"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Or so said the great Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. If you're liberal, then you're very likely to agree with his statement. If you're conservative, you'll disagree and believe that reality has a conservative bias.1 With both sides passionately believing that reality share's their own political bias, how do we find out which ideology works best in the world? Is it even possible?
Liberals will tell you that a tax increase on the very wealthy will benefit the country and economy, more gun control will make society safer, and that same-sex marriage is healthy — not detrimental — for America. To them, the signs point to a country that is better when socially liberal and progressive policies are in place and that enacting conservative policies and principles will only devolve the country. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that more regulation on businesses and corporations hurts the economy, gun control actually does not make society safer, and that same-sex marriage is wrong and will corrode the concept of marriage in the US. A typical conservative will assure you that their ideology is necessary to keep the country morally upright and in good shape and that the evidence points to liberalism as a detrimental ideology for the country. With both sides claiming that the evidence supports their beliefs, how on earth are we supposed to know which policies would really be best for us?
Of course, parts of each ideology, particularly with social issues, are not always supported strictly because their believers think they are what's the very best for the country's prosperity. Many conservatives oppose the use of contraceptives not because they think they will have a sizable negative affect on the country's prosperity, but because they prefer total abstinence and/or dislike the idea of inhibiting female fertility.2 So sometimes these political biases might not be attempted to be projected by their holders onto reality's possible bias.
The most accurate and nonpartisan method of determining whether reality has "a well-known liberal bias" or a conservative bias is to amass a boatload of empirical date and see which ideology creates the more beneficial and prosperous trends.3 For example, one could examine gun laws in countries all over the world and see how their varying stringency matches up to their rates of gun violence. Places with higher and lower government regulation on business can be compared to see which come out more prosperous and how positively or negatively affected its citizens are by the subsequently allowed or disallowed business practices. Social issues will undoubtedly be the hardest to measure. Maybe for same-sex marriage, one could look at the happiness of a citizens in nations that both allow gay marriage don't allow it and also see how morally upright a country is (say, by how much they give to charity among other factors).4 The people of these countries could also be polled on how paranoid they are that polygamy, human-dog, and human-shoe marriages will come about as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage (to see if the likely detrimental "slippery slope" hypothesis is valid). The different possible stances on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion that a country could take may not affect the overall prosperity and virtue of a nation as much as, say, economic or health issues would, but hopefully a large enough trend could be measured to come to a conclusion.
The problem here, however, is that both sides already utilize what are supposed to be the same statistics for their own ideology and come out with wildly different conclusions. A liberal politician will claim that a liberal economic policy has been overall beneficial to the country while his or her conservative counterpart will claim that it has been overall detrimental. Sites like FactCheck are helpful in seeing through much of the deceiving political spin that both sides espouse, but an ultimate conclusion on whether a liberal or conservative policy is truly the most beneficial to the country is harder to construe from them. So unless a huge and completely independent and assuredly nonpartisan study is done with all the various trends in many different countries, coming to a solid conclusion will be nigh impossible. For now, personal opinion on how a society should be run and how it should act is largely the only weapon the two sides have in convincing others that reality share's their political bias.
Even though reality is likely some sort of mix between the two sides, getting people to accept an ultimate and undeniable conclusion based on solid evidence is going to be harder than coming to the conclusion in the first place. Even if a liberal is shown that heavier regulation of guns makes the country less safe, he or she will be hard-pressed to accept a freer flow of guns in society. Similarly, if a conservative is shown that allowing homosexual couples to marry actually resulted in a noticeable betterment of society, he or she will be reluctant to embrace the expansion of civil rights. Convincing people with strong opinions (political, religious, and the like) that they're wrong or that at least they don't believe in what's best can be like trying to teach calculus to a dog. It's excruciatingly difficult and the subject probably doesn't want to participate. Even with indisputable evidence, confirmation bias will likely take over on both sides and many liberals and conservatives will not be able to come to terms with whatever bias there could be in reality (that is, if their beliefs run contrary to the findings). We see this all the time in politics, religion, and a whole host of other realms where people strongly disagree; unfortunately evidence isn't always the trump card in a disagreement — even though it should be.
