Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jason Kuznicki has a brilliant post at Positive Liberty that expresses perfectly the frustration I feel at the way most people think about political ideology. He begins by talking about the Fox News VP who claimed that if the story about the McCain campaign volunteer being mugged was true it would somehow cast some doubt on Obama. That VP said:
If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.
Jason replies to this:
The fact that a mugger purportedly shared Barack Obama's skin color says nothing about Obama himself. Indeed, the fact that the mugger purportedly shared Obama's politics says nothing about Obama himself. Al Qaeda seems to have endorsed McCain this time around; last time the rumor was that they were for Kerry.
And here's the important part. He nails the kind of simplistic thinking that is so common even, frankly, among some the readers of this blog:
Radley Balko offers reasons to reject the Republicans and to hope for their defeat -- and this, according to his readers, makes him a socialist and worse. To my face I was recently called a member of the John Birch Society; all it took was to mention where I work. And even explaining -- at great length -- the areas of public policy where the Cato Institute diverges radically from the John Birch Society was not enough to convince my interlocutor that we weren't "really" on the same side.The algorithm seems to be this: Lump the world into "us" and "them." Improbability and inaccuracy don't matter, so don't bother to check. Whoever scares you goes over there. Carry this "us-v.-them" thinking to its worst possible end. And behold, you have found the truth, without ever having to count past two.
The broader context for Sullivan's post, and for all of this, is that human beings are very bad at individualism, although individualism is good for us. Binary thinking gives a profoundly false picture of the world. And yet it is, apparently, attractive.
As someone who doesn't fit easily into Republican and Democratic or left and right categories, I have often been the target of this kind of thinking myself. It's the kind of thinking that leads many on the right to claim that anyone they define as a leftist must be a socialist. It's the kind of thinking that leads many on the left to claim that every Christian conservative is a "Dominionist" (a term that is often misapplied).
It's the kind of thinking that leads simpleminded right-wingers to call me a raging liberal and the kind of thinking that leads braindead zealots like Gary Hurd to call me a "libertarian, fundamentalist, Republican crypto-facist." Seriously, he actually said that. Because to such people, there is no room for disagreement at all. If you aren't with them 100%, you're the enemy. Period.
It's the kind of thinking displayed so perfectly by Naomi Klein when she lumped Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute in with the Heritage Foundation and lumped these very distinct groups together under the label of "a worldview that has harnessed the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda." This despite the fact that both Friedman and the Cato Institute opposed the war in Iraq and oppose nearly all of the wars that are supported by genuinely neo-conservative think tanks like Heritage. But Klein is engaging in this same kind of simplistic thinking; anyone who isn't on her side on everything is on the other side, and everyone she puts on the other side must believe all the evil things she attributes to them even if they actually believe the opposite.
It all goes back to a term I've tried to introduce into public discussion over the last few years: argumentum ad labelum. This is the logical fallacy that involves thinking that by applying a label to someone or to their argument, you've defeated their argument. It's a cognitive shortcut, a way to avoid having to think and analyze a person's actual positions. And frankly, it drives me up the wall.
Politics
Comments
While he didn't originate this form of binary thinking, W certainly made it fashionable shortly after 9/11: You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists. Translation -- anyone who doesn't support the Administration's policies 100% is, at best, unpatriotic or anti-American and defeatist and at worst, a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. It is a cognitive modus operandi that has dominated for eight years, and I hope we are rid of it. Sadly, I'm not optomistic.
Posted by: Dan | November 6, 2008 9:57 AM
Paraphrased:
"Now, unfortunately, we are entering a terrible administration of socialist ideologies that will destroy our freedoms and turn our country over to the terrorists. We will be forcibly converted to Islam, required to have abortions, Christians will be indoctrinated into secular Muslim views, kittens will be eaten for breakfast, all is gone that is great about this country."
Now, taking that combined BS that we've been seeing coming out of the mindless mob on the right, I don't think binary thinking is going anywhere any time soon.
People on both sides are guilty of this, but I think we'll see even more of it from the right and that the vitriol, venom, and hatred will be bumped up a couple of notches at least. The folks on the right have convinced themselves that Obama is an atheist Muslim terrorist socialist who will destroy our country and God. I don't honestly see a lot of good things coming out of that camp in the foreseeable future. Of course the whole "you must support your president in a time of war," and the "if you're not with us you're against us," arguments will go right out the window. But really, if you wanted consistency you'd stay away from government and politics.
Buckle up boys and girls, we're in for a bumpy ride.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 6, 2008 10:09 AM
It's the kind of thinking that causes some readers of this blog to accuse me of supporting corporate control of politics because I believe in free markets. ;)
Dan, W wasn't the first to label the world into us and them. We can go back at least to Jesus, who said, "If you're not for me, you are against me." (Which perhaps explains why Jesus is Bush's favorite "philosopher.")
Posted by: James Hanley | November 6, 2008 10:16 AM
A way Ed's point is buttressed is how the media has handled ideology.
