Hyperbole and ideologues

Adam pointed out a bit of hyperbole in my post not long ago saying that xenophobia is at an all time high. He made a good point- Alien & Sedition Acts, internment camps, etc. I wrote a comment back listing some of the ridiculousness happening now and somewhat defending my statement. Part of the problem is that we have laws and rules that are not well known and have come under the auspices of "national security", that great catch-all term that says "we can do what we want because we want". In June and July, the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation received 6,000 pages of documents from the Department of Homeland Security from a freedom of information request (after a lawsuit to get them at all I might add). These documents showed that, over the past 8 years (2000-2007), restrictions and oversight of border searches, seizures, and examinations of traveler's personal property were significantly scaled back or dropped altogether. Essentially, behind the scenes, laws were being rewritten to allow increased searches and seizures of anything deemed questionable. While not exactly an Alien and Sedition Act, these types of laws effectively do many of the same things- they keep people afraid, they make it more difficult to speak out against the perceived majority rule, they make anti-American sentiment questionable at best and illegal at worst even if those ideas do NOT involve terrorism (with little recourse to 1st amendment rights), and they push personal privacy into an even smaller corner. The reason the Asian Law Caucus got involved in this mess was because Asian and Middle Eastern travelers are the ones being racially and ethnically targeted by these types of travel laws. My original statement is probably still a bit of hyperbole, but the xenophobic strain runs deep and, at the least, is alive and well and living in.

A study of Republican voters by scientists at Georgia State showed that ideology does, in fact, trump reality. Let me say here: the study was only done using conservative voters and may not be applicable to liberal or independent voters and it was only done with a small number of examples. But the conclusions they reached are also backed up by experience- at least to anyone that has tried to have a political discussion with someone that had basic facts wrong. And those conclusions are troubling to anyone interested in honest public debate and rational decision making.

The study went like this. Participants were shown a fake news story but were told that it came from known news sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, CNN, etc). These stories had incorrect information (such as a broadcast saying that WMDs were found in Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was actively working with al-Qaeda before the war). They were then shown a news story retracting the original story and clarifying the inaccuracies (that no WMDs were ever found and that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war started). Those facts that contradicted the observer's ideology and preconceived notions (i.e. that the reasons given for going to war were wrong) were very significantly ignored and, in many cases, actually increased the observer's incorrect beliefs. The retractions and the correction of the inaccurate reporting did little to no good in changing how the participants viewed the issue. Other issues, including stem cell research and taxation were also tested with the same results. All of this suggests that fighting ideology with facts may only lead to entrenchment of incorrect ideas rather than any increase in understanding the situation. I, for one, am unsurprised at the results. Simple observations will tell you people are less willing to accept new information if it does not conform to their preconceived ideas. I'm guilty of this just like everyone else. I've seen it happen during debates on the Iraq war, immigration policy, and the current economic meltdown. You can also debate the interpretation of evidence if there are conflicting stories. But denying evidence altogether or arguing about interpretation when all of the credible evidence says that you're wrong appears to be the preferred solution, which may explain some of the ridiculousness in the world today. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, see all the possible interpretations, and be willing to admit your interpretation may not be the best one, then you may end up killing people over something that was never real.

An interesting side note- FOX NEWS was the primary news source for 33% of the people that believed WMDs were found in Iraq and a whopping 66% of the people that believed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda. Close behind were CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC. Bringing up the rear were print media and PBS, with PBS typically showing the smallest number of misinformed viewers/listeners. [These numbers are from a 2003 study by PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll with a 1.7% margin of error]. Fair and balanced my ass.

The key here is that people be aware of this tendency, that they fight those knee-jerk reactions and, when presented with new information, take the time to incorporate that information into their outlook. The refusal to accept any information unless it conforms to some magical ideal you have is zealotry. And we've all seen where that goes.