| THE REPUBLICAN BRAIN The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality Chris Mooney Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, April 2012 |
Rating: 5.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-1-118-09451-8 | ||||
| ISBN-10 1-118-09451-4 | 327pp. | HC | $25.95 | |
Anyone in this country who follows the ebb and flow of political discourse is aware by now of the wide chasm between what conservative Republicans believe and the beliefs held by the rest of us.1 So wide has the divide become in recent years that the two sides in many cases do not even share the same set of facts in common. A typical example is views of President Obama. Most liberals view him as an intelligent and fairly able American Christian politician whose actions reveal him to be more like a centrist than a fire-breathing radical. To many conservatives, however, the president is a foreign-born Muslim who follows a radical socialist agenda and seeks to undermine this country.
This is merely one example; conservatives differ from the rest of us on basic facts in many areas, including history and economics as well as science. I do not say that all conservatives hold such aberrant beliefs; but many do, as can easily be verified. Nor are liberals invariably correct. Remember, however, that we are talking about the typical traits of identifiable groups in America today. Conservatives, and especially those who identify themselves as members of the Tea Party, hold stubbornly and vociferously to a well-defined set of skewed ideas. Taken as a whole, this set of ideas reflects utter antipathy to the president and his policies, and to progressive policies and politicians generally.2
Many books have been written about this trend among conservatives. One of the best is Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science. It details the decades-long history of Republican politicians ignoring scientific findings they found inconvenient. The roster of such findings is extensive; acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming are just a few of the scientific facts Republicans lately have wished would go away. And, as I mentioned, the list does not end with science. For example, Republicans since Reagan have insisted that lowering taxes on the rich will spur a boost of job growth. Again and again, economists have cited figures that show just the opposite. It makes no difference to Republicans; their doctrine is unaffected.
Don't ask why an American president might seek to undermine America, what he might hope to gain by doing so, or how he might realistically hope to succeed. Probing questions about motives and methods are not germane to this problem; it has to do with doctrines grounded in our emotional need for self-esteem — the basis of personality. Liberals tend to value novelty; conservatives prefer stability.
The same resistance to evidence obtains across the board. Seldom will a conservative change his or her belief in response to factual presentations. This obduracy of belief makes it imperative that we figure out why Republican doctrine is so impervious to facts and reasoned arguments. That is what Chris Mooney set out to do when he began to write this book.
Mooney's Introduction sets the stage with a description of Conservapedia, created by Andrew Schlafly as the right-wing Christian answer to Wikipedia. Central to the former online resource is its "refutation" of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Schlafly's 6,000-word article features a list of "counterexamples" to observations that support Relativity Theory — a list which includes Bible verses. I submit that this shows the magnitude of the problem. I further submit that the typical liberal reaction to such "refutations" points up the main reason why accepted scientific facts don't make a dent in such doctrines. The doctrines arise not from antipathy to science itself, but from conservative perceptions of the world science has given us: a world where seemingly contradictory statements from authority (e.g. caffeine is harmful; caffeine is healthy) are rampant, where society seems to be falling apart, and where traditional values and Christian faith seem to be under attack.
"Every contentious fact- or science-based issue in American politics now plays out just like the conflict between Conservapedia and liberals—and physicists—over relativity. Again and again it's a fruitless battle between incompatible "truths," with no progress made and no retractions offered by those who are just plain wrong—and [who] can be shown to be [wrong] through simple fact checking mechanisms that all good journalists, not to mention open-minded and critically thinking citizens, can employ." *
* * "Their willingness to deny what's true may seem especially outrageous when it infects scientific topics like evolution or climate change. But there's nothing unique about these subjects, other than perhaps the part of campus where you'll find them taught. The same thing happens with economics, with American history, and with any other factual matter where there's something ideological—in other words, something emotional and personal—at stake." – Page 3 |
The remainder of his Introduction explains what he's looking for, and what he is and is not going to show. The science he's looking for, of course, comes from psychology — specifically, cognitive psychology that might shed some light on whether the brains of liberals and conservatives operate in ways that influence their differing approaches to politics. He finds some, too. But he goes to some length to make it clear he is not out to prove that conservatives are crazy, have defective brains, or are otherwise inferior to liberals. These are sensible disclaimers — as is the caveat that psychology is not and never can be the whole answer.
Here's an indication of just how complex this business of cognitive psychology can get. Mooney refers to the gene DRD4 as fostering novelty-seeking, a trait which is found to be more common in liberals (p. 120.) He's right; but there are at least six variants of DRD4, and not all promote that trait. Moreover, the gene is tied to schizophrenia and other mental defects and to Parkinson's Disease.
As well, research suggests that several other genes may be related to the fondness for novelty, also known as thrill-seeking.
"Complex phenomena like human political behavior always have many causes, not one. This book fully recognizes that and does not embrace a position that could fairly be called determinism. Human brains are flexible and change daily; people have choices, and those choices alter who they are. Nevertheless, there are broad tendencies in the population that really matter, and cannot be ignored." – Page 11 |
While, as he convincingly demonstrates, conservatives as a group hold a greater number of erroneous beliefs and cling to them more tightly, liberals are not immune to such delusions. Indeed, Chapter 12 is all about liberal delusions on topics including the safety of nuclear power and the link between vaccines and autism. And he takes liberals to task for their frequent refusal to see that conservatives are not just stupid or ignorant.3 Many, in fact, are quite intelligent. (Andrew Schlafly — Harvard Law School graduate, with a Princeton engineering degree — is a prime example.) No, something more subtle is going on here; and understanding it may be the only way we liberals can hope to get politics back on track. In his conclusion to the book he offers some solid suggestions for working toward some sort of meeting of the minds. Hint: the key is not merely flinging facts at conservatives; if that were going to work, it would have worked already.
Chris Mooney has here another success: a book that is well researched and generally well written, with very few errors and no major ones. It does not contain any final answers — nor does it claim to. Rather, Mooney points out the possible shortcomings of every conclusion. In the end he calls for further research on the intriguing problems of discovering how our brains (along with various environmental factors) influence our politics. Full marks, and I rate it a keeper.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.