(This is the final of my three-installment “Confessions of a Former Conservative. The first chapter is here, and the second chapter is here. It didn’t start out as a three chapter endeavor – but the tale grew in the telling. I can only say this is the final chapter with confidence because I have now actually completed the writing and have gone back to the top to write this).
By 1981 I was off to graduate school. By that time, I was a social liberal and an environmental wacko, but I was still strongly conservative on foreign policy and economics. How strongly conservative? Well, I rooted for the Hawks in virtually every military action up to and including the invasion of Iraq. On economic matters, I could spout conservative talking points with the best of them. I believed in supply-side (i.e., trickle down) economics. I would claim that people who don’t succeed economically just don’t work hard enough, and I believed that unions were merely an excuse not to work.
Mind you, these are not popular opinions in an academic environment – but I have never been shy about my opinions. I took a fair amount of heat from my professors and later from my faculty colleagues over these views. That is, heat in the form of teasing and some heated but friendly arguments. Conservatives will tell you that conservative thinkers dare not air their views on a university faculty. I can say from experience that this is not true. Never did I feel that my status on the faculty was endangered by my political views.
So – how did I manage to make the change?
One of the most difficult hurdles to overcome was the myth of the liberal media bias. Oh yes – I know I have just caused blood pressure spikes in my conservative readers – but I maintain that the liberal media bias is indeed a myth. I will need to develop that more in a future post. For now just let me concentrate on how I came to lose my belief in the bias.
Believe me, it wasn’t easy. As I mentioned back in Part I, I was raised to believe that the media was out to get conservatives – that they had conspired to take Nixon down, for example. But, I have already talked about how I was able to easily shed some of my youthful conservative beliefs. Why would it be so difficult to overcome a belief in the media bias?
Because belief in the media bias is self-perpetuating and as a result it is exceptionally resistant to change.
I have been arguing that cognitive dissonance is a mechanism that can cause change in political beliefs. I grew up with homophobic beliefs I learned in my family, but all I had to do was actually meet some gay people to recognize that my homophobic beliefs were false. Simple, is it not?
It isn’t so simple with the media bias. I grew up believing that the media was biased to the left. What type of experiences could I have that might disprove this belief? What new information might create cognitive dissonance? It is difficult to think of any. For example, suppose I believed that the US is doing a good job in Iraq. I don’t have any direct, personal knowledge about what is going on in Iraq. All of my information about Iraq comes from the media. If I hear a news story that the US is screwing up in Iraq, I can simply disregard this as an example of liberal bias. My belief in media bias inoculates me against any disconfirming information.
So, how did I overcome my belief in the liberal media bias?
First, I made an interesting observation. As a child, when I moved in conservative circles, all I heard about was the leftward bias. As I began my academic career, and I began to move in more liberal circles, I discovered that liberals complain about a conservative media bias. Remember, this is before the days of FOX and MSNBC. I am talking about a supposed conservative media bias at CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS.
This observation leads to an interesting conclusion: If conservatives complain the media is biased to the left, and liberals complain the media is biased to the right, it probably indicates that the media sits pretty close to center. If both sides are complaining there is good reason to suspect the truth lies somewhere in-between.
Once one realizes that the media is relatively unbiased, it opens the door for critical thinking. To come to rational conclusions about world events it really is necessary to read materials from a wide variety of views without having a knee-jerk reaction to any of them. If you do so – and indeed this is what I try to do myself – it is possible to come to some rational conclusions based on critical thinking. Indeed, some of those conclusions might entail a bias of one kind or another – but an honest critical thinking process will allow you to identify your own biases and see the weaknesses in your own arguments.
All of the above might explain my move toward becoming a moderate – but it does not necessarily explain a move to becoming a liberal. Or perhaps it does. I do believe that reading widely from broadly-selected sources does result in a wider world view. A broader world view, in turn, tends to move one in a liberal direction. Liberals are more likely to embrace a multidimensional view of the world. Conservatives are more likely to embrace a unidimensional view.
I realize I have probably just insulted some of my conservative friends. No insult is intended – but I do stand by the characterization. Conservatives are likely, for example, to embrace an ultra-patriotic “Our system of government is superior to all others and America is always right” view of the world. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to recognize that the rest of the world can at least occasionally have a good point. This does not mean we aren’t patriotic and don’t love our country – we most certainly do – but it does mean that we should listen to what others have to say.
The above analysis also provides a partial retort to the conservative claim that students are indoctrinated in college. Students are not indoctrinated. Instead, they are encouraged to read widely and consider ideas contrary to their accepted beliefs. Wide reading and critical thinking can result in a broader world view – which tends to favor liberal ideas.
It is still hard to believe, though, that wide reading and critical thinking alone could push me all the way to liberal. No – something else is probably required. In my case, it involves a series of what I consider to be offensive moves taken by the right wing. Not everyone will be equally offended by these – but it really doesn’t matter. The fact is that I was offended and it was enough to push my overall worldview to the left.
There are dozens of examples I could cite, but that would probably take a few more chapters. I will only discuss a few.
I hate being lied to. Yes, I know, all politicians tell lies and all politicians shade the truth. I am sure many of you can shower me with examples of lies Obama has supposedly told. Still, when a politician lies, it is rare that we can know absolutely for certain that it is a lie because we are not privy to objective information.
Sometimes, however, a lie is so personal that you absolutely KNOW it is a lie – and such instances are particularly offensive.
