Dissecting leftism at its core belief system

The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance

Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left.

"Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them."

That bit of advice, No. 1 on a list titled "The 10 Most Important Things Democrats Should Know," comes from the promotional material for "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic" by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling. (You may remember them from our June 12 column.) In a PJMedia.com essay, the anonymous blogger whose pen name is Zombie draws out the implications:

Many politicians, pundits and talking heads have taken Lakoff's recommendation to heart. This is why conservatives and liberals can't seem to have the simplest conversation: liberals intentionally refuse to address or even acknowledge what conservatives say. Since (as Lakoff notes) conservatives invariably frame their own statements within their own conservative "moral frames," every time a conservative speaks, his liberal opponent will seemingly ignore what was said and instead come back with a reply literally [sic] out of left field.

Thus, he is the progenitor of and primary advocate for the main reason why liberalism fails to win the public debate: Because it never directly confronts, disproves or negates conservative notions--it simply ignores them. . . .

By intentionally refusing to challenge, disprove, understand or even acknowledge the existence of the other side's argument, you allow that argument to grow in strength and win converts.

This is an important insight, not only into the way the left debates and otherwise communicates, but into the way the left thinks--or fails to think. The book's subtitle, after all, promises an instruction in "Thinking and Talking Democratic." Lakoff and Wehling command their readers not only to act as if opposing arguments are without merit, but to close their minds to those arguments. What comes across to conservatives as a maddening arrogance is actually willed ignorance.

Such an attitude is the product of leftist intellectuals, not political professionals--and, as Zombie notes, the latter are foolish to follow it:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is an exemplary Lakoffite, relentlessly hammering home her own framing of each issue, and utterly ignoring the Republican frame, except on rare occasion to mock it. How effective is this? A quick survey of conservative sites shows that she is regarded as the Queen of Buffoons, a figure meriting gleeful derision and eliciting relief that the Democrats have selected the worst possible spokesperson. She certainly hasn't changed a single conservative mind, I can assure you. But has she converted "undecided" voters to the liberal cause?

I posit that the answer is "No," and I'll explain why. . . . Lakoff has an authoritative "scientist" persona in addition to his partisan "activist" persona, but in order to lend gravitas to his arguments he must conflate the two and pretend to be an impartial scientist while in reality enunciating transparently partisan talking points. Yet people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz don't have that option, so that when she speaks, every single listener already knows that she is a partisan spewing partisan spin. She doesn't have an "authority hat" to put on which might give her statements the veneer of impartial truth.

This is one difference between an intellectual and a politician: When an intellectual haughtily dismisses opposing arguments, he does so in part by resting on his authority as an intellectual. This authority may give him a false sense of his own intellectual strength and that of his arguments.

Recall how lefty law professors thought mockery a sufficient response to the idea that Congress's Commerce Clause authority has limits. Lefty journalists and politicians joined in the mockery, made confident by the authoritative pronouncements of the scholars. The U.S. Supreme Court has now adopted a legal principle that elite law professors refused even to comprehend.

The other difference between an intellectual and a politician is that the latter's profession entails regular reality checks. If the Democrats do badly this fall, Barack Obama and the unwieldily named Wasserman Schultz will be understood to have failed. He will lose his job, and she will likely lose her prominence. Lakoff presumably has tenure, which shields him from reality. Barring a severe financial crisis in the higher education industry, he's set for life.

Zombie cites the abortion debate as an example of the hazards of willed ignorance:

According to Lakoff, liberals should in no way challenge the claim that abortion is murder; in fact, they shouldn't even acknowledge that such a claim is being made. (True to form, Lakoff himself never mentions this position in his discussion of abortion.) But here's the problem for Lakoff: It's a really really convincing argument. And it's also a concept that every woman on some gut-instinct level knows is at a minimum somewhat true, if not entirely true. Of course a fetus is human or a near-human; the only valid question (one which Lakoff forbids even asking) is when does it acquire individual human rights? Conception; birth; or somewhere in the middle?

So the Lakoffites can yap about "freedom of choice" and "women's independence" and "reproductive rights" all day long, yet the listener will think: But you aren't addressing the fundamental question. Is it murder? "Stop thinking in those terms," cries Lakoff. But the public can't stop, because the idea of abortion as murder has already been stated, and the idea of fetus as human existed even long before the modern political debates. Even if there were no Republican party, no conservative movement, a great many people would still have moral compunctions about abortion, because the controversy is rooted in biological realities, and was not fabricated out of thin air by reactionary rabble-rousers.

