Stupid Or Evil: The Ongoing Saga

     Time was, politically engaged Americans generally understood that it’s possible for intelligent, well-meaning people to disagree about the merits of a proposed policy or policy change. They could dispute what it would bring about without either side being provably wrong. Indeed, they understood that even after the consequences of the change have arrived, some disagreement about what caused them would remain reasonable. Even if the term was absent from the exchange, they were aware that such disagreements could proceed from a difference in causal models: usually, a difference in the estimation of the power of particular incentives and disincentives. Such differences can’t always be resolved by looking at the evidence.

     Ah, those halcyon days of yore!

     But today things are different. My oh my, how different they are! Disagree with anyone on the Left and he’ll immediately classify you as either an idiot or a villain. You might even be both. The one thing you can’t be is correct.

     There’s a lot that could be said about this. I’ve said a lot myself, as the linked articles should make plain. But though it remains tragic in its effects, there appears to be no way around it. Please be patient; the reason is coming.

     I’m on this track this morning because Mike Hendrix has brought the following to my attention:

Regular reminder that every Ideological Turing Test study has shown that conservatives understand liberal viewpoints quite well, and liberals are incapable of understanding conservative viewpoints. We don’t have to argue, this has been shown and reproduced empirically. https://t.co/6IO5t0mxKq

— Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (@pegobry_en) March 11, 2025

     Mr. Gobry is not quite on the mark, albeit for an interesting reason. A man can staunchly maintain a position even if he is personally convinced that it’s wrong. He can be fully aware that both logic and experience are against the position he defends, yet continue to maintain it. I’ve been a participant in exchanges where that was demonstrably the case. The question that bedevils us in the Right is Why? What reason can there be for insisting on a position that’s been disproved?

     It’s actually quite simple: The majority of people do not arrive at their political positions through reason or evidence.

     Smith may have adopted his stances because he feels they constitute a moral obligation. It’s natural to prioritize moral-ethical convictions over the observable consequences of a policy. A good example is support for an indiscriminate system of public welfare. If Smith believes such a policy to be morally obligatory, what issues from it will matter much less. He may advocate other measures to deal with its undesired consequences, but he’ll insist that the welfare system itself must not be touched.

     Jones may hold to particular positions because of the emotional impact they have on him. He recoils from certain ideas strictly because of the way they make him feel. That’s not uncommon, especially as regards questions such as an armed citizenry. You could present him with infinite evidence that an armed citizenry is safer and more orderly than a disarmed one, and it wouldn’t matter; all he cares about is the shudder he gets at the idea of people walking the streets with guns at their hips.

     Davis might speak vigorously for certain policies for a third reason: they’re essential to his acceptance into certain social or commercial circles. If everyone in the club he wants to join favors intensifying the War on Drugs, he will too. Otherwise, they won’t have him. That might cost him social or commercial opportunities he values more highly than a divergent opinion.

     Then there’s Green. His father was a liberal. His grandfather was a liberal. His mother, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins are liberals. The family would be shattered to hear Green voice a conservative opinion. They might cast him out. He simply can’t have that.

     Finally, we have Brown. Somehow, he’s become convinced that he’s superior to us in the Right because he’s on the Left. The Left is where the best people all hang out. They’ve told him that many times. They’ve made it plain that anyone not on the Left must be – drum roll, please – either stupid or evil. Brown wouldn’t want to be one of them! No, sir!

     No, I haven’t run out of notional people with five-letter names. That’s just the best I can do without going into the deeps of social and motivational psychology. But I’m sure that the above examples will suffice to answer the “How could anyone believe that?” plaints of the Right.

     If evidence and reason are ruled irrelevant, factors such as the ones enumerated above will hold the field. Mind you, here irrelevant applies only to one’s choice of policy or philosophy to maintain. Any of our five fictional characters might well accept the observations and arguments of the Right as sound and accurate. Other considerations simply matter more to them.

     Getting them to share their real reasons for their positions? That’s a separate subject. Perhaps I’ll tackle it later today.