The Republican Brain

by is Mooney

  By this point the book’s central argument will be established, and Part IV summarizes where that leaves us. Here I will show that while liberals aren’t always right, conservatives are vastly more wrong today about science and the facts in general—and, to give two case studies, economics and American history. And given motivated reasoning, liberal-conservative differences, selective exposure, and the growth of right-wing counterexpertise and today’s fractured media, we can begin to understand why. In fact, the truly monumental state of conservative wrongness about the facts is itself powerful evidence that my combined psychological and environmental interpretation has something going for it.

  At the close of Part IV, I’ll weigh potential counterarguments. To that end, I’ll examine three prominent issues where liberals, it is alleged, tend to be more wrong about science and the facts than conservatives—natural gas extraction using an increasingly controversial (although not particularly new) technology called “fracking,” the safety of nuclear power, and the nonexistent relationship between childhood vaccines and autism. Here I’ll show that, although some liberals (or occupants of the political left) do seem to err seriously on these issues—and not surprisingly, for these issues push particular buttons that make liberals emotional and biased—there’s something else going on, too, that makes the outcome very different from leading cases of conservative denial of the facts.

  Part V then presents something fairly novel in a journalistic work like this one—a new psychology experiment. Here, I’ll describe how I collaborated with a political scientist named Everett Young to test whether conservatives and liberals differ in their basic tendency to engage in motivated reasoning—a hypothesis implied by the well-known differences between liberals and conservatives, but not yet proven. And what did we find? You may be surprised—we certainly were.

  Finally, the conclusion explains what we must do in light of what science is beginning to reveal about our political psychology, and indeed, our biopolitics.

  Notes

  1 285 million page views As of September 15, 2011. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics.

  1 BCE . . . rather than B.C. Stephanie Simon, “A Conservative’s Answer to Wikipedia,” Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2007.

  1 “It’s impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral” National Public Radio, “Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Liberal Feather?” March 13, 2007. Available online at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084.

  1 37,000 plus pages of content As of September 15, 2011. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics.

  1 wrongly claiming Conservapedia, “Causes of Homosexuality,” accessed September 16, 2011. See http://conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Homosexuality.

  1 contrary to psychological consensus American Psychological Association, “Sexual orientation and homosexuality,” noting, “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation”; “lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology”; and “To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.” See http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx.

  1 incorrectly asserting Conservapedia, “Abortion Breast Cancer Studies,” accessed September 16, 2011. See http://conservapedia.com/Abortion_breast_cancer_studies.

  1 contrary to medical consensus National Cancer Institute, “Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk” fact sheet, noting, “having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” Available online at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage.

  2 theory of relativity Conservapedia, “Theory of Relativity,” accessed September 15, 2011. http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity. The page has been edited since the author first accessed it, and may be edited again. Screenshots were saved.

  2 a long webpage of “counterexamples” Conservapedia, “Counterexamples to Relativity,” Accessed September 15, 2011, http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity.

  2 “continues to read the Bible” Conservapedia, “Counterexamples to Relativity.”

  2 “action-at-a-distance by Jesus” Conservapedia, “Counterexamples to Relativity.”

  2 GPS devices . . . PET scans and particle accelerators Chad Orzel, How to Teach Relativity to Your Dog, New York: Basic Books, 2012.

  2 more . . . Bible references were added As of August 2010, when many blogs were refuting Conservapedia’s claims about relativity, 24 “counterexamples” were cited. As of September 15, 2011, there were 36.

  3 different approach to editing than Wikipedia Interview with former Conservapedia contributor Trent Toulouse, September 24, 2011.

  3 “We’ve got our own way to express knowledge” Conservapedia video uploaded to YouTube, May 29, 2008, accessed September 15, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxMYstiV74. The video is also available via People for the American Way’s “Right Wing Watch” at http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/conservative-way-knowing.

  5 Many conservatives believe President Obama is a Muslim Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim,” August 19, 2010, noting, “Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim.” Available online at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious.

  5 “not clear” whether he had been born in the United States Project on International Policy Attitudes, “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” December 2010. Available online at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf.

  5 Manchurian candidate David Kupelian, “Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate,” WorldNetDaily.com, October 29, 2008, available online at http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=79411. See also the book, The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists, and Other Anti-American Extremists, by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, 2010, WorldNetDaily Books.

