POLITICAL SCIENCE VS POLITICAL PSEUDOSCIENCE, PART 1:
HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA?
INTRODUCTION:
In this meetup and the next, we'll look at some common criticisms of the conservative & progressive political movements in the U.S. that border on conspiracy theories, and we'll do our best to separate fact from fiction and objective scholarly analysis from biased punditry. This is a difficult task for two major reasons:
(1) Political science topics typically fall outside the purview of the scientific skepticism movement, but this has left many skeptics without the tools to debunk amateur political analysis that essentially amount to "political pseudoscience". In addition, many skeptics (in my experience) are dubious of the rigor of political science and consider it a "soft science", but they often hold strong views about politics based on anecdotal evidence & half-remembered news stories.
(2) While, many of the celebrities of the skeptic & atheist movement like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne, Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have proven equally adept at critiquing the political left and the political right, many average members of skeptic groups tend to be much more left-leaning and focus most of their skepticism on the right. (This is supported by a Pew Research poll of atheists & agnostics about their political beliefs - about 73% say they lean towards the Democrats.) This leftward lean means that many members of local skeptic groups are often (in my experience) more prone to falling for conspiracy theories & moral panics about conservative groups than about their counterparts on the political left.
In that meetup, they covered some major points of expert consensus within political science that run counter to popular beliefs about politics. They also looked at the way political scientists are frustrated by the way many laypeople refuse to update their beliefs about the political system when presented with new evidence. Jason Brennan pointed out that even if political science isn't rigorous enough to establish scientific laws for politics, this only justifies agnosticism not defaulting to the rumors you've heard or intuitions you've developed by watching political coverage in the news & talking politics with friends.
But complete agnosticism about political science topics is unappealing, and I don't think it's warranted. The economist Adam Ozimek pointed out the logical repercussions for those who think economics research isn't rigorous enough to trust its findings, and I think the same implications would apply to those who are highly critical of political science. Ozimek said: "If you’re going to hold economics research [My note: or political science research] to an extremely high burden of proof, then you should be prepared to subject all of your beliefs to such standards. What this will leave you with is mostly weak beliefs about the world for a lot of stuff that matters to you, whether it be about medicine, history, biology, psychology, criminal justice, climate science, or economics. Maybe widespread weak beliefs are a better approximation of the truth, I don’t know, but I do know very few people do or are willing to reason like that consistently. Maybe they should. But even here the vast majority of humanity has more belief changing to do than economists." https://modeledbehavior.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/is-economics-a-science/
The 2nd Problem can be addressing the elephant in the room, i.e. the idea — common among progressives — that conservative movement is dysfunctional because conservatives are inherently less rational, less intelligent and/or less educated than progressives. Science journalist Chris Mooney popularized this view with his 2012 book "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality".
Back in December of 2019, we looked at the evidence for this belief in a meetup entitled "Who's More Rational - Liberals or Conservatives?" where we looked at the which political orientation is worse in terms of science denial, conspiracy theorizing, voting against their own interests, and dysfunctional psychological traits like psychoticism & authoritarianism. https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/fllzgrybccbzb/
In that meetup, we looked at a study by the political scientist Joseph Uscinski that found that Democrats, Republicans, and independents showed a roughly equal disposition towards thinking conspiratorially. We also looked at an article by the psychologist Keith Stanovich who pointed out that while conservatives are likely to deny evolution & climate change, progressives are more likely to deny other points of scientific consensus (e.g. IQ, the biological basis of sex differences, GMO safety). Stanovich also pointed out that Thomas Frank's central argument from his book "What's The Matter With Kansas?" - i.e. that Republicans trick poor whites into voting against their own economic self-interest - isn't supported by voting data. (The political scientists Andrew Gelman & Larry Bartels refuted Frank's theory by showing that poor whites tend to vote for Democrats, and the blue-collar Republican voters Frank stereotyped as clueless rednecks were actually middle class based on their income and thus favored lower taxes over welfare programs.). Perhaps the most convincing evidence that people on both sides of the political spectrum are roughly equal in terms of overall rationality is Peter Ditto's meta-analysis of a large number of studies that showed that information processing biases are fairly bipartisan.
