fruitless arguments. And for the general public, those unconvinced or undecided, sound and fury over technical matters is off-putting, and leaves behind the impression that nobody knows what is actually true.

Rather, liberals and scientists should find some key facts—the best facts—and integrate them into stories that
move
people. A data dump is worse than pointless; it's counterproductive. But a narrative can change heart and mind alike.

And here, again, is where you really have to admire conservatives. Their narrative of the founding of the country, which casts the U.S. as a “Christian nation” and themselves as the Tea Party, is a powerful story that perfectly matches their values. It just happens to be . . . wrong. But liberals will never defeat it factually—they have to tell a
better
story of their own.

The same goes for any number of other issues where conservative misinformation has become so dominant. Again and again, liberals have the impulse to shout back what's
true
. Instead, they need to shout back what
matters
.

The book you've just read represents a year of work by an anti-authoritarian, need for cognition, Open and Conscientious liberal. In it, I've made a large number of factual and interpretive claims. The unavoidable question—given motivated reasoning—is,
how do I know I'm right?

The best answer I can give is the following: Because I'm willing to be wrong. Because my beliefs are tentative, and because I understand and respect uncertainty, scientific and otherwise.

Indeed, not only am I willing to be wrong about anything in this book: I'm sure I
am
wrong about something somewhere. In fact, I modified my own views in the course of this project, thanks to Everett Young. Our experiment forced me to question whether there are really across the board motivated reasoning differences in liberals and conservatives, at least of a sort that extend beyond politics.

So do
I
engage in motivated reasoning? Of course. It would be foolish, naïve, and hubristic to claim some sort of unique exemption from human nature.

But I have also checked my facts and interpretations repeatedly, strived for accuracy, and familiarized myself with the most serious counterarguments that I am aware of and could find. And still, this is where I stand:

• Liberals and conservatives are different, in ways that can be measured and that really matter;
  
• This has everything to do with our divide over reality and the facts (where it helps to explain why liberals tend to be right);
  
• Accepting this reality has monumental implications for how we conduct political debates and, indeed, for the future of our perilously divided country.
  

Am I wrong about any of this? If so, you will have to show me where. I will strive to listen.

In conclusion, then: I am a liberal, self-described, self-examined, and hopefully self-aware. I am willing to update my beliefs and to change—and I see this willingness as a virtue, a characteristic I strive to possess.

In the end, then, the best I can say is this:

I
believe
that I am right, but I
know
that I could be wrong. Truth is something that I am driven to search for. Nuance is something I can handle. And uncertainty is something I know I'll never fully dispel.

Notes

261
“automatic selective attention for negative stimuli”
Luciana Carrago et al, “Automatic Conservatives: Ideology-Based Attentional Asymmetries in the Processing of Valenced Information,”
PLoS One
, Vol. 6, No. 11, November 9, 2011. Available online at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212508/
.

262
rapidly attacked
Chris Mooney, “Conservatives Attack and Misunderstand a Book They Haven't Read . . . a Book About Flawed Conservative Reasoning,” November 10, 2011. Available online at
http://www.desmogblog.com/conservatives-attack-and-misunderstand-book-they-haven-t-read-book-about-flawed-conservative-reasoning
.

262
Anthony Watts
Chris Mooney, “Anthony Watts and Defensive Reasoning: Three Episodes,” November 16, 2011. Available online at
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts-and-defensive-reasoning-three-episodes
.

Acknowledgments

Writing this book has been an intense odyssey. It occurred during a year in which I visited four continents, produced a bi-weekly podcast, blogged endlessly and trained a thousand scientists to communicate. So obviously, I could not have done this alone.

Without many conversations with Everett Young, this book probably would never have come to exist—certainly not in this form. The deep effort and insight that he poured into our research was stunning, and I learned a vast amount as his understudy—about political science, statistics, and above all the importance of creativity in the conduct of science.

In addition to Everett, I also want to deeply thank Chris Weber, Cassie Black, and the Media Effects Lab at Louisiana State University for letting us study our idea and use their student participant pool. And thanks to the 144 students who sat through an hour-long survey. Obviously, no one is responsible for the interpretation of our findings other than ourselves.