It is no secret that the main-stream media has a somewhat liberal bias; how could they not? They are populated with mostly well-educated professionals who have a fairly decent grasp of American history and her ideals; and America's roots are textbook liberal and our history is one of success relative to other political ideologies, including conservatism and its bias towards authoritarianism.
However, prior to the Internet and AM Talk radio, I was frustrated by this bias when watching a TV News debate or analysis. One would see a liberal who was reasoned, educated and able to form cogent arguments; on the other side would more often than not be a conservative loon like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson rather than a conservative of equal quality to the liberal guest. I found such arguments self-defeating since it provided exposure to far right loons which led to helping them increase their power given their media exposure if one followed the maxim, bad news is still good PR.
We now often see the same on conservative media outlets, where smart reasonable conservatives argue with far-left loons like Cornell West or Namoi Klein.
Neither is good for the public square since it promotes loony ideas from both sides rather than scrutinizing each side's best arguments in a forum where both sides have their best and brightest making their respective case.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 10:22 AM
Of course binary thinking is attractive - it was profitable in our ancestral environment. Being on the wrong side of an argument could get you killed, so you had better line up with a whole bunch of people who are on the same side of the argument as you so you won't get killed. And all the better if there's people on the other side, so you can kill your rivals and have more food for yourself.
Posted by: Eric | November 6, 2008 10:24 AM
Binary thinking will not go away, it is part of our evolutionary make-up. From an evolution prespective, binary thinking allows us to rapidly identify the hostile and the friendly, the dangerous and the harmless, the prey and the predator.
Every religion ever invented is the product of binary thinking, It will always be Us vs Them. Call it tribalism, nationalism, or whatever, but it is hard-wired into our brains.
Posted by: Jim Spencer | November 6, 2008 10:39 AM
At breakfast this morning a acquaintance expressed shock that exit polls showed 27% of gay people voted for McCain. I countered that really shouldn't be a surprise - from a policy perspective and due to his military background McCain resonated with a lot of gay people especially ex-military types. But by the very act of trying to explain how other people thought about the matter and explore it a bit - I became a traitor to "my people" (whatever that means)...
It's been a delightful morning....
Posted by: yoshi | November 6, 2008 10:39 AM
I don't think argumentam ad labellum is going away any time soon. At least until somebody finds a way to program tribalism out of our gene pool.
Posted by: Brandon | November 6, 2008 10:45 AM
"We can go back at least to Jesus, who said, "If you're not for me, you are against me."
We could even go back to Aristotle and his law of the excluded middle.
Posted by: dogscratcher | November 6, 2008 10:50 AM
Orson Scott Card wrote a pretty good book - Empire - about this sort of division taken to a frightening extreme. The book, and his afterword essay, made this point so well that I started reading his blog for awhile. Sadly, it turns out many of his other opinions are rather loopy - but he nailed this one. As did Ed.
Posted by: BobApril | November 6, 2008 11:20 AM
Oh, and as does Jason, the source for Ed's post. Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by: BobApril | November 6, 2008 11:24 AM
yoshi-
Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. They really do think that being gay defines everything about you. Ironically, they are thinking very much like the anti-gay bigots, who believe the same thing. But your sexual preference does not, in fact, have anything to do with your political views. One can be gay and have the full range of political views, just as one can be an atheist and have the full range of political views. This is why it is absurd to talk about the "gay community" except in the very broadest sense. If the only thing two people have in common is that they're both gay, that's very little. There is as much diversity among gay people as there is among straight people and no one would think to talk about the "straight community."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 6, 2008 11:25 AM
Why in the world would you want to introduce a Latin term that contains a made-up Latin word? And thank Zeus you appear not to have been successful.
I don't have my trusty Oxford Latin Dictionary to hand, but I think the word you may be looking for is titulum.
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 6, 2008 11:54 AM
Like Ed, I dont fit well into the Republican v Democrat or liberal v conservative categories. Nor have I ever. But one thing that has changed over the years is 20 years ago, when I discussed politics with people, they would generally gloss over the points of disagreement and think I agreed with them. Even to the point that I would be in a discussion with two fairly diametrically opposed people, and they both would walk away thinking I was on their side. Today, it seems just the opposite: most of the time people seem to gloss over the points of agreement and think Im part of the opposition. Dunno, maybe its something different Im doing these days, but I cant think of what. In anycase, just an observation I thought was relevant.
Posted by: Dave | November 6, 2008 11:54 AM
Am I wrong to suggest that conservatives embrace binary thinking to a far greater degree than liberals/progressives? They are, after all, the ones who constantly attack the "relativism" and "nuanced positions" of those on the left.
Time and again I have seen right-wingers condemn, not the arguments of someone on the left, just that they had the temerity to introduce some shades of gray into the discussion, even if that's the way the world works.