This can be illustrated the following way (with generalizations). Conservatives see President Obama as a man trying to implant socialism in the United States, trying to turn the country towards his radical ideas no matter the cost, and an all-around awful (if not evil) guy. They're convinced that Republicans in Congress obstructing his harmful agenda are doing what's best for the country. Liberals, on the other hand, see the President as someone who is doing his best to improve the country and not trying to introduce a radical agenda. They're convinced that Republicans in Congress are maliciously obstructing his work for the sake of opposing him. Both sides are often diehard in their views of the President, his goals, Congressional Republicans, and their goals and can't imagine how their counterparts across the aisle can be so supportive of the side they so dislike. Motivation is harder to prove or disprove than policy results, but proof that one or both sides isn't really bad (or are in actuality bad) wouldn't really do much in the way of changing liberals' and conservatives' minds.
So this begs the question: Is trying to find out whether or not reality has a liberal or conservative bias even worth it? I would say so, at least for myself, even if there are some people I can never convince. These people who can't be convinced will still see reality as agreeing with them which almost renders the real possible bias of reality pointless if there are enough of these people. If liberals truly believe that only liberal policies are beneficial and enhance prosperity and conservatives truly believe that only conservative policies are beneficial and enhance prosperity, then there are, effectively, two general coexisting realities. I mean there is, obviously, one objective reality, but if two different groups are unwavering in holding their beliefs to be consistent with the way reality works, then finding out reality's true bias seems pointless, at least for purposes of convincing others.
Even though I figure reality's probably a mix of ideologies, I, of course, believe reality has a bias consistent with much, if not all, of my own beliefs. It sounds contradictory in a way, but I think my beliefs are superior (as others who feel the opposite think their's are superior). At the same time, there are so many who hold the opposite beliefs to mine that there must be something there that reality favors.
So for the time being, however, there is no effective and objective reality with a certain political bias that demonstrates how one ideology is empirically better than the other. For all intents and purposes, society's pretty much stuck with two while the individual has their one.
1 And if you're centrist, you probably want both sides to stop trying to call dibs on everyone else's reality.
2 Or, as a sarcastic liberal might add, they just don't want people to enjoy themselves too much.
3 I do something similar in an article on which countries could be considered the best in the world.
4 Other variables that can affect this would have to be worked around to ensure that the observed trend is caused by the allowance or the non-allowance of gay marriage. If gay marriage hurts a society morally, we would expect those countries that allow it to have worse trends in moral things like giving to charity.
Or so said the great Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. If you're liberal, then you're very likely to agree with his statement. If you're conservative, you'll disagree and believe that reality has a conservative bias.1 With both sides passionately believing that reality share's their own political bias, how do we find out which ideology works best in the world? Is it even possible?
Liberals will tell you that a tax increase on the very wealthy will benefit the country and economy, more gun control will make society safer, and that same-sex marriage is healthy — not detrimental — for America. To them, the signs point to a country that is better when socially liberal and progressive policies are in place and that enacting conservative policies and principles will only devolve the country. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that more regulation on businesses and corporations hurts the economy, gun control actually does not make society safer, and that same-sex marriage is wrong and will corrode the concept of marriage in the US. A typical conservative will assure you that their ideology is necessary to keep the country morally upright and in good shape and that the evidence points to liberalism as a detrimental ideology for the country. With both sides claiming that the evidence supports their beliefs, how on earth are we supposed to know which policies would really be best for us?
Of course, parts of each ideology, particularly with social issues, are not always supported strictly because their believers think they are what's the very best for the country's prosperity. Many conservatives oppose the use of contraceptives not because they think they will have a sizable negative affect on the country's prosperity, but because they prefer total abstinence and/or dislike the idea of inhibiting female fertility.2 So sometimes these political biases might not be attempted to be projected by their holders onto reality's possible bias.
The most accurate and nonpartisan method of determining whether reality has "a well-known liberal bias" or a conservative bias is to amass a boatload of empirical date and see which ideology creates the more beneficial and prosperous trends.3 For example, one could examine gun laws in countries all over the world and see how their varying stringency matches up to their rates of gun violence. Places with higher and lower government regulation on business can be compared to see which come out more prosperous and how positively or negatively affected its citizens are by the subsequently allowed or disallowed business practices. Social issues will undoubtedly be the hardest to measure. Maybe for same-sex marriage, one could look at the happiness of a citizens in nations that both allow gay marriage don't allow it and also see how morally upright a country is (say, by how much they give to charity among other factors).4 The people of these countries could also be polled on how paranoid they are that polygamy, human-dog, and human-shoe marriages will come about as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage (to see if the likely detrimental "slippery slope" hypothesis is valid). The different possible stances on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion that a country could take may not affect the overall prosperity and virtue of a nation as much as, say, economic or health issues would, but hopefully a large enough trend could be measured to come to a conclusion.