I also profited immensely from conversations and many online exchanges with Andrea Kuszeweski, particularly when it came to the subject of the political brain. Her brilliant blog post, “Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives,” was a revelation and inspiration.

Many others commented on this book in various stages of completion and offered valuable suggestions—which were usually heeded. I want to thank Jocie Fong, Riley Dunlap, Andrea Kuszewski, Everett Young, Jon Winsor, John Quiggin, Reece Rushing, and Sally Mooney, my mother, for help in this capacity. And also someone who will go unmentioned—you know who you are.

I also had wonderful research assistance. Aviva Meyer designed the study of the
Washington Post
fact checker reported in chapter 9, did an impressive job handling the data and statistics. Her contribution to the book was immense. Gretchen Tanner Goldman played a similarly vital role in making sure I correctly described the statistics for a number of studies discussed in these pages. I could not have done it without her.

Many others pitched in, too. Sylvia S. Tognetti designed a study that we could not complete in time, of
FactCheck.org
, but she did immense work on it and I hope to say more about its results elsewhere. Melanie Langer pitched in on this study as well, as did Aviva Meyer.

I also had valuable research help from Chris Winter and Christine Shearer.

I had many chances to publicly air some of the ideas contained in this book prior to its ultimate completion, which greatly aided in my thinking. Earlier versions of portions of this book appeared in
Mother Jones
,
The American Prospect
, and
Scientific American
, and I'd like to thank Clara Jeffery, Harold Meyerson, and Mark Fischetti for their editorial guidance and for working with me. I would also like to thank DeSmogBlog and Brendan DeMelle for providing me with a forum to air many of the ideas in this book as they developed over the course of 2011—and Adam Isaac, my producer at Point of Inquiry, where a number of our shows took up aspects of the subject matter as well.

I'd also like to give a shout out to Eric Schulze and Thirst DC, which allowed me to develop some of these ideas as lectures—with a beer in my hand! And Tryst coffeeshop in D.C.—where I wrote yet another chai-fueled book.

And I want to thank a dedicated crew of friends who helped me stay sane in the buildup to this project and throughout its execution—you know who you are.

Finally, I want to thank my editor, Eric Nelson of Wiley, who knew I had another book in me as good as
The Republican War on Science
—and my agent, Sydelle Kramer, who has always stood by me with the soundest advice and support.

In the course of researching this book, I came across a quotation that has often been with me as I worked. The words are from Thomas Carlyle, describing the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau—a character, says psychologist Robert McCrae, who perfectly epitomizes the Open personality in all its passionate intensity. Of Rousseau, Carlyle said this:

He could be cooped into garrets, laughed at as a maniac, left to starve like a wild-beast in his cage;—but he could not be hindered from setting the world on fire.

This book is dedicated to that unquenchable liberal spirit that will never, ever stop pushing us to be different and better than we currently are.

Index

ABC

abortion

falsehoods about

integrative complexity and

reality gap and

Roe v. Wade

selective exposure and

academia

expertise gap and

Openness to Experience and

rise of “New Right” and

See also
individual names of academic institutions

accuracy motivations

Adams, John Quincy

adaptation

adolescence, pseudo-evidence and

Advanced Pain Centers

affect

Agnew, Spiro

Agreeableness, OCEAN and

AIDS, political conversion and

Ailes, Roger

alcohol, political conversion and

Altemeyer, Robert

ambiguity tolerance

America: To Pray? or Not to Pray?
(Barton)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

“American culture war of fact”

American Enterprise Association

American Enterprise Institute

American history.
See
U.S. history

American Prospect, The

American Psychological Association

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

American Revolution

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Tax Reform

American University

Amodio, David

“amydala theory” of conservatism.
See also
neuropolitics

anterior cingulated cortex (ACC)

anti-Federalists

argumentative theory of reason

asymmetry thesis

authoritarianism

authoritarian conservatism, defined

authoritarian personality

heuristic reasoning and

rise of “New Right” and

selective exposure and

Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
(Hetherington, Weiler)

