We Are the Change

You Can’t Change the Mind of a Conservative

This post is intended for liberals only; conservatives should not read this. A new study out of Yale and Duke Universities confirms what many of us of the liberal persuasion have long suspected. When conservatives are presented with solid, verifiably factual data that undermines one of their assumptions, they react by more firmly holding the faulty assumption. Whereas when liberals are presented with solid, verifiably factual data that undermines one of their assumptions, they are more likely to adjust their assumption to fit the facts. The researchers called this conservative reaction the "backfire effect". No one knows for sure why this happens; but after all, the word “conservative” means “resistant to change” so I guess it should come as no surprise that conservatives are in fact resistant to change. The researchers theorize that conservatives might be especially prone to the backfire effect because they may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the faulty assumption.
I think this goes a long way toward explaining why McCain is polling about 50% despite his support of policies that have done so much damage to our country. If the election was based on readily apparent factual observations such as how well their policies have worked for the last 8 years, then McCain would be hard pressed to be polling 5%. Instead when faced with the obvious truth that the conservative policies of Bush have almost destroyed our country, almost everyone who voted for Bush is still going to stubbornly vote to continue those same failed policies under McCain. In other words, as the Yale study suggests, when faced with the undeniable truth that their policies don’t work, conservatives hold onto those policies even more strongly.
Maybe the 19th century British philosopher John Stuart Mill saw the essence of the difference between conservatives and liberals when he observed, “Not all conservatives are stupid people, but almost all stupid people are conservatives.”

Sarah Palin

I’m struck by how enthusiastically Sarah Palin was lauded for her “decision” (notice how they never use the word “choice”) to carry her downs syndrome child to term. The irony is that if she had her way, no one else would be allowed to make that choice. She would have the government enter the personal life of every pregnant woman and force them to carry their pregnancy to term. Which brings to mind a few questions: Did she know her child had downs? And if so, why get the genetic testing (it carries a small amount of risk) if there would be no consideration of abortion? Oops, you’re not supposed to ask Sarah Palin questions because it is mean and sexist.
All the other candidates in this race, the 3 remaining and all those that fell by the wayside including Hillary, have withstood hundreds if not thousands of hours of harsh and sometimes hostile questioning on a host of issues from personal challenges to foreign policy. It is part of the process to weed out those that are not knowledgeable or that don’t have the temperament or that will wilt under pressure. It helps us see what they are made of and how they handle tough situations.
Sarah Palin is different; her handlers will keep her from facing tough questions while they school her on the issues and what to say and how to say it. Her handlers are afraid that if she was exposed to the fire that every other candidate faces, she would have a high probability of self destructing. She will read speeches written for her and will sound knowledgeable; she will take a few questions from “friendly” reporters and appear competent. What it boils down to is this: Do we want someone in the White House with their finger on the button that we only know from the PR that her handlers allow us to see, that has never withstood the fire of hostile questioning and that we really don’t know?