The problem here, however, is that both sides already utilize what are supposed to be the same statistics for their own ideology and come out with wildly different conclusions. A liberal politician will claim that a liberal economic policy has been overall beneficial to the country while his or her conservative counterpart will claim that it has been overall detrimental. Sites like FactCheck are helpful in seeing through much of the deceiving political spin that both sides espouse, but an ultimate conclusion on whether a liberal or conservative policy is truly the most beneficial to the country is harder to construe from them. So unless a huge and completely independent and assuredly nonpartisan study is done with all the various trends in many different countries, coming to a solid conclusion will be nigh impossible. For now, personal opinion on how a society should be run and how it should act is largely the only weapon the two sides have in convincing others that reality share's their political bias.
Even though reality is likely some sort of mix between the two sides, getting people to accept an ultimate and undeniable conclusion based on solid evidence is going to be harder than coming to the conclusion in the first place. Even if a liberal is shown that heavier regulation of guns makes the country less safe, he or she will be hard-pressed to accept a freer flow of guns in society. Similarly, if a conservative is shown that allowing homosexual couples to marry actually resulted in a noticeable betterment of society, he or she will be reluctant to embrace the expansion of civil rights. Convincing people with strong opinions (political, religious, and the like) that they're wrong or that at least they don't believe in what's best can be like trying to teach calculus to a dog. It's excruciatingly difficult and the subject probably doesn't want to participate. Even with indisputable evidence, confirmation bias will likely take over on both sides and many liberals and conservatives will not be able to come to terms with whatever bias there could be in reality (that is, if their beliefs run contrary to the findings). We see this all the time in politics, religion, and a whole host of other realms where people strongly disagree; unfortunately evidence isn't always the trump card in a disagreement — even though it should be.
This can be illustrated the following way (with generalizations). Conservatives see President Obama as a man trying to implant socialism in the United States, trying to turn the country towards his radical ideas no matter the cost, and an all-around awful (if not evil) guy. They're convinced that Republicans in Congress obstructing his harmful agenda are doing what's best for the country. Liberals, on the other hand, see the President as someone who is doing his best to improve the country and not trying to introduce a radical agenda. They're convinced that Republicans in Congress are maliciously obstructing his work for the sake of opposing him. Both sides are often diehard in their views of the President, his goals, Congressional Republicans, and their goals and can't imagine how their counterparts across the aisle can be so supportive of the side they so dislike. Motivation is harder to prove or disprove than policy results, but proof that one or both sides isn't really bad (or are in actuality bad) wouldn't really do much in the way of changing liberals' and conservatives' minds.
So this begs the question: Is trying to find out whether or not reality has a liberal or conservative bias even worth it? I would say so, at least for myself, even if there are some people I can never convince. These people who can't be convinced will still see reality as agreeing with them which almost renders the real possible bias of reality pointless if there are enough of these people. If liberals truly believe that only liberal policies are beneficial and enhance prosperity and conservatives truly believe that only conservative policies are beneficial and enhance prosperity, then there are, effectively, two general coexisting realities. I mean there is, obviously, one objective reality, but if two different groups are unwavering in holding their beliefs to be consistent with the way reality works, then finding out reality's true bias seems pointless, at least for purposes of convincing others.
Even though I figure reality's probably a mix of ideologies, I, of course, believe reality has a bias consistent with much, if not all, of my own beliefs. It sounds contradictory in a way, but I think my beliefs are superior (as others who feel the opposite think their's are superior). At the same time, there are so many who hold the opposite beliefs to mine that there must be something there that reality favors.
So for the time being, however, there is no effective and objective reality with a certain political bias that demonstrates how one ideology is empirically better than the other. For all intents and purposes, society's pretty much stuck with two while the individual has their one.
1 And if you're centrist, you probably want both sides to stop trying to call dibs on everyone else's reality.
2 Or, as a sarcastic liberal might add, they just don't want people to enjoy themselves too much.
3 I do something similar in an article on which countries could be considered the best in the world.
4 Other variables that can affect this would have to be worked around to ensure that the observed trend is caused by the allowance or the non-allowance of gay marriage. If gay marriage hurts a society morally, we would expect those countries that allow it to have worse trends in moral things like giving to charity.
No comments:
Post a Comment