Bachmann, Michele

backfire effect

economics and

measuring ideology and (
See also
Louisiana State University study)

personality and

Bacon, Francis

Barker, David

Barnett Shale

Bartlett, Bruce

on economic conservatism

political conversion of

Barton, David

BBC

belief systems

cognitive dissonance and

media and rise of “New Right”

motivated reasoning and

rise of “New Right” and

See also
conservatism; liberalism

Believing Brain, The
(Shermer)

Bernanke, Ben

bias

of Fox News reporting (
See also
selective exposure)

morality and in-group bias

motivated reasoning and

“smart idiots” effect and

See also
motivated reasoning

“Big Five” personality traits

Bipartisan Policy Center

“Birthers”

Bloom, Paul

“blue” states

personality and

rise of “New Right” and

Boehner, John

brain

amygdala

evolution and

fetal pain and

neuropolitics

primacy of affect and

See also
motivated reasoning; neuropolitics

Brooklyn College

Brown, Lewis H.

Buckley, William F., Jr.

God and Man at Yale

National Review
and

political conversion and

rise of “New Right” and

Burke, Edmund

Bush, George H. W.

Bush, George W.

change and

economic conservatism and

economic falsehoods and

“environmental explanation” and

Frum and

motivated reasoning and

political conversion and

rise of “New Right” and

U.S. history and

by-product

bystanders

Caldicott, Helen

carbon dioxide.
See
global warming

career choice, expertise gap and

Carney, Dana

Cato Institute

CBS

cementing, fracking and

Center for American Progress

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

centrists.
See also
independents

Chait, Jonathan

Chamberlain, Neville

change

“change brains”

morality and expertise gap

resistance to

character traits, of conservatism.
See also
personality

Cheney, Dick

Cheney, Lynne

Chernobyl (Soviet Union)

children

adolescence and pseudo-evidence

politics of

same-sex marriage and

vaccines and autism

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

Christianity

Condorcet on

separation of church and state

U.S. history and misinformation (
See also
U.S. history)

See also
religion

Christian Right

Conservapedia
and Andrew Schlafly

Frum on

fundamentalism and personality

“New Right” and Phyllis Schlafly

reality gap and

rise of

U.S. history and misinformation

WallBuilders

See also
religion; U.S. history;
individual issues

Churchill, Winston

Citizens for Tax Justice

civil liberties

climate change.
See
global warming

“ClimateGate”

Clinton, Bill

closed mindedness.
See
cognitive closure

closure.
See
cognitive closure

CNN

cognition

cognitive dissonance theory

cognitive load

cultural cognition model

See also
brain

cognitive closure

Columbia University

Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives

communism

leftist regimes of

personality and politics

rise of “New Right” and

communitarians

Condorcet, Marquis de (Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas Cariat)

confirmation bias

conflict monitoring

Congressional Budget Office

Conscientiousness, OCEAN and

consequentialism

Conservapedia

conservatism

authoritarian

Bartlett on “conserving”

centrists, independents, and

change and

compromise and reality

Condorcet and

as core political ideology

cultural cognition model and

defined

economic
vs.
social (
See also
economic conservatism)

ideology of

leftist regimes and

liberal ideology and

motivated reasoning and

political conversion and

reading time and (
See also
Louisiana State University study)

self-reported

“team” affiliation and

See also
morality; motivated reasoning; “New Right”; personality; selective exposure

consilience of evidence

contraception, reality gap and

conversion, political

Cornell University

cortex

Cosmides, Leda

Coulter, Ann

Council of Economic Advisors

“creation science”

Critchlow, Donald T.

cultural cognition model

curiosity.
See
Openness to Experience

Danbury Baptists

Dartmouth University

Darwin, Charles

Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR)

“death panels”

falsehoods about

motivated reasoning and

reality gap and

selective exposure and

death penalty

debt ceiling crisis (2011)

decisiveness, motivated reasoning and

defensive goals, selective exposure and

Democratic Party

backfire effect and

expertise gap and

selective exposure and global warming (
See also
selective exposure)

selective exposure and motivated reasoning

“smart idiots” effect and

“Southern Democrats”

two-party system and

See also
liberalism; motivated reasoning; reality gap

DeSmogBlog.com

determinism

DeWitt, John L.