  5 “government takeover of health care” On this see David Corn, “Why the White House Couldn’t Fight the ‘Obamacare’ Lie,” Mother Jones, May/June 2011, available online at http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/frank-luntz-obamacare-lie.

  5 “death panels” Brendan Nyhan, “Why the ‘Death Panel’ Myth Wouldn’t Die: Misinformation in the Healthcare Reform Debate,” The Forum, Volume 8, Issue 1, available online at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/health-care-misinformation.pdf.

  5 increase the federal budget deficit Project on International Policy Attitudes, “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” December 2010. Available online at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf.

  5 subsidize abortions and the health care of illegal immigrants High levels of belief in these claims by Fox News viewers was documented in an NBC survey conducted from August 15–17 2009. For survey methodology and questions see http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf. For a summary of findings, see “First Thoughts: Obama’s good, bad news,” MSNBC.com, August 19, 2009, available online at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf.

  5 having an abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer National Cancer Institute, “Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk” Fact Sheet, noting, “having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” Available online at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage.

  5 mental disorders Trine Munke-Olsen et al, “Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder,” New England Journal of Medicine, January 27, 2011, Vol. 364: No. 4, 332–9, noting, “The finding that the incidence rate of psychiatric contact was similar before and after a first-trimester abortion does no
t support the hypothesis that there is an increased risk of mental disorders after a first-trimester induced abortion.”

  5 fetuses can perceive pain Susan J. Lee et al, “Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence,” Journal of the American Medical Association, August 24/31, 2005, Vol. 294, No. 8, 947–954, noting, “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” Available online at http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full.pdf+html.

  5 same-sex parenting is bad for kids American Psychological Association, Research Summary on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, noting “the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.” See http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx.

  5 homosexuality is a disorder American Psychological Association, “Sexual orientation and homosexuality,” noting, “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation”; “lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology”; and “To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.” See http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx.

  6 Fox news viewers Project on International Policy Attitudes, “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War,” October 2003. Available online at http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf.

  6 37 percent of authoritarians Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in America Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 45.

  6 stimulus bill didn’t create many jobs Project on International Policy Attitudes, “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” December 2010. Available online at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf.

  6 trip to India FactCheck.org, “Trip to Mumbai,” November 3, 2010. Available online at http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai. See also Snopes.com, http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp.

  6 Congress banned incandescent light bulbs PolitiFact, “Banned light bulbs? Is the government saying no to incandescents?” May 24, 2011, available online at http://www.PolitiFact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/24/government-banning-incandescent-light-bulbs.

  6 only 18 percent of Republicans and Tea Party members Public Religion Research Institute/Religion News Survey, “Climate Change and Evolution in the 2012 Elections.” Available online at http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/09/climate-change-evolution-2012/.

  Part One

  Politics, Facts, and Brains

  Prelude

  Liberal Fresco on a Prison Wall

  Seven years ago I published a book called The Republican War on Science. It was all about how the political right was wrong, and attacking reality on issues where the evidence was incontrovertible—climate change, evolution, stem cells, contraception, the health risks of abortion, and on and on and on.

  The book certainly got noticed. It made the New York Times bestseller list. It generated volumes of discussion, and even an entire book dedicated to discussing its arguments.

  Changing minds on the other side of the aisle, though? Not so much.

  I don’t think I fully realized, at the time, that I was following a script written long before. I was dreaming a dream of how it ought to work when false claims are aired, espoused, or defended for any reason, political or otherwise.

  The dream was that the power of human reason would eventually stamp out lies, prejudices, and falsehoods, delivering a truly enlightened society. It would be a society in which ideologically driven misinformation would gradually decline or disappear, vanquished and chased from the public sphere by rational arguments (like mine). It would be a society in which everybody could agree on the core facts about the world, especially those that matter to public policy and the future.

  It was only years later that I learned about the man who, perhaps more movingly than any other, had shouted this liberal, scientific vision from the rooftops. His name was the Marquis de Condorcet, and he was the single greatest champion of human reason during a time when human passion proved far more powerful: The French Revolution.

  I want to begin these pages with his story, because nothing better demonstrates how moving—and yet also how tragically flawed—such a vision turned out to be.

  Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas Cariat, the Marquis de Condorcet, was born in 1743 into the French penny aristocracy. His family held a title, but not any wealth. His father, a soldier, died just after he was born. His mother, devoutly religious, dressed him like a girl; soon he was off to study under the Jesuits, whose dogmatism he righteously hated.

  No wonder he would turn from it all, rebel, and pursue a life of science and reason.

