A Closing of the Conservative Mind?
Friday 21 May 2010
by: Allen McDuffee, t r u t h o u t | Report
(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Chuckumentary, Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL), StewBl@ck)
In an election year when Republicans are mounting a comeback, the last thing they need is in-fighting among conservatives. But that's precisely what is happening thanks to a series of exchanges kicked off by a blog post from Cato research fellow Julian Sanchez, who is warning of a closing of the conservative mind. The firestorm that has ensued has become something of a spectator sport, with, among others, Andrew Sullivan writing regular posts called "Epistemic Closure Watch" at the Daily Dish.
Although Sanchez admits he didn't intend to coin a phrase with "epistemic closure," he meant to point out the ways in which conservative media had "stopped engaging in a useful, corrective way with the larger public conversation and congealed into this interconnected and self-contained alternate universe, itself insulated from factual correction by a narrative that says, essentially all non-movement information sources are not just slanted a bit to the left, but barely distinguishable from the old Soviet Pravda."
Epistemic closure has another meaning in philosophy that Sanchez says he's forgotten about and was "probably jangling around in the back of my head." Possibly also the philosopher Colin McGinn's phrase "cognitive closure," which has a meaning much closer to what I was talking about - although McGinn's talking about domains of knowledge where our brains are just wired in a way that makes it impossible for us to acquire certain kinds of knowledge.
And even if it does have these other uses, it's not something Sanchez would change now. "I mean, I doubt any logicians dipping into the debate are getting confused and imagining that we're talking about the technical sense of 'closure under entailment' or whatever," says Sanchez. "I've seen folks using zingier phrases like "information loop" or "bubble world" - but part of me suspects that a clinical sounding phrase like "epistemic closure" made it easier for conservatives to start engaging the problem."
As for the root causes of epistemic closure, Sanchez says the proliferation of media has lots to do with it. "In principle, it would be nice to have all these conservative media acting as a corrective to a press corps that overwhelmingly self-identifies as liberal," a hotly contested assertion, but Sanchez insists nonetheless that "they've been so focused on being 'the conservative alternative' that the fundamental journalistic mission to report fairly and accurately ends up taking a distant second place."
It's a problem that is exacerbated by the connections that are made when individual outlets are integrated into the larger conservative media sphere, says Sanchez, leading to a point where "the lines between serious think tanks or journals of ideas and the talk radio entertainers and wacky fringe sites get blurred, because there's a sense that they're all on the 'same team' in a self-conscious way," a feature that Sanchez says is unparalleled on the liberal side.
Some on the right are pleased with Sanchez's assessment, but more are not and are even less pleased about him going public with it, making the counterattacks wide-ranging.
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, is treating the matter like it is business as usual and the fact that there is even a heated discussion by others over epistemic closure proves conservative intellectual health, writing at National Review's blog The Corner, "This is called having a blog where people are free to disagree."
Jonah Goldberg, contributing editor at National Review and author of "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning," somewhat unsurprisingly turned it back toward liberals. On the American Enterprise Institute blog he wrote, "For more than a generation, liberalism craved and ruthlessly enforced epistemic closure."
Further, Goldberg posited, "I would suggest that one of the main reasons so many liberals are in a flop-sweating, bowel-stewing panic over Fox News and the Tea Parties is that they understand such developments are a real threat to epistemic hegemony of liberalism that has been unraveling for the last decade and half. The Obama surge in 2008 looks more like a last gasp for progressivism than a rebirth. If the Obama Era was actually similar to the New Deal, his healthcare plan would be popular - and so would he. Neither is the case."
And yet others have made the counterattack personal, making some of the controversy healthy and aspects not.
"I am not sure that the term 'epistemic closure' serves anyone very well in this controversy," says intellectual historian David Hollinger, the Preston Hotchkis professor of history at UC Berkeley and president of the Organization of Historians. "The flap over 'epistemic closure' is not so different from earlier controversies in which this or that party to a dispute will accuse the other of being narrow-minded, of failing to take a sufficiently wide expanse of experience into account."
But Hollinger is also quick to point out that these things are not all the same and that sometimes a seemingly small argument has a lasting consequence. "Quarrels happen all the time," he said, "but a small number of willful people can create the agenda and make it last for a while."