Dickens, Charles

disaffecteds

disconfirmation bias

Discovery Institute

Dissent

Ditto, Peter

Dobbs, Michael

DRD4 (gene)

Drudge Report

Duke University

Eagle Forum

economic conservatism

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and

backfire effect and

debt ceiling crisis (2011) and

falsehoods about economics

Federal Reserve and

ideology and

individualists and

Medicare Part D and

quantitative easing (QE2) and

social conservatism
vs.

supply side economics and

education level, motivated reasoning and.
See also
academia; schools

egalitarian-communitarians

Eidelman, Scott

Einstein, Albert

Eisenhower, Dwight

Ellison, Harlan

Emanuel, Kerry

Emory University

empathy

Engelder, Terry

Enlightenment

Condorcet and

values

Enron

“environmental explanation”

ideology and

“nature
vs.
nurture”

political psychology and

reality and

rise of “New Right” (
See also
Republican Party)

selective exposure and media proliferation

Environmental Protection Agency

epigenetics

epistemic closure

equality, resistance to

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Europe, debt problems of (2011-2012)

evolution

of brain

“creation science”

falsehoods about science

neuropolitics and

“Project Steve”

evolutionary psychology

expertise

expertise gap

motivated reasoning and

rise of “New Right” and

extremism.
See also
Christian Right; ideology; “New Right”

“Fact-Checker”
(Washington Post)

fact checking.
See also
reality gap; selective exposure

Fairness Doctrine

family, as metaphor

fear

neuropolitics and

political conversion and

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Federal Reserve

Feeney, Tom

Feldman, Lauren

Festinger, Leon

“fetal pain” bills

First Amendment

Firth, Colin

Fisher, Kevin

Flanders, conservatism and

flowback water, fracking and

“Founding Fathers.”
See
U.S. history

Fowler, James

Fox, Josh

Fox, Timothy Davies

Fox News

fact checking and

on global warming

motivated reasoning and

selective exposure and

fracking

claims about

consilience of evidence and

defined

research on

France

Age of Reason

French Académie des Sciences

French Revolution

Frazer, James George

Friedan, Betty

Friedman, Milton

Frum, David

Fukushima Daiichi (Japan)

fundamental attribution error

fundamentalism, personality and.
See also
Christian Right

Galileo

gas drilling.
See
fracking

Gasland
(Fox)

gay rights

motivated reasoning

reality gap and

Geithner, Timothy

genetics, neuropolitics and

George Mason University

George Washington University

Georgia State

Gerber, Alan

Gingrich, Newt

Girondists

Glaser, Jack

global warming

falsehoods about science

in Louisiana State University study

motivated reasoning and

personality and

reality gap and

rise of “New Right” and

selective exposure and

“smart idiots” effect and

goalpost shifting

God and Man at Yale
(Buckley)

Goldberg, Jonah

Goldwater, Barry

“Go-No Go” task

Goodman, Amy

Google Scholar

Gore, Al

Gorody, Anthony

Great Expectations
(Dickens)

Green, Kenneth

Griffith University (Australia)

Grissom, Thomas

Gross, Neil

“Ground Zero Mosque,” selective exposure and

groups

argumentative theory of reason

morality and in-group bias

motivated reasoning and

Haidt, Jonathan

Halliburton

Hannity, Sean

Hart, William

Harvard University

Hatch, Orrin

Hatemi, Peter

health care

economic conservatism and

falsehoods about

motivated reasoning and

reality gap and

selective exposure and

Henry, Patrick

“herd immunity”

Heritage Foundation

Hetherington, Marc

heuristic reasoning, authoritarianism and

Hibbing, John

Hicks, Josh

hierarchical-individuals

historical method

history, U.S.
See
U.S. history

Hitchens, Christopher

Hofstetter, C. Richard

Holdren, John

Holocaust denial

House of Commons (Britain)

Huckabee, Mike