Sometime in about 1991 I was driving along, listening to talk radio on a Chicago station. It wasn’t even a conservative talk show – but the guest on the show was one of those “the government is wasting your money” budget cutters. The guy was a political aide for a conservative senator. He had a brand new spit- polished poli-sci degree from the University of Illinois and had moved directly into his job in DC. Anyway, I wasn’t listening too closely until I suddenly realized that the guy was criticizing the research of a good friend of mine. He wasn’t just criticizing it – he was ripping it to shreds. Of course, he was ripping it by mischaracterizing it. He had absolutely no idea what the research was really about, but was perfectly happy to make fun of it and call it “worthless.” He was criticizing the work of a highly esteemed scientist – but that didn’t matter. The radio audience would never know.
So, for the first and only time in my life I called into talk radio – and I got right onto the air. I was really curious. At that time I was six years past my Ph.D. and I was just beginning to be confident enough to critique the research published in my specialty area. How did this guy – one year past an undergraduate degree with no specialized training in the field – have anything close to the knowledge necessary to evaluate the research? He didn’t of course, – but instead of answering my line was cut off and listeners were told “see – there is another of those professors justifying the theft of your money….”
Lesson learned – don’t call talk radio and expect a fair hearing. I suspect that others are not as offended about this as I am. Try to imagine, though, a situation in which you hear a politician make a boldface lie in a public forum – a lie you know to be such from direct personal experience, and a lie that is an attack at the very core of what you do. If you can imagine that, you will have some idea of how I felt.
I hate being lied to, and I particularly don’t like lies that kill people.
The Reagan administration’s reaction to the AIDS crisis is one such example. AIDS is a particularly insidious infection because you can be for infected years before showing symptoms. As a result, the infection spread quickly in the early days of the epidemic (the early 1980s), before anyone even knew there was an epidemic. But, eventually scientists and physicians did realize that something was up – and they did the logical thing: They requested money from the government to combat the epidemic.
How did the Reagan administration respond? Remember, these were the prime years of Reagan budget cuts accompanied by tax breaks for the rich. At first the administration ignored the epidemic altogether. It was 1987 before Reagan spoke publically about the epidemic. Meanwhile, administration officials were claiming that AIDS was their top priority – while simultaneously refusing to fund AIDS-related research. As a result, identification of the virus and development of treatments was delayed for years. It is safe to say that tens of thousands – even millions – have died as a result of this delay. But its ok – they were just homosexuals, right? For more information on the failure by the Reagan administration (and others) to respond to the AIDS crisis, you should read Randy Shilts excellent book And the Band Played On.
I hate being lied too, and I particularly don’t like lies that kill people…. which brings us to the second Gulf War.
I said at the top, I supported the invasion of Iraq. I believed that WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein were indeed a threat so serious that an invasion was warranted. Other things Saddam was doing were indeed distasteful – but I did not believe them severe enough to justify an invasion. I also believed that the WMDs were there. Seriously – the Bush administration couldn’t be so stupid as to invade a sovereign nation unless we knew absolutely and for certain that there were WMDs and knew exactly where they were. Certainly they couldn’t be so stupid.
Of course, as it turns out, they were so stupid. There were no WMDs. Thousands of US soldiers have died or been maimed – not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the bombings – all of it because of a lie.
I know the response I will get – I have heard it before. “It wasn’t a lie” people will scream “we really thought the weapons were there!”
I have two responses.
First, you do not invade a sovereign nation unless you are absolutely certain that the grounds for your invasion are valid. We were far from absolutely certain.
Second, there is now substantial evidence that Bush was told there were no WMDs prior to the invasion, and he chose to ignore that information. Statements by various administration officials, including Deputy Director of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, suggest that the decision to invade Iraq was made first, with WMDs becoming important only as a means to gain public support.
It has been said many times: Bush lied, and people died.
Lies about the Iraq invasion are perhaps particularly troublesome for me because I publically supported the invasion. Believe me – this is not an easy thing to do on a University campus. In fact, at the time of the invasion I believe I was the only faculty member on campus willing to openly support invasion. I put my ass on the line supporting Bush – and took a fair amount of heat for it. He lied to me. He used me. That is hard to forgive.
The Iraq invasion and its aftermath were the final straw. I finally stopped calling myself a moderate and embraced the liberal label. I voted for Kerry in 2004 – the first time I had ever voted for the Democratic nominee. (Lest you get the wrong idea, I voted for Nader in 2000 – but it was a protest vote against what I considered to be two very poor candidates. Thus, I do not have Bush II on my soul).
In retrospect, while it is true that my political views moved leftward from 1976 through 2004, this isn’t the entire story. It is also apparent that the center moved rightward – right out from under my feet. What were once considered moderate positions are now considered “Socialist” or “Marxist” ideas. A moderate and intelligent Republican like David Frum is now considered a RINO by the new right. I am amazed at how often I am now labeled a socialist or a Marxist – often by people who would not be able to define the terms. That would not have occurred 10 years ago. Now, Palin and Limbaugh and Bech and Pravda-FOX are redefining the vocabulary. Yes – I have moved to the left – but the center has also shifted.
As I close, here is an interesting question for me to contemplate. Am I stuck where I am, or will there be additional movement in the future? Could I ever head back to the right?
I don’t know. I would certainly move back toward the right if Obama and other Democrats actually started acting like socialists – if they tried to nationalize Boeing or Microsoft of the airline industry. Yeah – that might send me to the right – but I don’t expect it will happen.
Still, an interesting question, yes?
Perhaps I will write an update in 10 years or so and assess things again. I suspect that there will be some surprises.