The duration and the intensity have as much to do with ideology as anything else, according to Hollinger. "Ideologically-defined disputes are more likely to entail the tone we see in the current quarrel among conservatives, reflecting the more impassioned styles characteristic of political as opposed to academic disputation."
What happens now remains to be seen, but according to Sanchez, "If there's a way out, I think it starts with what we're seeing now, which is folks on the right starting to acknowledge the problem and talk about it, and realizing that in the long term an informed base that's in touch with reality is more important than a maximally riled up base."
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Jonah Goldberg actually
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 11:57 — Anonymous (not verified)Jonah Goldberg actually wrote an entire book arguing that the Nazis and other fascists of the 20th century were situated on the left of the political spectrum. What can anyone really say to that?
I think this argument is
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 12:57 — Anonymous (not verified)I think this argument is flawed in that the fundamental difference between today's "liberals" and "conservatives" is one of the degree of narrow thinking.
It is not difficult to observe the constricted view of conservatives on a plethora of issues, and their insistence on "litmus tests" for potential candidates.
On the other hand, liberals are burdened by the political need to gather in wide-ranging views and attitudes ...there is no "one way," there are many meandering byways. In my experience, this leads to persons much more willing to engage in dialogue about issues.
I've witnessed among conservatives a strident "my way or the highway" posture. Is it insecurity? Are they threatened by intelligence and creative thinking? We have seen Republicans repudiated by their own party for even entering into dialogue with Democrats.
A nation founded on intelligent and compassionate leadership cannot thrive in such an adversarial climate.
All conservative minds are
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 13:38 — Anonymous (not verified)All conservative minds are by definition already closed.
This is where conservatism begins and ends.
The ideas are just excuses.
blocked by Drupal software
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 13:40 — Anonymous (not verified)blocked by Drupal software nanny:
Object Lesson: What currently exists in the USA, Australia, and the UK is fulminant fascism. Canada is well on its way. Germany is again on the brink; France, likewise. Neoliberalism IS neoconservatism, and they/It are FASCISM.
The 'conservative' mind is a misnomer; any seeking of a status quo ante is by definition conservative, so this characterization is patently erroneous regarding so-called "conservatives." They don't exist.
Liberal by definition is
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 14:45 — Zevon (not verified)Liberal by definition is being open to ideas. Conservatism by definition is being dedicated to an established set of narrow-minded positions. In other words, thinking vs. not thinking.
this is why we need a
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 14:48 — Disillusioned (not verified)this is why we need a multiparty system instead of an entrenched 2 party system that will not allow a 3rd or 4th party to compete...
disillusioned due delusional one tracked greed based minds
Closed versus open.
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 15:17 — Jay Moor (not verified)Closed versus open. Thinking versus not thinking. What would a partially open, partially thinking third party look like and what would be its platform? Our Democratic Party, in practice, is this third party. We don't yet have a completely open, thinking, liberal party, like the old progressive movement of a century ago.
It is vain to look to the
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 15:17 — Tomo (not verified)It is vain to look to the personal preferences of people laboring in the mass media in order to discover where bias lies. I dare say most who are attracted into the mass media are compassionate people, concerned about widows and orphans--and deserving therefore of being called liberals. But the key to bias is not the workers in the field but the owners. G.E. has long had a dominant position with regard to NBC. Do you go to NBC expecting scorching stories on "The Military-Industrial Complex"? Of course not. ABC is essentially "the NEWS from Disneyland." Are you surprised that you did not find there an expose of the specious grounds on which we invaded Iraq? PBS NewsHour takes big money from Monsanto and Chevron. Is it any wonder to you that Lehrer and company turn any major indictment of the status quo into a metronomic, soul-numbing ping-pong match? (The NewsHour took "to torture or not to torture" and turned it into a legitimate question by providing equal time for both sides.) The ability of the mass media to drown every issue in a sea of triviality may not qualify it as "conservative" in any genuine sense of the term; but it can certainly be argued--as I am arguing here--that this ability has been a major force in keeping things AS THEY ARE, namely on a steep downward course.