And this same insuperable problem bedevils every aspect of Lakoff's thesis: Most of the countervailing "conservative" arguments he seeks to suppress are rooted in inescapable economic, biological or physical reality that can't be euphemized out of existence, no matter how hard you try.

Although it is self-imposed, this willed ignorance is a totalitarian mindset. One forbids oneself from thinking certain thoughts, from acknowledging uncertain realities. But sometimes reality forces its way through, producing cognitive dissonance. Such an example is at hand, and on the subject of Zombie's example: abortion.

Slate's Katie Roiphe is an absolutist about so-called reproductive rights. But she found herself experiencing cognitive dissonance--from an unlikely source. She doesn't appear to take the arguments of abortion opponents any more seriously than Lakoff does. But she was attracted to the idea of "preglimony," a legal regime that would impose financial obligations on a man who impregnates a woman to whom he is not married.

We argued in Monday's column that the idea is pernicious on multiple grounds. By contrast, Roiphe, herself an unwed mother, finds it "eminently sensible and humane." But it forces her to reconsider some of her pro-abortion dogma:

The interests of protecting expectant mothers do not necessarily coincide with the interest of protecting abortion rights. Once you admit that the father is responsible to a woman carrying his fetus, you are halfway, at least in an imaginative sphere, to admitting that the fetus is a "life."

Even though "right-thinking liberals"--Roiphe's term--would never, ever reach such a conclusion, she takes the decidedly un-Lakoffian approach of advising them to consider using more conciliatory rhetoric: "The argument for reproductive rights needs to seek out more modern terms, terms that accommodate the new and emerging technologies and uncomfortable ambiguities of the avocado-sized entity," which is to say, the unborn child. "I think the new technologies, and the new demographic realities, in which unwed mothers need protections, demand a more imaginative, honest rhetoric."

Here is an example:

Can we admit that a woman has the right to choose, while also acknowledging what we see on sonograms? Can we say "embryos" and "fetuses" do represent some form of "life" without conceding a woman's absolute control over the womb that bears them? A person who has had an abortion knows, and in fact has always known, and experienced very intimately this charged ambiguity: An unborn fetus that is wanted is a "baby," and an unborn fetus that is not wanted is a "fetus."

Through her use of rhetorical questions and the passive voice, Roiphe considerably softens a position that, stated flatly, amounts to this: A woman's desire is sufficient to justify her "absolute control" over whether her unborn child is a human being or a disposable object.

When you put it baldly like that, it is a monstrous proposition. One begins to understand why Lakoff-style willed ignorance is such a seductive alternative.

Seeing Red
Movie director Milos Forman, who was born in communist Czechoslovakia, takes exception in a New York Times op-ed to conservatives who characterize President Obama as a socialist:

I hear the word "socialist" being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, "Obamacare is socialism!" They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

Here's Forman's argument, encapsulated into a syllogism:

If someone is not a socialist, he is not a communist.
Obama is not a communist.
Therefore, Obama is not a socialist.

The technical term for the fallacy Forman has committed is "affirming the consequent": mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one. Even if the Times's editors lack training in formal logic, it's astonishing that they failed to notice such an obvious error.

And here's another op-ed from today's Times, this one from Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer:

What we require now is a new framework for thinking and talking about the economy, grounded in modern understandings of how things actually work. Economies, as social scientists now understand, aren't simple, linear and predictable, but complex, nonlinear and ecosystemic. An economy isn't a machine; it's a garden. It can be fruitful if well tended, but will be overrun by noxious weeds if not.

In this new framework, which we call Gardenbrain, markets are not perfectly efficient but can be effective if well managed. Where Machinebrain posits that it's every man for himself, Gardenbrain recognizes that we're all better off when we're all better off.

OK, now we're sure somebody is putting one over on the Times's editors. This is obviously a satire of "Being There."

'Civil Rights' Ain't What It Used to Be
The White House website has a page touting the Obama administration's accomplishments in "civil rights," but blogger Jeryl Bier notes that the term is defined rather widely:

Fully eight of the eleven items on the Civil Rights "Progress" list deal with LGBT-related issues such as gay marriage, don't ask-don't tell repeal, and federal benefits for same-sex partners. (One of the eight was the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is named after a gay man and a black man who each were victims of terrible crimes.) Of the remaining three items on the list, one is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, meant to restore "basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers," and another is the signing of settlements of six lawsuits, five brought by Native American tribes and one by black farmers.

Further down on the page is a single statement addressing voting rights: "The President is committed to expanding funding for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to ensure that voting rights are protected and Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress."