I see the attractiveness of binary thinking and applying simplistic labels to things and people -- it's a short cut that allows you avoid having to consider the complications that a deeper, more realistic view on the subject in hand would reveal. Most of us don't like to be put in situations where the decision is not clear cut -- it can be confusing and cause you to be riddle with doubt.
Obviously the left is not without its binary thinkers but if seems to me that in the USA it's not left-wing binary thinking that's the major problem.
Posted by: tacitus | November 6, 2008 12:11 PM
Ed wrote:
And it went right over the heads of some of those who posted comments to this column!
Ed,
I feel your frustration with the kind on non-thinking Naomi Kline exhibited. My respsonse is, "Now you're going to decide for me what I believe?" One thing to remember that might help you not feel so keenly frustrated is that people are not rational - they rationalize, they compartmentalize, and we can all survive quite well with a very large dose of cognitive dissonance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that every person's ideas of what is consistent are different. As an example, for me it is phenomenally inconsistent for those who claim to come to their atheism by way of hard-core rational thinking that the universe is "governed" by materialistic laws to be anything but a laissez-faire free marketeer. I'll explain why to anyone who wants to know, but on some other thread. (Or, you-all could just label me as one of "them" and wash your hands of me.)
But I think you have a great opportunity to decrease your frustration. As you point out, many of the responders to your blog posts practice argumentum ad labelum (the spawn of the unholy union of ad hominem and the straw man fallacy). Bring it up every time you see it and show them what they are doing. Especially among those who agree with you.
The toughest thing in this respect is to see and point out the lazy thinking among those we agree with, because, as yoshi experienced, that makes transforms us from and "US!" to a them.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 6, 2008 12:13 PM
To be consistent, wouldn't a "Latinophile" prefer to say, "by Jove!"?
That's what I'm telling you that you should believe, at any rate.
Ugh! Typos in my previous post. The last phrase should read:
"that transforms us from an US! to a them."
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 6, 2008 12:20 PM
Here's a interesting article on the neural and psychological forces that drive us toward binary thinking and how we can move beyond them. It's aimed at people with a background in psychotherapy. But I think most the readers of this blog wont have any trouble understanding it.
Binary thinking is largely rooted in a survival mechanism, allowing us to react quickly to danger. When the brain receives sensory data the signal is processed first by the amygdala, which regulates our emotions, as any Firefly fan can tell you.
From the article:
In other words, our brain gives an emotional label to each object as "good" or "bad" even before we cognitively grasp what that object is.
Overcoming this is not easy and requires multipronged efforts. First the interface between the amygdale and the frontal cortex, our conscious mind, is a two-way street. By focusing on and considering something we can retrain our unconscious responses.
This is most rapidly accomplished in states of high emotional agitation and in a group setting. For example, when people talk about Basic Training "breaking you down and building you back up" this is what's going on. Things like doing what you're told and killing other humans are being rewired or reinforced for a "good" response.
This is the biggest obstacle to overcoming binary thinking, doing so requires you to contemplate what makes you uncomfortable, prolonging the negative feeling. The natural inclination is therefore to recoil. This is also what makes "gut reactions" and "common sense" so attractive. They allow us to go with the flow of our subconscious predispositions. Yet it is only by being uncomfortable that we change and thereby grow.
While this is still binary thinking, it can be used wire the idea of being challenged or uncomfortable as good, thereby giving oneself a strong foundation for ongoing growth and change. Look at the most successful innovators throughout history, the people who have moved us forward socially, technologically, or any other way you can think of. You'll see a pattern of people who have embraced challenge, taken risks, and accepted fear. They are wired to welcome what most people avoid.
I've barely scratched the surface of this topic and there's a lot more I'd intended to say. But I'm afraid I'm running short on time. So I'll skip ahead a bit and say people can learn to overcome the limitations of dualistic thinking. It's a skill that can be taught and a cause that's well worth the effort.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2008 12:28 PM
tacitus,
I would suggest that your post requires a little more nuance. Binary thinking is not really more common among conservatives, just among those who have been getting lots of press, and have been in governmental positions lately. There is no necessary link between the vaguely-defined label "conservative" and what Ed is describing as binary thinking, any more than there is a necessary link between preferring minimal-to-no government intervention in the economy and supporting Chevron's alleged activities in Nigeria.
****
Another reason why people default to binary thinking is that it makes their POV appear more forceful. If one includes, "in my opinion," "it seems to me," "it would appear that...," etc. in one's communication (as Benjamin Franklin suggested we do), it allows one's POV to be labelled as wishy-washy or inconsistent, as tacitus described.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 6, 2008 12:39 PM
Syncretism. I love all languages equally (though some I know much better than others).
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 6, 2008 12:39 PM
Well Ed, that's it. You are now listed in the "BAD" column.
everyone who labels people because it just easier to go through life that way is on the "good" side and Ed is alone on the "bad" side.
How does it feel Ed? are you sorry now!?
I bet even cats label people into "petters" and "non-petters" Hmmkay?
