The Believing Brain - Michael Shermer [126]
The political commentators who are more difficult to predict are the ones who do not just toe the party line but seem willing to break the ideological pattern in response to new data or a better theory. An example is Dennis Praeger, perhaps owing to his extensive training in the rabbinical style of thought in which each moral issue is to be weighed carefully, debated extensively, and thought through deeply. Of course, this more nuanced style may not appeal to as many listeners, and Praeger’s show does lag behind the more black-and-white conservative talk shows in the ratings. Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens are also difficult to predict, but I attribute this to the fact that both are closer to being libertarian—socially liberal and economically conservative. Not placing yourself squarely in the middle of an ideological pattern makes it easier to break out of that pattern (and thus be more unpredictable). On the openly libertarian front, John Stossel is very predictable, but since he echoes many of my own ideological beliefs I tend not to notice the bias.
And that’s the point. It’s not that any of these social commentators (or many others—the specific examples are not important) are not original thinkers in and of themselves, or that they are not intelligent, educated, and live by the courage of their convictions (they are all of these things and more); it is that when you strap on an ideological belief you slot yourself into a set pattern of specific positions within that belief and parrot those back to your social group—the audience, in the case of public intellectuals—who listen mostly in order to have their own ideological beliefs bolstered.
Partisan Hearts and Political Minds
In their book Partisan Hearts and Minds, political scientists Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler demonstrated that most people do not select a political party because it reflects their views; instead, they first identify with a political position, usually inherited from their parents, peer groups, or upbringing. Once they have made a commitment to that political position they choose the appropriate party and then follow the dictates of it.10 This is the power of political belief, and it shows in the very tribal nature of modern politics and the stereotypes of each tribe.
Anyone who follows political commentary on a regular basis through the standard channels of talk radio and television, newspaper and magazine editorials, popular books, blogs, vlogs, tweets, and the like, knows the standard stereotype of what liberals think of conservatives:
Conservatives are a bunch of Hummer-driving, meat-eating, gun-toting, small-government-promoting, tax-decreasing, hard-drinking, Bible-thumping, black-and-white-thinking, fist-pounding, shoe-stomping, morally dogmatic blowhards.
And what conservatives think of liberals:
Liberals are a bunch of hybrid-driving, tofu-eating, tree-hugging, whale-saving, sandal-wearing, big-government-promoting, tax-increasing, bottled-water-drinking, flip-flopping, wishy-washy, namby-pamby bedwetters.
Such stereotypes are so ingrained into our culture that everyone understands them and comedians and commentators exploit them. Like many stereotypes, they both have an element of truth to them that reflects an emphasis on differing moral values, especially those we derive intuitively. In fact, research now overwhelmingly demonstrates that most of our moral decisions are grounded in automatic moral feelings rather than deliberatively rational calculations. We do not reason our way to a moral decision by carefully weighing the evidence for