  Moving to Paris, Condorcet blasted to the top of French science with an early study on integral calculus. He would eventually become permanent secretary of the French Académie des Sciences, and a round denouncer of religion and superstition in all its forms—a flagrant atheist of the sort that it had only recently become possible to be.

  His contemporaries described him in paradoxes: the “rabid sheep,” the “volcano covered with snow.” In person, he was shy and inarticulate, as well as sickly and unhealthy. Yet he could explode with passion when inspired by ideas.

  As he ascended in Enlightenment circles, Condorcet got to know luminaries like Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Tom Paine. But he embarked on an intellectual quest perhaps more ambitious than any of theirs, seeking nothing less than to derive a “science of society.” Condorcet’s motto was “social mathematics,” and his creed probability. We can’t know much with certainty, he reasoned, but for many things we can at least know their likelihood—a fact with vast political implications.

  Applying such principles would make government more enlightened, scientific.

  As the revolutionary period neared—and the political distinctions of “left” and “right” were first defined, based upon whether or not one wanted to overthrow France’s ancien regime—Condorcet got to test his ideas. He was elected to the newly formed Legislative Assembly in 1791 and became its president. He was also elected to the 1792 Convention, the new republic’s first governing body, and served as its vice president.

  Yet in this maelstrom, reason did not prevail—and neither did Condorcet. He wasn’t a very good politician; certainly, he was no straight-arrow decider like George W. Bush.

  Instead he was a man of too much nuance at a time of too strong passions, and before long he fell on the wrong side. Condorcet’s allies, the moderate Girondists, were thrust out of the convention on June 2, 1793. Condorcet had played a central role in drawing up a constitution for the new republic, based on his probabilistic principles. But it was tainted with the perception of Girondism, and the Convention ultimately rammed through an alternative, Jacobin constitution instead.

  And here was Condorcet’s fatal mistake—he couldn’t keep silent. He had to stand up for reason and argue back. So he circulated an anonymous pamphlet blasting this constitution, but his identity was exposed and the Jacobins called for his arrest. He escaped, went into hiding, and started writing his greatest work, the Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind.

  Condorcet would have been laboring over it as his Girondin friends were guillotined, and when he himself was condemned to death for conspiring against the Republic. The Sketch’s greatness thus derives not solely from its contents, but also from its unique character as an unfolding nonfiction tragedy. It’s the literary equivalent, wrote the famed anthropologist James George Frazer, of a “great fresco on a prison wall.”

  After reading Condorcet, you can n
ever think about “reason” in the same way again.

  Condorcet’s Sketch is the most powerful work of nonfiction I’ve read. In 2009 while a visiting associate at Princeton University, I was first introduced to photocopied excerpts of the work—but that just wasn’t enough.

  So I paid nearly $100 on Amazon for my own copy. I can’t think of a book that moves me more; but then, I’m a liberal who cares about science and ensuring a more enlightened society. I would love it, wouldn’t I?

  But Condorcet’s vision doesn’t just stir me—it saddens me deeply. Reading Condorcet is like dousing liberal-scientific assumptions about human rationality in what Ted Koppel once called an “acid bath of truth.”

  Condorcet began at the dawn of humanity with “man” in a “state of nature.” He then showed how humanity had proceeded to elevate itself to an apotheosis of reason that has no boundary, save the “absolute perfection of the human race.” The “perfectibility of man is truly indefinite,” Condorcet claimed—meaning that “truth alone will obtain a lasting victory.”

  Granted, there would be some setbacks along the way. In Condorcet’s narrative, the enemies of progress are always the same two baddies: dictators and priests—and especially Christianity. He didn’t call his much despised strongmen and holy men “conservatives”—but of course, that’s who they often were.

  The good guys in the story, meanwhile, are science and its heroes—Copernicus, Galileo, and so on; let us call them the “liberals”—and a series of great innovations: the alphabet, the printing press, global trade and the 16th- and 17th-century voyages of discovery. And they, ultimately, are the winners of the grand pageant of history.

  In Condorcet’s account, free inquiry and critical thinking—“that spirit of doubt which submits facts and proofs to severe rational scrutiny”—must prove unstoppable. It’s virtually a law of nature. In the long run, our better faculties will enable not only the expansion of human reason, but the creation of political systems based upon universal human rights, social contracts, majority rule, and so on—precisely the sort of constitution Condorcet tried to enshrine in France as the terror descended.