Posted by: Kevin | November 6, 2008 1:10 PM
tacitus,
For a criticism of binary thought, your post is pretty heavy on "us vs them" flavor.
While I would certainly welcome a more civil and nuanced approach I can't help but think that its a little masturbatory to decry "binary thought" within a two party political system. But I guess we could all just be nicer about it? ;)
Posted by: JJP | November 6, 2008 1:17 PM
Two party it may be, but what we're talking about is the kind of thinking that leads to things like, Obama is an ultraliberal fascist atheist Muslim who will, at the urging of his Christian minster, commit genocide against whites and redistribute their money, revealing him to be the communist he is.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2008 1:33 PM
It's not a belief that you've defeated their argument, its a belief that you've invalidated their argument by invalidating the person making it. When someone on the left calls an interlocutor a fascist or Hitler lover or something like that, in part they're doing this because of their own understanding of those term, in part they're doing it out of pure emotion, but mostly they are saying "you are something I consider so vile, that listening to and engaging seriously with you can serve no purpose; your arguments don't matter because you don't matter." The same sort of thinking is applied by charges of communist or terrorist sympathies.
In regards to more serious commentators, such as Ms. Klein, I think we misstep when we ignore both the larger philosophical issues involved, and how many people out there entertain structuralist theories of history and society. Structuralists like to draw connections between things and argue that institutions and ideas drive social development. Because of this, structuralists are predisposed to draw connections between institutions that are, in certain ways, like minded; they are predisposed to see them as part of a larger, nebulous, philosophical movement that is pushing a certain set of ideas. The hostility which think-tanks like the Cato and Heritage institutes share towards organized labor, multilateral international institutions, government services, regulation, and international humanitarian aid thus make it easy to tie the two groups together mentally.
People don't just wake up one day and decide these orgs are bad things; they think this for specific reasons, and calling them off-base loonies is no more an effective response than the tenuous claims they make themselves.
Posted by: Julian | November 6, 2008 1:51 PM
I'd also take issue with your claims regarding the non-existence of a "gay community". It is a correct point, and one that needs to be made more often, that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are people, and thus possessed of their own unique perspective and opinions which more than likely aren't an exact match for anyone else which shares their proclivities. However, the political and social realities of the Union and their place in it, the persecution, the immediate distrust and spite many direct towards them as a result of their sexuality, the stereotypes and general social negation that they face, does create what one could call a community, albeit of grief.
We see this still among African Americans. Black America has never been of one mind about anything; even the least educated on the civil rights era know how much spite Malcolm X directed at Dr. King. Yet, by making opposition to civil rights and effective plank of their party at a time when Johnson was attempting to make support for it a proclaimed plank of his own, the Republicans forged from this disparate community one of the longest-running and most consistent voting blocks in electoral history. In a similar way, the Republican parties vituperative reaction to Senator McCain's immigration package made Latinos, for this past election, at least, a positively monolithic political community.
In a similar way, one could make the argument that by voting Republican when the current Republican party has as one of its stated goals the suppression of homosexual rights that a homosexual individual would be voting against their most basic interest and that this creates a kind of political community. One of the great ironies of Prop 8 is that, if not for the discriminatory mindset it represents, you would likely see many more out, happy, successful, prominent homosexual conservatives. By making them a group in their minds and seeking to deny them the full benefits of citizenship, the far right effectively pushes them, at least on political issues, into a kind of communal solidarity.
Posted by: Julian | November 6, 2008 2:14 PM
No Trackback link? Oh well. Here are my thoughts.
Posted by: Rick Caldwell | November 6, 2008 3:10 PM
"This is the logical fallacy that involves thinking that by applying a label to someone or to their argument, you've defeated their argument."
Argument by labeling is one of the primary propaganda techniques identified by the IPA
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.name.html
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | November 6, 2008 3:16 PM
You also see people justify vile behavior based on what "the other" did -- and thanks to the assumed homogeneous nature of "them", one can justify attacking perfectly reasonable members of "them" because of what a few fringe nutjobs said or did.
I've also had conversations where I've had to repeatedly stop the other person and say "no, talk to *me* -- you're not arguing against the things I'm actually saying". It's definitely disquieting sometimes. And I wish I had studied more sociology & psychology so I'd have a better clue as to how to break people of the habit. (Some of it's just better basic education, I suppose).
@Michael Enquist: I'd happily take up the argument against you in the "reasoned atheist thus laissez-faire marketeer" discussion (and I imagine I already know the missing piece in your logic); name the forum.
But I agree with your other points; it's important to condemn lazy thinking whenever we see it, even when it takes a bit more of an effort to gather together the more complex, more accurate view.
The only downside: people seek easy validation and simple answers -- it feels good, and they can rally behind it. Movements need songs and catchphrases, not long nuanced discussions. Could Obama have won the election without "yes we can"? Or if he'd tried to give full, real answers to questions in the debates, for example?
