The Normalcy of Hypocrisy: From Clean Energy to Health Care, Conservatives Flip Flop in Support of the Team

Tue, 2012-06-19 07:04Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Normalcy of Hypocrisy: From Clean Energy to Health Care, Conservatives Flip Flop in Support of the Team

One striking feature of the liberal psyche is how it is simultaneously outraged by hypocrisy on the conservative side of the aisle—and yet also morbidly fascinated by it.

Just this morning, reading, I came across the following examples:

1.      Ezra Klein’s much discussed New Yorker article, on how Republicans came to oppose the healthcare individual mandate that was, you know, their own idea for 20 years. I find Klein a bit wishy-washy overall, because he uses a political psychology analysis (which is generally good) but fails to acknowledge its full implications: Republicans engage in team-oriented groupthink more strongly than Democrats. This is the finding of Klein’s own key source, moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who stresses that in-group loyalty is stronger on political the right. Still, Klein's is a good article overall for factually capturing the flip-flop.

2.      In the same Ezra Klein piece, we find the following additional examples of conservative hypocrisy, or flip-flopping: “In 2007, both Newt Gingrich and John McCain wanted a cap-and-trade program in order to reduce carbon emissions. Today, neither they nor any other leading Republicans support cap-and-trade.” And: “In 2008, the Bush Administration proposed, pushed, and signed the Economic Stimulus Act, a deficit-financed tax cut designed to boost the flagging economy. Today, few Republicans admit that a deficit-financed stimulus can work. Indeed, with the exception of raising taxes on the rich, virtually every major policy currently associated with the Obama Administration was, within the past decade, a Republican idea in good standing.”

3.      At Climate Progress, there’s a recent piece on Republican hypocrisy in opposing innovative clean energy companies and supporting fossil fuel subsidies. Wait, aren’t these guys supposed to be in favor of the free market? Doh…

4.      At my own blog, contributor Dylan Otto Krider explains how Antonin Scalia is gearing up to provide the legalese to overturn the healthcare individual mandate, and how his thinking has, er, matured on the matter of states’ rights. Bush v. Gore, the pinnacle of partisan judicial hypocrisy, is tossed in to boot.

Look, folks: It is past time to stop finding any of this surprising, shocking, appalling, etc. And it is definitely time to stop finding it intriguing or fascinating.

Instead, it is time to start considering it normal. Why?

According to Jonathan Haidt—although, again, Ezra Klein doesn’t go there—Republicans/conservatives are more group oriented. And of course, human beings engage in motivated reasoning (among other reasons) to defend their tribe, group, or team. Indeed, the key theme of American politics today, you could argue, is that Republicans and conservatives have strongly defined liberals and especially President Obama as an out-group, one that must be resisted at all costs.

And why are Republicans and conservatives more group oriented? Well, that’s a fascinating question. It’s one that, honestly, I wish I’d unpacked a tad better in The Republican Brain.

Here, the research of social psychologist Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland becomes highly relevant, and needs to be merged with that of Haidt. As I report in The Republican Brain based on Kruglanski’s work, conservatives tend to have a higher “need for closure”—need to have a fixed belief, to dispel uncertainty and doubt—than do liberals. And what helps you achieve closure? Why, your group—belonging to it, thinking what it thinks, doing what it does. Or as one Kruglanski paper puts it:

Theory and research are presented relating the need for cognitive closure to major facets of group behavior. It is suggested that a high need for closure, whether it is based on members' disposition or the situation, contributes to the emergence of a behavioral syndrome describable as group-centrism–a pattern that includes pressures to opinion uniformity, encouragement of autocratic leadership, in-group favoritism, rejection of deviates, resistance to change, conservatism, and the perpetuation of group norms.

So, okay. We’ve got a bunch of group-oriented conservatives, aka Republicans. This group (notably, back when it was somewhat less unified) used to have a set of positions—on the free market, on cap-and-trade, on economic stimulus, and especially on health care.

But along comes a sharply defined out-group, and its leader embraces these positions. In fact, that leader makes the group’s position the centerpiece of his primary legislative push—and, it turns out, his number one legislative victory.