I am reminded of Ogden
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 17:29 — Karenfern (not verified)I am reminded of Ogden Nash's brilliant lines:
Purity is obscurity.
That is what the GOP is courting.
Weak minds susceptible to
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 18:32 — Noah (not verified)Weak minds susceptible to suggestion and indoctrination flourish on both sides. That's the true danger, not closed but weak minds that lack critical thinking skills.
In order to win a presidential election, a party must appeal to "swing voters", that elusive 10% of voters who can't figure out the difference between Obama and McCain, and can't figure out which set of ideals they subscribe to. Their minds are open but they've been filled with propaganda that they're unable to filter out with deductive reasoning.
Republicans have always been better at attracting swing voters because propaganda is much more interesting than reason and factual analysis. The GOP has done an amazing job at herding the masses of fundamentalists, racists, xenophobes, and other folks who gravitate toward "movements". They don't want to analyze data. They want to feel something, and feeling fear, anger, and pride is easier than solving problems with critical thinking.
The left will always attract free thinkers, but that's a hard group to herd. Free thinkers will never fight as well as right-wing devotees because we don't always march in lock-step. We self-criticize, we disagree, we analyze. Sometimes we even compromise.
Maybe all the disagreement on the right is a sign that there's some free thinking going on over there.
p.s. Jonah Goldberg's blather is not worthy of being called argument. It's propaganda, laden with fallacy. No one on the left writes BS as well as he does.
Well said Tomo. I would
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 20:39 — gehan (not verified)Well said Tomo. I would include MSNBC and the comedy news shows in your indictment - their true purpose is to distract us and trivialize real problems. All television is the evil tool of the establishment.
Goldberg wrote, "If the
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 21:34 — Openmind (not verified)Goldberg wrote, "If the Obama Era was actually similar to the New Deal, his healthcare plan would be popular - and so would he. Neither is the case."
The problem here is that the rightwing juggernaut nutcake media, which is lockstep, convinced the country that healthcare reform, which the public desired when Obama was elected, was lethal (see "death panels and granny killers"). Witness the tea partiers with their signs, "Government, stay off my Medicare." A majority of the people who don't want healthcare reform because it's "big government and anti-constitutional," have no idea what government is and can't read the constitution, but when Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the screamer, Mark Levin (he makes my blood run cold) cram their crap into people's frightened heads, they vote against their own interests and in fact lose track of them. Today, Rand Paul, up for election, said that being critical of BP is anti-American. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that people who are losing their livelihoods won't protest against the oil companies. They'll blame the left for being anti-business, while their businesses go down to the bottom of the ocean along with all the dead fish. It is disgusting and unbelievable, but if you see kids who want to go back to abusive parents or women who stay with wife-beaters you can begin to understand the mentality a bit. Authoritarian people who take control and tell you what you are and what to think have a strong pull on the infantile psyche. We are all vulnerable in some ways, but the right, which is authoritarian, subjugates reality to its own agenda and for its own purposes, promising to reward its followers with the privilege of belonging and not buying that "bleeding heart weak stuff." It preys on the mind that feels weak and craves strength, and the right bestows slogans like Hannity's "You're a Great American," to every caller who mirrors it back to him.
The pot calling the kettle
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 23:18 — Anonymous (not verified)The pot calling the kettle black. Since when have liberals gotten their news from conservative sources, or respected non-liberal points of view?
In the good ol' days, conservatives were forced to watch liberal news sources, because that's pretty much all there was on TV, but this is no longer the case. Too bad for you, libs, you've lost your monopoly.
The "liberal mind" is evidently self-centered enough to think everyone should be paying attention to them and praising them.
Claiming that what spews out
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 05:59 — What Mind? (not verified)Claiming that what spews out of the mouths of the crew from the right has anything at all to do with a mind is more about confusing the other end of human anatomy than rational observation.
The remarks of Noah and
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 11:13 — Tomo (not verified)The remarks of Noah and Openmind strike me as very astute. And I am grateful to Gehen for underlining the point about trivializing by the media.