It's complicated... politics is about (hopefully) choosing some who understands the problems at hand *better* than we do, to lead us in fixing them. A large part is choosing a capable champion, beyond just debating the issues... so perhaps there's a place for simple cheerleading as well as reasoned debate? I suppose the big thing is to always crack down on blind hatred, rejection, prejudice, etc.. Blind idealism isn't always a bad thing -- then it depends entirely on how it's directed.
Posted by: Rob Whelan | November 6, 2008 3:17 PM
Dave -
Even to the point that I would be in a discussion with two fairly diametrically opposed people, and they both would walk away thinking I was on their side. Today, it seems just the opposite: most of the time people seem to gloss over the points of agreement and think Im part of the opposition.
The worse discussion I can get into that makes this happen, is gun control. I talk to lefties and I am accused of being a redneck gun freak. I talk to righties and I'm a librul loon, who wants to take away everone's guns. This in discussions where I am clear that I support the right to own and even carry guns, while I also support very strict gun control laws.
Not to say that it doesn't go far beyond gun control discussions, that's just where it comes out the worse. I run into a lot of people who just go nuts if you don't agree with every aspect of their ideology. When I am on more liberal forums, or forums populated by a lot of liberals, I am often accused of being a conservative extremist and vice versus. I do my best to laugh about it, because if I didn't, I would cry.
tacitus -
Am I wrong to suggest that conservatives embrace binary thinking to a far greater degree than liberals/progressives?
Yes. You just don't hang out with the "right" sorts of liberals for it. I live (for the next few days yet) in Portland, OR, where the spectrum is center/left, to the extreme where folks think Castro was a great guy and virtually worship Chavez. The closer you get to the extreme, the more you get it. I am a conservative nut, according to a great many of these types - and honestly, when they accuse me of it, I smile with pride. Liberal as I am on most issues, I just don't want to be associated with folks like that.
Julian -
I think you're missing the point, Ed was clear that the persecution makes for a gay community. Point being that this is really all that makes for a gay community. And he's entirely correct. A majority of my friends are gay and the diversity of political and even social opinions are as vast as those of straight folks.
I really got into it several years ago, when I learned that a gay friend of mine is a republican. I just couldn't comprehend how one could both be gay and support a party that is contrary to their self-interest. He explained that while he has serious problems with the anti-gay bigotry that is (and was even worse then) so prevelant in the republican party, he agreed with their platform on a great many other issues. So rather than swallowing the bile and supporting the dems, he registered repub and fought to change his political party.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 6, 2008 3:21 PM
if the cato institute doesn't want to be linked to the likes of the heritage foundation, they should possibly try not being funded by the same groups that fund the rest of the right wing think tanks.
that said, all too often people get accused of being "simple minded", because they get tired of laying out the same old argument every single time they mention that "republicans are idiots".
Posted by: simpleminds | November 6, 2008 3:31 PM
Rob -
Blind idealism isn't always a bad thing -- then it depends entirely on how it's directed.
I have to respectfully disagree with that. With my neuro-pathologies, I am extremely prone to blind idealism and have learned over the years that it does no one any good - least of all me.
For example, when I first learned about the genocide in Darfur, I got obsessed. To the point where I was having trouble sleeping and when I did, I had nightmares about what was happening there. I was angry that no one would do a fucking thing about it and more angry that few were even willing to admit that it was genocide. Then I got to the point where it got my ulcers bad - I was puking and shitting blood. I even sent some rather nasty emails to others who shared my concern, when they got a grasp of the reality behind why no one was going in to stop it (too much to explain, but they were right). I was entirely unwilling to accept the reality of the situation and the only thing I got out of it all, were health problems that nearly put me in the hospital.
I was right, to a certain extent, but my blindness to reality caused me physical damage.
I am and always will be, an idealist. I not only believe, I know that my idealism is in a positive direction. But I make a constant force of will to ensure that I don't let it slip the blinders on me. When blind idealism is taken to an extreme, the result is people like Mao and Stalin and their purges. Even on a smaller scale, it is never and I mean never a good thing. Even if the idealism is basically correct.
For a current and great example of this, we need look no further than Hugo Chavez. In a great many ways, he is on the correct side of things (at least from my perspective). But because he has been so blinded by his idealism (and it is all idealism) he has moved Venezuela closer and closer to totalitarian socialism.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 6, 2008 3:43 PM
If the cato institute doesn't want to be linked to the likes of the heritage foundation, they should possibly try not being funded by the same groups that fund the rest of the right wing think tanks.
Oh please, how many left or liberal organizations would turn down contributions, because they disagree with other liberal organizations that receive contributions from that source? I am sure that Soros (for one example) funds a great many groups that may have their differences - doubt any of them turn down the cash (not to be taken as a knock on Soros - I really admire him for putting his fortune where his mouth is).
Posted by: DuWayne | November 6, 2008 3:47 PM
But DuWayne, you have to realize that the fact that you happen to know some people who think chavez is a good guy doesn't all of a sudden imply that there are an equal number of crazies in this country between left and right. They are about as representative of main-stream lefties as the KKK is of main stream righties.