At this point, what is more important? Fidelity to the old ideas, or fidelity to the group? If you said the group, you are of course correct. And then motivated reasoning ensues: The justification and rationalization of the perceived “flip-flop,” and the bolstering of the new position.

And there is really not much more to explain about recent American politics, or about conservative views today versus conservative views of yesteryear.

To me, there are only two remaining issues here: 1) why do disobedient, disloyal, and non-group oriented liberals find this so eerily fascinating? and 2) do why some liberal or centrist media commentators sidestep the full partisan ramifications of political psychology research?

But save those issues for another day.

The upshot, for now, is simple: According to Jonathan Haidt + Arie Kruglanski, Republicans/conservatives, more so than Democrats/liberals, are group-oriented and engage in motivated reasoning on behalf of the group, tribe, or team. And as American politics is now exceedingly tribal, all else plays out accordingly.

Any questions?

Comments

Women march in Rio to protest ‘green economy’.

“Thousands of women representing social and farm movements marched in central Rio Monday to rail against the “green economy” advocated by the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development.”

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/women-march-rio-protest-green-economy-174353168.html

Things are really going ‘south’ down at the Rio +20 meetings. Guess it’s not just old white guys that distrust the Green movement, eh?

Perhaps you should read a little more.  They have absolutely nothing in common with stupid white guys such as yourself.  Their talking points are the exact diametric opposite of you.  They claim this is all capitalist propaganda, not socialist as you and Heartland would have us believe.

Here’s a break down on what they are all about;

http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/la-via-campesina-the-birth-and-evolution-of-a-transnational-social-movement.html

Here’s what they are protesting about;

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1207:reclaiming-our-future-rio-20-and-beyond&catid=48:-climate-change-and-agrofuels&Itemid=75

“Twenty years later, governments should have reconvened to review their commitments and progress, but in reality the issue to debate will be the “green economy” led development, propagating the same capitalist model that caused climate chaos and other deep social and environmental crises.

So… first, they aren’t protesting ‘green’ at all.  They are protesting the capitalism that is already there.  (This is the very stuff you represent Chas.)

Somehow I don’t think these guys have anything at all in common with you Chas, they’re socialists, and they want to “force countries and corporations to reduce pollution”.  That doesn’t sound like you at all Chas.  Or maybe you’ve had a change of heart?

“The idea of “Sustainable Development” put forward in 1992, which merged “development” and “environment” concerns, did not solve the problem because it did not stop the capitalist system in its race towards profit at the expense of all human and natural resources:

- The food system is increasingly in the grips of large corporations seeking profit, not aimed at feeding the people.

- The Convention on Biodiversiy has created benefit sharing mechanisms but at the end of the day, they legitimize the capitalization of genetic resources by the private sector.

- The UN Convention on Climate Change, instead of forcing countries and corporations to reduce pollution, invented a new profitable and speculative commodity with the carbon trading mechanisms, allowing the polluter to continue polluting and profit from it.”

I think that last point is wrong…   At least in Alberta Heavy polluters can buy ‘carbon credits’ from farmers.  Doesn’t sound like an entirely empire empire to me….  Stephen Harper copied that plan from George Bush.  Hardly socialists..

In any case I bet they hate Heartland, WUWT and all the other crap you read Chas with all their might.

Why are they protesting?

Is it because countries such as Canada are derailing the talks?  Watering down the language, and otherwise incinerating good intentions?

I think that’s why they are upset.

The one that drives me nuts is deficit reduction. They never cared about deficits, they care about Dems not getting to make spending decisions when in power. All Clinton’s surplus got us was a lot of Democratic sacrifice for Bush’s spending free on wars and tax cuts. Yet they’ve somehow established themselves as the “austere” ones. Dems are the austere ones so Republicans can go on spending sprees. Beautiful politics, though.

[x]

There are enough articles on the “myth of peak oil” floating around the Internet to fill a book; and there are enough books on the subject to fill a small library.  One of the common threads throughout these publications is their lack of credible sources, because not only is peak oil real, but we’re rapidly approaching that threshold. 

An example that is smacking the United...

read more