The Republican Brain

by is Mooney

  The point is that conservatism and liberalism alike represents core parts of human nature, and each has many virtues and benefits. That’s why the notion that studying the psychology, neuroscience, or even the genetics of left-right differences will lead to a “new eugenics” is so silly and misinformed. Why would you want to try to breed away character traits that are so vital and beneficial, and such a central part of who we are?

  My current suspicion—though I know the science is inadequate to prove it—is that we probably evolved to have the capacity to be both “conservative,” and also to be “liberal,” because both are really beneficial to us. The problem in modern times, and in the United States today, is that we’ve gotten terribly confused, and put these two sides of ourselves in opposition. Which is disastrous. They need to be operating together, rather than at cross purposes.

  But as I said, I don’t expect conservatives to actually listen to me.

  So instead of telling conservatives how they might fare better—for instance, start heeding reality-based former allies like Bruce Bartlett and David Frum—let me instead tell my fellow liberals how they might. After all, liberals are very open to new ideas and to change—and change is very much what they need.

  So here’s the advice, liberals: You need to be way more conservative. And I don’t mean that a policy sense, but in a psychological one.

  First, liberals need to be more “conservative” whenever conservatives are being unyielding, as they have so often been of late—and indeed, as they are more inclined to be. It simply makes no sense to try to compromise with someone who won’t compromise. It just weakens your negotiating position, especially when it is expected that liberals will be the ones who ultimately flinch in a game of chicken.

  More generally, liberals need to be more “conservative” not in the substance of their ideas, but in how they strive to make them a reality. In politics and in advocacy alike, liberals need to show much more unity, much less fractious dissent and infighting, much more loyalty and shared purpose.

  Take liberals and President Obama. He’s the best hope they’ve got—in fact, the only one. And yet for many, the constant instinct is to find flaws with him; and liberals are vastly less committed to devotedly supporting him than the Tea Party is to attacking him.

  Why? Because they’re liberals. It certainly doesn’t help that some of them can draw more attention to themselves, and stand out from the crowd, by coming up with novel and ingenious ways of bashing a president from their own party.

  But guess what, liberals: Obama needs you right now. He needs your trust, your devotion. You ought to try to show him the same loyalty that conservatives showed George W. Bush, and forget about that little issue where he didn’t do things precisely as you would have liked. You should defer to his judgment, and give him . . . your faith.

  And yes, I am fully aware that it sounds icky. But that’s precisely the point—this is about going against your instincts, instincts that, in this case, impair your effectiveness.

  The same lesson applies across liberal land. Dear environmental groups: Stop fighting amongst yourselves over petty differences. You have vast resources, yet you hardly get the most out of them. You try to let a thousand flowers bloom, and occupy ever more specialized and technocratic niches—and then you wonder why you fail.

  And note: Becoming more unified does not just mean just holding a meeting where all your leaders get together and have long conversations. It means coming up with one unified plan, one singular purpose, and then pushing it as if there was no other choice and everything depends on it. The way conservatives would.

  Here’s the thing, liberals: We have a key advantage over conservatives. We heed reality, and are willing to change. So we can course-correct if we’re going in the wrong direction, and do so based on the best available information.

  In this case, the best information points to an inconvenient truth. It suggests that we have an inherent tendency, which we rarely even recognize, to be politically ineffectual—because we’re too busy differentiating ourselves from one another, highlighting our differences rather than our similarities, lingering in uncertainty rather than being decisive, attacking our own teammates rather than finding common cause, and trying to communicate complicated, nuanced facts rather than clear and motivating messages.

  But because we’re flexible, we can also change this. And in the process, we can stay a step ahead of conservatives.

  Let me suggest that we start conquering this not-always-advantageous side of our natures right away—though we should probably share a few drinks first. That would definitely help make us more unified.

  Conservatives and liberals aren’t the only ones who ought to heed the research described in these pages. So should two other broadly liberal groups: Journalists and fact checkers on the one hand, and what I’ll call “liberal contrarians” on the other.

  Journalists and fact checkers: You need to take seriously the notion that what appears to be true might be just that. Republicans today really are more doggedly misinformed about politics and economics (tax policy, healthcare reform), about science (evolution, global warming), and so on. Indeed, there is a very good reason for this; and not a reason that is demeaning, or relies on the dubious assertion that that Republicans are somehow bad people, or less intelligent.

  No: Perhaps they respond differently to information than do liberals—thanks to different psychologies, different media channels, or some combination of these and other factors. Perhaps they cling more strongly to wrong beliefs, out of deference to authority, unity with the group, and simple searching for closure. Perhaps they need to do so.

  This book takes seriously the idea—increasingly difficult to deny—that in the aggregate, Republicans and Democrats really think about facts, about reality itself, differently. And it has sought to explain how such a misadventure could come about, drawing on the best scientific tools available to aid in such an account.

  Because after all, if this idea of differential approaches to reality is true, then that really matters. It has dramatic consequences for policy; but perhaps even more momentous implications still for the tone and the assumptions we bring into political “debates.” In particular, an “on the one hand, on the other hand” approach to journalism and the adjudicating of facts may simply be intellectually irresponsible. It may be just a ruse to go about this in a bipartisan way, if one side is getting it wrong all the time and the other is not.

  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.

  An
d 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)