In my eyes while among most non-intellectuals there is too much tribalism (which is basically what this post is decrying), among so-called intellectuals we have something of the opposite problem, where so long as there are two sides we try to claim that they are equivalently reasonable. It's not as much of a problem - nobody's getting killed over people always trying to make all sides equal, but it's still annoying and counterproductive in some ways.
When it comes to the liberal vs. conservative thing, I think it's pretty clear that when it comes to this country, in this period of time, liberals have less nutjobs. Although I don't think this is a function of the inherent goodness of liberalism, but rather an effect of having the government move to the far right in the past few decades. If I lived in Holland I'm pretty sure I'd think the nutjobs are on the liberal side.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 6, 2008 4:46 PM
Sexual orientation, Ed. You should know better.
Your point, however, is far more valid than most people, especially Democrats, doubly especially liberal Democrats, realize. There are a lot of conservative gays, and that's after 20 odd years of being actively chased out of the Republican party. There are also a fair number who still believe that the only way we're ever going to make lasting change is through the Republican party (that's assuming the theocrat wing doesn't get the name in the divorce--if they do, then the hope lies with wherever the Goldwater Republicans end up).
Most visible, out gays are liberals. There are still a hell of a lot of closets in this country (look no further than Florida Governor Charlie Crist; if he'd been a little further in the closet and married an appropriate beard three years ago instead of getting engaged during the VP search, he'd have been on the ticket with McCain and narrowed things considerably).
Oh, and despite not voting for him since there wasn't the least danger Obama wasn't going to carry California by double digits and being relieved that the unqualified by temperament McCain and the outright scary Palin lost, don't think I'm not several kinds of angry over the President-elect's role in the passage of California's Prop 8. He lost me in 2007 over the Donnie McClurkin incident and did not give me a reason to vote for him in the intervening months. Even if I had been so inclined, the way the Yes on 8 campaign was able to use his mushy straddling of the marriage issue from the April primary in a devastatingly effective final week mailer killed any possibility. It's the sort of thing that called for a very vocal repudiation that could have swung a quarter million Californians with ease. But the cost to his national margin would have been too great.
Posted by: usagi | November 6, 2008 4:46 PM
A bit of a side note, this natural predilection for binary thinking is a good thing to keep in mind if you ever have to guide someone through a decision making process. Whether it's designing software user interfaces, working on a marketing campaign, or getting my boss to make a decision he'd rather avoid, I use a dualistic approach whenever possible. I've seen doctors do it for their patients, lawyers with their clients and, as we've all just experienced, politicians to get elected.
One choice is really no choice at all, and people hate feeling cornered. Every choice beyond two increases confusion, stress, and the chance that the decision maker will just walk away. (Bad news for the outside political parties, I know.) This really hit home for me when I was working in sales.
One of the products I dealt with was china, primarily with engaged couples deciding what to register for. When I first started I would show people where they were displayed and just answer any questions they had. I had a spiel about quality, warranty, future replacements, etc. More often than not they'd browse for a while, ask a few questions, and then say, "They're all so nice, I can't decide. Do you have a catalogue I could take home?" From there maybe 1 in 10 would ever register with us.
Then I hit on the two-options method. Do you prefer bone or ceramic? Modern or traditional? Light or dark patterns? We'd whittle it down until we got to, this plate or that one. Poof, sale. All that salesman talk about quality and whatnot was basically irrelevant at that point. They had made their choice and nothing else would do. (Cognitive dissidence, justifying one's decision to oneself, plays in at this point too.)
At the time I didn't know why the two-option method worked. Only that it did. I tested all kinds of variations and found that even just three options were enough to have a negative impact on my close rate. So next time you find yourself with someone looking to you for guidance, you can of course offer them advice. Or you can come up with some two-option questions and with any luck, help them find the answer for themselves.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2008 5:31 PM
if the cato institute doesn't want to be linked to the likes of the heritage foundation, they should possibly try not being funded by the same groups that fund the rest of the right wing think tanks.
Actually the best way not to be linked to the Heritage Foundation is to continuously publish opinions that are diametrically opposed to opinions published by the Heritage Foundation. Funding has nothing to do with it for people more interested in evaluating complicated ideas than in simple sources of money.
Posted by: LJM | November 6, 2008 5:42 PM
You have got to be kidding. Liberal bias? Well educated professionals?
This "Liberal Media" you speak of, is this the same one that's owned by multinationals and who gave the swift boat liars(last time) such unquestioning & fawning coverage?
http://www.mediamatters.org/
Posted by: tincture | November 6, 2008 5:54 PM
tincture - I too monitor Media Matters regularly and subscribe to the maxim by Stephen Colbert, "Truth has a liberal bias". Media Matters only monitors unfair attacks on liberals, it doesn't even strive to provide an analysis of the entire spectrum of bias nor does it hide that fact. I also monitor factcheck.org (non-partisan) and the Media Research Center (conservative bias); perhaps you should as well.