Once we've got past the 2 problems I listed above, we need to identify some common types of "political pseudo-science" to look out for. In past discussions, we've identified 3 basic types:
(1) Conspiracy Theories: poorly-evidenced but often intricate rumors about a "threat from above" (i.e. elite groups) - in politics, these rumors sometime focus on well-known political actors but often they involve allegations of shadowy groups that act as "puppetmasters" controlling our leaders & subverting our democracy from the background. Conspiracy theories often involve the "cui bono fallacy" - i.e. people assume that if something bad happens, they can determine who caused it by looking for who benefits from the problem. Conspiracy theorizing typically involves paranoid "dot connecting" and "anomaly hunting" that feeds into confirmation bias, and the resultant theory is often unfalsifiable because any disconfirming evidence can be explained retroactively as disinformation spread by "shills" or evidence that the perpetrators are very skilled at covering their tracks. The term "conspiracy theories" is usually pejorative and so it's helpful to distinguish "conspiracy theories" from what might be called "verified conspiracies". "Verified conspiracies" typically originate with insiders who become whistleblowers, leaking information to journalists or law enforcement which prompts a formal investigations that uncovers enough evidence to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law (or to scholars, in retrospect) that the accused was guilty. "Conspiracy theories", in contrast, typically originate with political outsiders who aren't in a position to know what's really going on and they usually stay confined to obscure rumor mills & the followers of eccentric political agitators. If a conspiracy theory gets picked up by the mainstream media & becomes widely believed, it essentially shifts into a type of moral panic or pseudo-scandal, described below.
(2) Moral Panics (a.k.a. Witch Hunts): an atmosphere of exaggerated fear among the general public, bordering on mass hysteria, about a relatively minor or non-existent threat. Typically, moral panics differ from conspiracy theories in positing a "threat from below" involving some form of social deviance or criminal activity among "folk devils", and this doesn't have to involve conscious conspiracies so much as a general loosening of morals. Small-scale fearmongering about deviance only becomes a "moral panic" when it attracts enough attention from the news media that it generates a "media circus" which results in what sociologists calls a "deviance amplification spiral" (i.e. the news media falls prey to confirmation bias as they search for & discover more examples of an ostensibly "new" form of deviance). Moral panics are typically created & driven by "moral entrepreneurs" - i.e. individuals or groups that seeks to influence society to adopt or maintain a norm by taking the lead in labeling a particular behavior as deviant and spreading or popularizing this label throughout society. Since moral panics are, by definition, based on fears that a substantial portion of society believes for a while, they only come to be generally acknowledged as "moral panics" in retrospect. When society is in the midst of a moral panic, anyone who argues that the threat is non-existent to exaggerated will often be condemned as a "denialist" or "apologist".
(3) Pseudo-scandals: an accusation that a political actor committed some sort of unethical behavior or criminal wrongdoing which receives heavy coverage from the news media heavily covers the accusations, only to find later on that the allegations were baseless or heavily exaggerated. "Scandals" and "conspiracy theories" typically allege similar things - i.e. that an elite individual or group did something morally wrong and/or illegal - but "scandals" typically denote an allegation that's received a lot of mainstream media attention whereas, as noted above, "conspiracy theories" typically denote allegations confined to the eccentric fringes. Scandals are also similar to "moral panics" in that both attract heavy & sometimes excessive news coverage (a "media circus") and involve lots of moral grandstanding & scapegoating by political pundits. For politicians, the point of a scandal is not merely to push for legal action against those accused of wrongdoing. Even if no one is criminally charged, politicians often seek to convict their opponents in the "court of public opinion" and damage their political prospects in the next election, and they also seek to rally their own supporters by showcasing their leadership & advocacy skills. However, if the general public comes to believe that someone was the victim of a pseudo-scandal, this can sometimes lead to a backfire effect (sometimes known as a "succès de scandale") where the targeted person or group becomes even more popular once vindicated.