The emphasis on "voting rights"--which is to say, on combating antifraud measures--is a big part of the Obama campaign's effort to hold on to black voters. FoxNews.comreports: "Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday compared the new Texas voter ID law to the post-slavery efforts to keep blacks from voting known as a 'poll taxes [sic].' "

Holder made these comments in a speech to the NAACP. Joe Pags of San Antonio's WOAI-AM quotes from the press release announcing the speech: "NOTE: All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver's license)." That's racist.

Out on a Limb
"Impact of Hispanic Vote Likely in 2016 and Beyond"--headline, NationalJournal.com, July 11

We Blame George W. Bush
"As Fundraising for the Convention Comes Up Short, Some Democrats Blame Jim Rogers"--headline, Washington Post, July 11

Shortest Books Ever Written
"The Best Case for Obama's Tax Plan"--headline, Salon.com, July 10

Barack Obama Walks Into a Bar With an Ostrich on His Head
"EMU Board Puts President on Notice After Argument at a Bar"--headline, Detroit Free Press, July 11

Curses! Swift Boated Again!
"Man Beaten With Stick, Robbed of Hat"--headline, Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, Ga.), July 11

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead
"Harry Reid Still Is Harry Reid"--headline, LegalInsurrection.com, July 10

Life Imitates 'South Park'

• "After the TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy begins showing, metrosexuality becomes a major fad among both the men and the boys, and they all begin to act effeminate. At the school bus stop, instead of their usual winter clothing, Stan, Cartman, and Kenny wear unmasculine clothing. Kyle, who does not want to conform, is beaten up by a metrosexual gang at school. . . . The women of the town are initially in favor of their husbands' improved hygiene and willingness to communicate, but soon tire of the men becoming increasingly self-absorbed."--Wikipedia.org episode summary for "South Park Is Gay!" aired Oct. 22, 2003
• "Nigerian Man Wins Second Chance for Refugee Claim After Case Rejected When He Couldn't Prove He Was Gay"--headline, National Post (Canada), July 10, 2012

The Lonely Lives of Scientists
"Just What Signal a Woman Gives Out Remains Unclear--but It May Involve a Wiggle of the Hips, say German Scientists"--headline, Daily Mail (London), July 9

'Is Cialis Right for Me?'
"Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers: Board Raised Questions About Johnson in May"--headline, Charlotte (N.C.) Business Journal, July 10

Hey, Kids! What Time Is It?
"Time to Stop Bad-Mouthing Haredim and to Open a Dialogue"--headline, Jerusalem Post, July 11

Questions Nobody Is Asking
"Why Won't Obama Sell His Health-Care Plan Now That It's Been Upheld?"--headline, TheDailyBeast.com, July 11

It's Always in the Last Place You Look
"The Mysterious Disappearance of Jesse Jackson Jr."--headline, Washington Post website, July 10

Too Much Information
"Obama Hoping to Continue Love Affair With Iowa"--headline, Washington Post, July 11

Breaking News From 1290
"Church of England Doesn't Like Pushy Jews"--headline, Commentary website, July 10

News You Can Use
"How to Make a Big Mac at Home"--headline, ABCNews.com, July 10

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "Santorum: Romney Hasn't Called for Me [sic] VP Vetting"--headline, WVLA-TV website (Baton Rouge, La.), July 11
• "Candy Hall OF Fame To Honor Candy Leaders Oct. 20, 2012 In Tampa, Fla."--headline,VendingMarketWatch.com, July 10
• "105-Year-Old Registers to Vote in General Election"--headline, Associated Press, July 10

The Most Self-Indulgent Article About Pregnancy Ever Written by a Man
We guess it must be Pregnancy Week at Slate. Check out the lead paragraph of this story by one Jesse Bering (and apologies for the gross Latin part toward the end):

One of the best things about being a gay man is that one doesn't have to worry about accidentally impregnating his partner, or, for that matter, getting knocked up. That's probably a good thing in my case, since I have a very low tolerance for any form of pain and discomfort (except the good kind) and such inconveniences tend to go along with the long, tumultuous gestation of a human conceptus gathering mercilessly inside a woman's abdominal cavity. It's all very wonderful bearing a child, I'm sure, and life-affirming; but on the other hand, one of the worst parts of being pregnant--and I was informed concretely of this very fact by some vomitus landing on my sandaled foot--is what is commonly referred to as morning sickness.

Only Slate would publish a gay man's autobiographical story about morning sickness.