I think the bias is present, unconscious, and somewhat benign. Just because there are exceptions or other driving factors doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What I saw happening with the swift boating of Kerry in 2004 by liberally biased media outlets was a fear of losing market share to "values voters" and a fear of not providing "fair and balanced" coverage. Conservative media was at its apex and media outlets having the ability to pander to Christianists was envied. While most of life we've had liberally biased institutions driving what the news was that was broadcast, conservative media has come along to challenge and at times dominate that coverage. After the election in 2004 we saw a conscious effort by NBC, CBS, and politicians to pander more towards Christians and Christianists, often with hilarious results.
This year it would be the Jeremiah Wright story late-spring/early-summer.
So certainly we've seen some right wing centric stories get with legs get overexposed. That doesn't change the perspective of the journalists who cover the stories though. I've also seen the rising success of MSNBC, which frigthens the beJesus out of Fox News, given their market share gains among younger demographics, so the influence on conservative bias on the media as a whole may already be ebbing.
Recognizing that a bias exists does not negate the existence of other factors, even conflicting pressures, which are certainly more prevalent over the past several years - a point I explicitly make and use to show a comparison of each side using the other's wing nuts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 7:13 PM
Coriolis -
But DuWayne, you have to realize that the fact that you happen to know some people who think chavez is a good guy doesn't all of a sudden imply that there are an equal number of crazies in this country between left and right.
I didn't say that there were equal numbers, I said that they go just as extreme and insane as the righties. That said, while there may be more extremist righties, the left is not nearly as far behind as many liberals would like to think. It's all a matter of degree - the more extreme you get, the less you find on either end.
But the further away from the extreme you get, the more reasonable they seem from the perspective of non-extremists. For example, there are a lot of folks who while otherwise reasonable, support notions such as hate speech restrictions. Some also support not only gay and plural marriages, but believe that it should be illegal for any church to discriminate against them, by not performing such marriages. People who for the most part, most mainstream liberals would agree with on most issues.
Yet if you disagree with them on anything, including their bizarre views on hate speech, you are the enemy and just as bad as any extreme right winger. And it's not just hate speech. You have a fair number who get all up in arms about guns, the "fairness" doctrine and any number of other fucked up notions.
I would also note, in anecdotal fashion, that I get slammed with this binary thinking just as much from the left, as I do from the right.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 6, 2008 7:23 PM
DuWayne, I'm not sure that "blind idealism" is the right phrase for what I mean, but I can't think of anything better at the moment.
I absolutely agree, your example was not idealism that was having any positive effect whatsoever -- simply making you sick with anxiety doesn't help anyone.
But think of some of the progress made in the world in the face of crushing odds. Who are the people who stand in front of tanks, who we see struck down by mobs or policemen, who are thrown in jail for decades or forever, etc... These are people who are unreasonably idealistic, who cling to their ideal in spite of impossible odds, and (frequently) who do not see real progress in their lifetimes, though they may inspire great change.
If everyone on the side of "good" were reasonable and pragmatic, would change ever happen against strong countering forces? Or would people reasonably settle for the status quo because the cost of pushing for change would be too high?
Also, the downside of stronger individualism can be that we are all more alone -- which is closer to reality, in the real diversity of views on disparate issues, but also saps the energy of any group trying to act as a unit.
Dunno if I'm making a coherent point; I'm just trying to get a handle on how "mob thinking" functions in the world, and it seems to me like we can't just stamp it "evil" and be done with it.
Posted by: Rob Whelan | November 6, 2008 7:55 PM
[quote]It's the kind of thinking that causes some readers of this blog to accuse me of supporting corporate control of politics because I believe in free markets. ;)[/quote]
Isn't "free markets" itself a label?
Posted by: Paul Murray | November 6, 2008 8:12 PM
So Michael Heath, your evidence of Hte Liberal Media is that it unquestioningly runs republican talking points? Or are you seriously saying that if reality has a liberal bias and somebody reports what is really happening, that's evidence of them having a liberal bias?
The Media Research Center is not a conservative media watchdog, it's a joke. Just as creationists make up fake journals so they can say they're peer reviewed, so have "conservatives" made a fake media watchdog group.
...Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match. "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."
Posted by: tincture | November 6, 2008 8:33 PM
tincture - I'll stand on my previous comments.
I do find your thesis ironic given the subject matter of Ed's post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2008 10:56 PM
Great post,couldn't agree more.I've been on the receiving side of binary thinking far too often,and every time it just infuriates me.It's not just politics,it's everything.I find it very hard to understand why it is so difficult for people to just see every person as themselves.
Posted by: a.willoughby | November 6, 2008 11:12 PM
Abby,
You just increased my own close ratio by at least 50%. That was the extra part of the Socratic Method as applied to sales that I didn't know I was missing.
Thank you for your post of 5:31 pm.