In this discussion, we'll look at 4 common criticisms of the conservative movement in America to see whether they're credible or are one of the 3 types of political pseudo-science described above.
RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:
In the 1st section of this meetup, we'll look at the debates over the political influence of the Koch brothers. As mentioned above, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup back in February of 2018 entitled "Political Science & Political Myths". In the 3rd section, they looked at why many political scientists don't think that campaign contributions buy the votes of the general public through campaign ads, since savvy donors may just donate to candidates who will win in the hopes of influencing them. Many political scientists are also skeptical that campaign contributions or money spent on lobbying buys the votes of elected legislators, since it may be that savvy donors just donate to candidates who will vote the way they would like, and not to those who would not. We looked at studies that show that, in general, wealthy donors spend much less money on campaign contributions than lobbying, suggesting they see the latter as more effective. Also, lobbyists tend to target legislators that are already friendly to their interests rather than trying to "flip" legislators who have been opposing them, which suggests lobbyists influence politics by helping to craft legislation in a way that's favorable to their interests rather than directly "buying off" legislators. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/
In the 2nd section of this meetup, we'll look at the threat posed by "Christian nationalist" groups. This overlaps with some material we covered back in September in a meetup entitled "Has Christianity Made America Dysfunctional?" In that discussion, we looked at criticisms of Southern Protestant denominations, Catholics, and Mormon sects for promoting views that could be characterized as racist, sexist, violent & anti-democratic. In general, we found that while certain traditionalist or fundamentalist sects had reactionary political views, mainstream denominations of these religions grew more liberal over the 20th century, growing more accepting of interfaith meetings, civil rights, inter-racial marriage, women's rights, and more recently on gay rights, although still being resistant to same-sex marriage. https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/djzwsrybcmbjb/
In the 3rd section of this meetup, we'll look at the idea that Trump's election was inspired by an increase in white racism & right-wing authoritarianism, and in turn caused an upsurge of hate crimes in 2017. Back in March of 2018, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup entitled "What Can We Learn From The 2016 Election?" and in the 4th section they looked at the study that suggested it was racial resentment rather than economic anxiety that drove whites to vote for Trump. We'll reviews that material in more detail in this discussion, since additional studies of Trump voters have been published over the past 2 years. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxfbgb/
In the 4th section of this meetup, we'll look at the idea that Russia "hacked the election" in 2016, allowing Putin to install Trump in the White House as his "puppet". Back in March of 2018, we had a meetup entitled "Russiagate or a New Red Scare?" In this 1st section, we looked at allegations that Russian intelligence agents hacked John Podesta & the DNC server. In the 2nd section, we looked at arguments that Russia's Internet Research Agency swayed significant numbers of American voters with social media propaganda, and this was not something that most political scientists agreed with. In the 3rd section, we looked at the claim that Russian hackers may have removed Democratic voters from voter rolls or toggled votes on electronic voting machines, but this appears to be a rumor that wasn't confirmed. In the 4th section, we looked at early allegations that the Trump administration collaborated with Russians to get opposition research on Hillary Clinton. We'll review the "Russian collusion" allegations in more detail in this discussion, since we now have more evidence from the Mueller investigation & Senate hearings. https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/248230435/
Although we won't talk about the neoconservatives or AIPAC in this meetup, we covered their influence on U.S. foreign policy in a meetup entitled "Neoliberals, Neocons, and NWO 2.0". In the 3rd & 4th sections of the discussion, we looked at how the group of conservative intellectuals known as the "neocons" certainly had a lot of influence during the Bush administration and enthusiastically backed the 2003 Iraq invasion, as did the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, but as we discussed there were also a significant amount of support for the war among Democrats. U.S. foreign policy didn't change drastically under Obama, suggesting there's a much broader & bipartisan foreign policy consensus at work. Similarly, while Israel certainly has a strong lobby in the U.S. and plays a key role in helping shape U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, other allies like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait & Turkey play a major role, and the lobbies of the oil & defense industries do as well. Those who see U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East as a product of a neocon or Zionist conspiracy ignore a lot of other influences. https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/nfbkqqyzhbjc/