Re: "Pot calling the
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 23:31 — Anonymous (not verified)Re: "Pot calling the kettle," I would respectfully submit that the issue is not "respecting non-liberal points of view." You're welcome to any point of view you want. What you are NOT welcome to do is to make up facts to support your "point of view." As John Adams suggested, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Everyone is entitled to their own opinions--that's the essence of open public discourse--but everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts. The conservative media has moved farther and farther from what are often, to them, inconvenient facts. They would rather ignore them and rant on about a straw man they've constructed out of whole cloth that is easier to ridicule or more emotionally charged (e.g., "death panels") than to face actual facts and be forced to admit that, just maybe, their argument is flawed.
While liberals may not like the facts, they generally take them as the starting point. They should be the starting point for all of us. We can't choose what the facts are; only deal with them as we find them and try to make the best of them for the public good (a perhaps old-fashioned phrase, but one we desperately need to consider more carefully).
Hey 'Openmind' at 2:34 -
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 11:09 — Bill O'Rights (not verified)Hey 'Openmind' at 2:34 - "Authoritarian people who take control and tell you what you are and what to think have a strong pull on the infantile psyche." So, are you referring to a President who wants to expand the Patriot act and the Wars, and to force the entire population to pay for and submit to Western Medicine - even if they believe it is toxic crap or is it the GOP? I'll agree with you on comparing our political behavior to that of an abused wife or child protecting the aggressor and going back for more, but you're so in denial yourself that you've got the perp cast as your 'savior'. Instead of obsessing on 'Liberal vs Conservative' how about asking ourselves 'Why Federal instead of Local?' and ponder the many provisions so carefully written into the Constitution to prevent tyranny by keeping the center of power at the local level - where We The People have more oversight, and out of the hands of big wheel central planners (and their corporate sponsors).
Science has taken a back
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 16:11 — Anonymous (not verified)Science has taken a back seat with conservatives since Reagan was elected. Now the conservative leaders are surprised that they have a whole stable of people who refuse to entertain any idea that has come about since the Enlightenment. These people are slow learners.
Science Has Indeed Taken A
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 16:52 — Environmental Science Major (not verified)Science Has Indeed Taken A Back Seat since Reagan - That was around the time that NeoCon Margaret Thatcher started promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming from CO2 hypothesis in order to crush the coal miner's strike and to promote Nuclear Energy, which was so vehemently opposed by prudent Environmentalists of the day, and also to restrain development in poor African nations. The money that went into proving the Hypothesis was spectacular as has been the corporate positioning to exploit the accompanying policies. The only thing more spectacular is the bamboozling of the public into allowing the obsession to eclipse real environmental issues - and they almost pulled it off, and may still. For an overview, watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, a BBC Documentary.
I think we're all rather
Mon, 05/24/2010 - 09:47 — hark (not verified)I think we're all rather naive. Corporate interests run this country. Academic discussions of liberalism vs. conservatism are totally irrelevant.
It's power and money that drive the agenda. Nothing else matters. The top .1% run the country and they don't give a hoot about this stuff.
A conservative "open mind"
Tue, 05/25/2010 - 01:33 — Anonymous (not verified)A conservative "open mind" would already be an oxymoron - or is it "oxy-moran"?
By the way, the reason we don't have a "multi-party" system is the reason we NEVER WILL have one. Until we adopt the French election system of an automatic runoff, a multiparty system is practically impossible.
NOBODY votes for their first pick. We tend to vote for the lesser of two evils. If you want 9 liberal parties, don't be surprised if conservatives stick with just one conservative party. Guess who ALL of our elected leaders will represent.
We can't have a multi-party system unless we are willing to RE-WRITE THE ENTIRE ELECTORAL PROCESS. I don't see that happening in the next 50 years or so.
gratis programas
Fri, 02/24/2012 - 17:12 — cnunym (not verified)cxspih wkjnow hlglwq gratis spelletjes jncmik dcnoeo ztgqzs
ouwlgb sshnwq uetmke [URL=http://s282327124.onlinehome.us/WikkaWiki/GratisErbjudanden]gratis xbox live koder 2011[/URL] nrksep keopzu pbhosg
vgmncq rrsylz hmqugr http://wiki.tubizou.net/index.php?title=User:WekexoGuquzo - gratis ritningsprogram - jsgccj iypbtq abkzsj