We've all been there. In a debate on one blog or another with some right-wing ideologue, who seemingly lives in an alternate universe. Facts presented to him or her are rejected out of hand, in favor of debunked, fact-free ideologically-based nonsense. How could they believe 'x' when I already proved without a shadow of a doubt how 'x' is an impossibility, you gasp to yourself.
It's exasperating to say the least. What goes on in the brain of an right-wing ideologue? How is it that they can convince themselves that 2+2=5 over and over again, with utter conviction?
I have a theory.
The Ideological Spine
It all begins with an ideology. They have convinced themselves in the veracity of a certain ideology. Now, why it is they chose to attach themselves to this particular ideology is anybody's guess and perhaps we can explore some theories about that later, but for now, let's simply accept that the ideologue, for whatever reason, has latched onto a particular ideology.
This ideology becomes the spine of his or her beliefs. All other beliefs stem from the spine. They conform and relate to the spine. This spine is the very foundation of what makes the ideologue tick.
The Trigger
Next, we have what I have dubbed "the trigger." A trigger can come in numerous forms; an out-of-context phrase (... spread the wealth...), a slogan (... we don't torture...) or even a name given to a specific program (The War On Terror, The Patriot Act). What's important is that this "trigger" strongly connects with the "Ideological Spine" in either a positive or negative way.
Let's take "... spread the wealth," as an example. This out-of-context phrase would certainly have a strong negative effect on the "Ideological Spine" known as "free-market capitalism." The free market- ideologue would have a strong negative reaction to these words, as they seemingly stand in contrast to the core beliefs, or spine of the ideology.
"Spread the wealth?" they exclaim. "Sounds like SOCIALISM to me!" "OBAMA said that?!"
Factual Transfer
Here's where the ideologue differs from the rest of humanity. The alarm set off by the spine, upon the hearing of these "socialist-sounding" words, sets off a change of events within the brain which goes something like this:
Obama said something socialist-sounding, therefore
Obama IS a socialist.
This becomes a "fact." Obama IS a socialist. Fact. Where is this "fact transfer," exactly? Well, from that moment on, the definition of "socialism" is no longer solid. It is not even important. What's important is the FACT that Obama is a socialist, so the new definition of socialism becomes "whatever Obama does."
Obama said something socialist-sounding, therefore
Obama IS a socialist, therefore
Socialism is whatever Obama does.
What effect does this have on the ideologue? Well, for one thing, they are never in danger of contradicting themselves. For example, if one day Obama does 'x' and the ideologue then calls 'x' a "socialist act," he is correct, because Obama is doing it, therefore it IS socialist. Now, if Obama turns around and does the opposite the next day, the ideologue can safely call THAT "socialism," as well. Why? Because,
Obama is a socialist, therefore
Socialism is whatever Obama does.
If the non-ideologue points out traditional definitions of socialism, which clearly conflict with what Obama is doing, it doesn't make an ounce of difference to the ideologue, because the definition of socialism isn't at issue. What matters is that Obama IS a socialist, therefore what Obama DOES is naturally socialism. The traditional definition is simply wrong. Why? Well, if that was right, then Obama would be doing THAT, because Obama is a socialist and socialism IS what Obama does.
This makes debate with the ideologue a pointless endeavor for the non-ideologue, as it takes the solidity of the definition of socialism and throws it into the trash bin. There is no foundation for the debate itself. And facts are rendered meaningless. Contradictions dutifully pointed out are not acknowledged since to the ideologue they don't exist.
Another example floating around is the newly "transfered fact," which holds that "we don't torture." This leads to the conclusion that waterboarding isn't torture because WE DON'T TORTURE. In other words, the FACT that "we don't torture" is proof that waterboarding isn't torture, regardless of the current legal definitions of torture or the traditional designations, which hold waterboarding to unequivocally be considered a form of torture. It's simply no longer true. Why?
We don't torture, and
We waterboarded prisoners, therefore
Waterboarding isn't torture
One of the all time great examples of "transfered fact" has to be the "fact" that "government destroys economic prosperity." One can throw a rock in a political blog and virtually be guaranteed to hit an ideologue who has accepted this as an unalterable "fact." And the moment you begin a debate with this person, you realize the hopelessness of it all. No matter how many actual facts you provide which point to free-market culpability, the blame goes to the "government." If regulation was the problem, it was because there was too much government. If de-regulation was the problem, it was too much "government interference." No matter the circumstance, the FACT that the government is the problem explains it all.
The examples go on and on.
The Ignorant
Now this is not to say that these folks are ignorant. Of course, like all people, they are ignorant about a great many things, but in regard to the topics we have discussed here, they are not particularly ignorant. They have been presented with an enormous bounty of factual information, but have flatly rejected it all, simply because it conflicts with their newfound "facts."
