Have you ever wondered why Republicans will cling to a belief despite seemingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Consider, for example, a recent debate with a die-hard Republican friend of mine. I have great respect for him as a human being, but I was amazed when he claimed that global warming was the product of mass hysteria among academics and liberals. After some digging I produced Naomi Oreskes’s essay in Science Magazine that unambiguously lays out the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic nature of climate change. His response? He was totally unmoved.
In my frustration, I wondered – how can he possibly continue to cling to his beliefs despite having no real counter-argument to sound reasoning and evidence? The answer, I found, is that his authority structure is simply very, very different from mine.
Continue after the flip and let me share what I have learned, in the hope that we might better know how to tailor our ideological frames to seemingly intractable recipients. This knowledge is even more important as we seek to make inroads into the red states as part of our 50-state strategy.
Read More