Rob Whelan,
I'm intrigued that you already know what I think! ;)
I'll let you find a location for us to discuss the ideas. If there is an error in my logic, I'd very much like to learn about it.
I think there is a difference between binary thinking and mob thinking, but now that you are talking about it, I also think Ed melded the two somewhat.
***
To reiterate a point made many times in the comments - How can someone claim to be rational and interested in discussion when their reaction to others is, "I already know what you think about Y because you think a certain way about X, etc." Here's an example:
Her binary thinking appears to be that anyone who is against socialism must be an "every man for himself" kind of thinker. It seems she does not believe that one can be for safety nets while being against the government as the provider of those nets.
Thanks,
ME
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 2:00 AM
Wow, so many of you commenting fall into the very trap Kuznicki is warning us all about. You describe the reactions that you expect from "the right" and "the left" with the same general disdain and vitriol you claim to abhor, like you didn't even read the article. And then some of you go on to add you don't expect binary thinking to end anytime soon. Could that possibly be because you're perpetuating it? Un-real....
Posted by: dabbadabba | November 7, 2008 3:21 AM
There is nothing ironic about me pointing at a track record of endlessly repeating republican talking points and ownership by multinationals who would not benefit at all from left-wing political decisions and drawing from that that "Hte Liberal Media" is a fucking joke.
You continually refuse to provide anything to support your claim, no motive and no examples, but accuse me of binary thinking. At this point I take it that it's simply because you can't. gg.
Posted by: tincture | November 7, 2008 3:28 AM
I did provide evidence in all but one post tincture, the last one. I see no evidence in any of your claims, just challenges to mine.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 7, 2008 6:19 AM
So you were serious when you said that parroting republican talking points was proof of a liberal bias?!
Fuck me, there's not much I can say to logic like that. That's as bad as that flier asking people if they were voting for Obama because they hate black people. That's as bad as claiming that Obama's win vindicates republican race-baiting.
I'm glad you eventually woke up to what a tool McCain and Palin were and you realized what a joke the republican party is, but you've still got a long way to go on critical thinking and it appears you're still swallowing some of their bs.
Posted by: tincture | November 7, 2008 7:34 AM
tincture,
I never said, "parroting republican talking points was proof of a liberal bias?!" as you claim. You stated such in your 8:33 p.m. comment post last evening.
If you have something compelling to argue, fine, present it. So far I've seen nothing worth responding to that I haven't already presented. You appear unaware of the existence and editorial positions of the New York Times and Washington Post and how they drive news cycles. Nor do you appear aware of MSNBC's prime-time hosts and how they balance Faux News: Matthews (center-left), Olberman (left), and Maddow (left) - how can I help such rank ignorance?
As a little mental exercise, why you don't go find out the last time the NYTs endorsed either the Republican candidate for President or even the more conservative presidential candidate. Take a class on how the news cycle is driven from the Times and Post through to the network news shows and how the Internet and conservative media ascendancy is diluting their past dominance. Go have an argument with Sarah Palin; so far you've presented yourself as an ideologue as ignorant and blinded as see is, therefore you should have some stimulating debate.
I continue to find your zeal ironic given the topic of Ed posted on this thread.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 7, 2008 9:00 AM
But I also know there have been law-breakers among those who espouse your philosophy.
Posted by: Bill Clinton | November 7, 2008 10:35 AM
"Am I wrong to suggest that conservatives embrace binary thinking to a far greater degree than liberals/progressives?"
Yes, that's why the world can be neatly divided into binary-thinking, bad conservatives and open-minded, good progressives!
Posted by: Gene Callahan | November 9, 2008 11:40 AM
@Michael Enquist:
Dunno if you'll come back to check on this... but if you want lay out your arguments (and correct what I *think* are your arguments, naturally) here's your chance... or anyone else who stops by can hop in if they're interested:
http://www.squidoo.com/atheistmarket
Here's the original quote I disagreed with:
Posted by: Rob Whelan | November 9, 2008 8:15 PM
I was very liberal when I was in college, and then switched to strongly conservative after being in the real (not ivory tower) world for a while. But many of my views would upset conservatives big time.
The deal with binary views can be traced back to our cave man roots (if you believe in evolution) and before. The world was a very scary place, and the best way to survive was to be in a group. Everything not in the group was dangerous. Everything in the group was hopefully on your side, at least as far as safety was concerned. If a predator attacked, the whole group could take off in many directions, and only one member died, but you were not sticking around to see that. Not really a mutual defense pact, just safety in numbers by obscurity.
Monkeys, gazelles, birds, fish, everyone operated that way, unless they were on the top of the food pyramid.
We are still programmed to need safety, and we are still programmed that safety can be found in a crowd. Blend in, fit in, do not express any opinions that might differ from the group (box, pigeonhole) you are trying to fit into. This determines dress, behaviors, bias, attitudes, associations, etc.
Because you for sure do not want to be rejected by or thrown out of the group.
Posted by: Ross Amans | November 13, 2008 5:29 PM