The ignorant people actually don't know what they don't know and simply choose to listen to what, to their ignorant minds, SOUNDS like a convincing argument coming from the ideologue. They don't realize that when the ideologue makes an assertion presented as fact, they are being told a lie. They simply don't know any better, so they CHOOSE to believe whichever argument happens to resonate with them at that moment. Quite often these folks are too intellectually lazy or don't necessarily have the brain capacity to do the appropriate research themselves, so they choose to simply believe the ideologue's position out of nothing more than personal preference. The ignorant serve to feed the self-delusion of the ideologue, which feeds and legitimizes the delusional position.
Right-wing ideologues have recently pointed out another case of "fact transfer," which provides yet another important lesson. "Triggers" need not always be repeated, as some become so ingrained that they need no longer be spoken. For example, a classic "trigger" is the term "activist Judge." This term is decades old and has become so firmly entrenched in the ideologues subconscious, that the trigger no longer needs to be spoken to create the "fact transfer."
Democrats favor "activist judges," therefore
Democratic nominees ARE activist judges, which means
The definition of "Judicial Activism" is whatever democratic judges do
The Cult of Personality
A brief word on a category of person who seems to be an ideologue of sorts, but isn't. We see evidence of this type of person all around us every day. Folks become enamored with a PERSON, which is different then an IDEOLOGY. This cult of personality leads to much self-delusion, but it's not married to a specific ideology, per se. We see this a lot with Obama supporters, who make excuses for things Obama does which contradict his previous promises. These people COMPREHEND the contradictions and acknowledge them, but simply make excuses for them.
The Ideologue doesn't see contradictions AS contradictions at all. In other words, to the ideologue:
"Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy..."
UPDATE
This diary was previously posted on the Des Moines Register site and subsequently removed by the Gannet monitors, like many of my previous diaries there, including several whose crime was simply being critical of Saint Ronald Reagan. Anyway, prior to the deletion, a resident wing-nut named RickL engaged me in a debate on Sotomayor in the comments section, and in doing so provided a pristine example of this psychology in action.
The beginning of the debate was as follows (dealing with, of course, the Ricci decision):
ME: ... unless you are implying she is basing her empathy on race.
Rick: In this instance, yes, she did.
ME: But how would that jibe with the Pappas decision? it wouldn't.
Rick: Actually, it does. Pappas was the little guy fighting for his right to free speech, and there was no third party involved, as there was with Ricci.
This is amazing, right? The first case has Rick asserting her decision was based on race. She chose to rule against a white man who was discriminated again, based on race. Then, a mere breath later, he insists that this same Judge, who ruled AGAINST a worthy, upstanding white fire-fighter, who was discriminated against, simply based on her empathy for black people, would then be the lone dissent in favor of an anti-black, white racist. Apparently, we are supposed to believe her race-based empathy is not quite as strong as her empathy for a racist who "was the little guy fighting for his right to free speech."
This makes absolutely no sense to those of us living in a reality-based world. Additionally, if you were to ask Rick who HE thinks is the "most sympathetic figure" in the Ricci case, who do you think he would choose? Ricci, of course! But this contradiction is COMPLETELY LOST ON HIM. He can insist in one moment that Ricci was NOT the most sympathetic, then, no doubt in the next claim the OPPOSITE.
Rick's response to my rebuttal was as follows:
Me: Additionally, if you were to ask Rick who HE thinks is the "most sympathetic figure" in the Ricci case, who do you think he would choose? Ricci, of course!
Rick: Probably. But that would have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
Me: But this contradiction is COMPLETELY LOST ON HIM.
Rick: There is no contradiction, if you choose to actually be intellectually honest. So that excludes you.
Me: He can insist in one moment that Ricci was NOT the most sympathetic, then, no doubt in the next claim the OPPOSITE.
Rick: I haven't said the opposite. One of the things about empathy is that the target of the empathy changes based upon the particular instance. This is something you cannot or, more likely, choose to understand.
Rick: I said it was based upon empathy, and the target of that empathy just happened to be a group of a different race.
Here, we see the circular logic used by the ideologue. He clearly responds to my assertion that she based her empathy on race by saying "In this instance, yes, she did," then a moment later, literally flips is around and claims she WASN'T basing her empathy on race, and this empathy "just happened to be {for} a group of a different race."
Of course, this ignores the question which NORMAL people would be asking, namely; what caused this empathy for this nameless, faceless group? If not race? And why did you say it WAS based on race a few minutes ago??? Add to this Rick's begrudging backtrack in regard to who the most empathetic figure was in the Ricci case, as he now admits it WAS Ricci. So, we have complete 180's on both points, which only serves to confuse, rather than enlighten. To Rick, however, there has been NO REVERSAL and NO CONTRADICTION, as his central point, in his mind, has been perfectly consistent. Since the bedrock "fact" which underpins his arguments remains, that Sotomayor rules based on empathy, the very fact that she ruled AT ALL, naturally means those rulings were based on empathy. It proves itself.
The "debate" went on like this for a few more pages, all equally perplexing.
UPDATE II: THE BIRTH OF A WING-NUT
I explore what I believe to be one of the main causes of wing-nuttiness here
