Why are members of political parties so willing to ignore the faults of their own, and so willing to ascribe faults to their opponents?

It is a rather interesting phenomenon that those who pride themselves on morality, honesty, or reason are so willing to ignore those qualities if it doesn’t fit with their pre-conceived notion of who the good guys are.

I am speaking here of confirmation bias, the idea that we tend to ignore facts or ideas that don’t support what we already believe, and instead only notice those facts that reinforce them. For example, the same people who say that George Bush deserves impeachment for “misleading” about the war seem blind to the exact same statements by Democratic politicians such as John Kerry or Hitlery Clinton drawing the same conclusions. Wouldn’t consistency dictate that people should be held to the same standard? And before it is assumed that only liberals suffer from this, remember that it applies equally to both sides. It takes no more than a few cursory readings of threads on TownHall to recognize it, and recognizing the phenomenon is the first step towards treating the problem.

In January 2006, a team from Emory University announced the results of a study showing the brain activity for confirmation bias. Their results suggest the unconscious and emotion driven nature of this form of bias.

The study was carried out during the pre-electoral period of the 2004 presidential election on 30 men, half who described themselves as strong Republicans and half as strong  Democrats. During a MRI scan, the subjects were asked to assess contradictory statements by both George Bush and John Kerry. The scans showed that the part of the brain associated with reasoning, was not involved when assessing the statements. Conversely, the most active regions of the brain were those involved in processing emotions, conflict resolution, and making judgment about moral accountability.

Dr. Westen, a researcher involved in the work explained the results: “None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.... Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.”

I have long believed that one cannot support correct principles with bad arguments. If one tries, the very people you are trying to convince may disregard the conclusions drawn simply because the perceived structure supporting them is faulty. Those who vie for truth do their cause no favors when using bad arguments. Those who fall victim to confirmation bias have their own foundations built on perilous foundations. They will quickly latch on to any talking point (“you can’t support the troops and not the war”), any buzzword (“diversity”), or any idea promoted by the party they believe in, simultaneously criticizing anything from their opposition, and in doing so let their reason and critical thinking skills atrophy and languish in disuse.

I believe this is one reason the founding fathers may have been against what they called the “spirit of party.”

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth...

…Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts…

…I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

            -- George Washington’s Farewell Address.

             Full text available HERE. See Also Federalist #10.

The animosity between political parties that Washington foresaw are evident in today’s climate.

 No, this is not a plea for “unity” or “bipartisanship” or “reaching across the aisle in a spirit of consensus and compromise.” To compromise one’s principles, for whatever reason, is to abandon them. This is precisely what problem is when people are willing to forego standing on correct principles to support their party. Only by recognizing such, and be willing to criticize any, from either party, who stand against correct principles are we able to keep our arguments at a level that will cause lasting conviction.