Thereโs a must read item today at the Huffington Post by Jonathan Weiler, co-author of the excellent book Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Weiler argues (as have I) that the โRepublican war on science,โ a term that I coined, is really just a subset of the โRepublican war onย reality.โ
And not just that. Weiler further asserts that weโre seeing this right now because the Republican party is full of authoritariansโpeople who think theyโre 100 percent right and everyone who disagrees with them is 100 percent wrong, and who have little tolerance for ambiguity orย complexity.
All my research on ideology points to this conclusion as wellโbut Iโm not sure Weiler fully articulates how authoritarians can be so factually wrong, and also sure of themselves and unable to admitย correction.
To me, what seems to occur in authoritarian reasoning is that you firmly define in your mind an outgroup (liberals, environmentalists), and you then automatically take any claim that denigrates that outgroup (socialists, traitors) to be true. And then, if this claim is refuted, youโre outraged and you come to believe the false claim even more strongly than before. You double down. (This, of course, would explain why Tea Party climate deniers are so sure ofย themselves.)
And thatโs not all. If youโre an authoritarian, you also probably leap to ideologically friendly conclusions to begin with. And when your ideological opponents are making an argument thatโs characterized by a lot of nuance, you attack a caricatured, simplistic version ofย it.
Indeed, you probably find the making of nuanced argumentsโand the expression of uncertaintyโto be inherent signs of weakness. And you probably find people who constantly talk in nuanced ways, like President Obama or most university professors, to be suspicious, untrustworthy. Who do authoritarians trust? A strong leader who states it clearly, plainly, and toughly and doesn’tย waver.
If Weiler is rightโand I think he isโthen what this means is that we probably have a bias asymmetry in American politics. And thatโs a really bigย deal.
Journalists, fact checkers, and so on go around acting as though there is a โpox on both their housesโโeverybody has their own biases, everybody lies and distorts, so we need โbalancedโ journalism to handle this equally distributed nonsense. But Weiler suggests that this is not actually true. Rather, it should be the case that one group gets more things wrong, misrepresents and distorts more, and is less willing to admit to error or correction, or to change its mind.
Does that sound like modern American politics? Does that sound like the climate fight, or the healthcare fight, or arguments over economicย policy?
It sure does to meโฆbut donโt expect authoritarians to ever admitย it!
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts