Why Are Political Opinions Impervious to Facts?

Political Opinions Are Not Opinions About Facts

Why are political opinions impervious to facts? We have all noticed that people almost never change their political opinions as a result of exposure to facts, and we have all wondered why this is so. It bothers us that people can be so “unreasonable.”  The people we disagree with us always seem especially stubborn in their opinions. How, we ask ourselves, can those people be so blind? How can they persist in opinions that are clearly contradicted by the facts?

We never say that about the people we agree with.  We never accuse them of holding opinions that are contrary to the facts.  This bias in favor of people we agree with is independent of our opinions. Liberals think that conservatives are impervious to facts, and conservatives feel the same way about liberals.  What is going on here?

In order to answer that question, we have to begin by recognizing that political opinions are not opinions about facts. They are opinions about policy. They are opinions about what we as a society ought to do, or about what the government ought to do or about what politicians ought to do.  Consider Obamacare. The difference between liberals and conservatives with regard to Obamacare is in their answer to questions like these:

·         Ought the federal government to regulate the market for health insurance, or is it better to allow the free market to regulate it?

·         Ought the government to require individuals to buy health insurance, or is it better for each individual to decide this question for him or herself?

Political opinions are generally answers to questions like these. They are statements with “oughts” in them.

Statements With “Oughts” Cannot Be Deduced From Premises Without “Oughts”

Questions like the two listed above cannot be answered by an appeal to facts, and the reason why facts cannot answer these questions lies in a basic truth about logic: we can never deduce a statement with an  “ought” in it from premises that that do not contain an “ought”. 

For example, suppose I say that in our community, many people are starving. Does that imply that we ought to set up a food bank to provide food for them?  No, it does not.  Perhaps, each person is responsible for providing for his own needs, and if someone is unable to do so, that is too bad for him, but it is not my problem.  In order to deduce the conclusion that we should provide food for the starving people, we have to introduce a premise with an “ought,” or – to put it differently – a moral principle.   We have to say something like “We are our brothers’ keepers,” or “Reaching out our hands to help our neighbors is the right thing to do,” or even “A rich community like ours ought not to allow its members to starve.”  Armed with such a premise, we will be able to deduce the need to set up a food bank. Thus, we would say (1) a rich community like ours ought not to allow its members to starve, (2) members of our rich community are starving.  Therefore, we should set up a food bank to feed the hungry people.

Political opinions are almost all answers to questions like, “Should we set up a food bank to feed the starving people?” and that means that they can never be deduced from facts alone. We can arrive at them only if we first introduce moral principles as a premises.  Unfortunately, we in America today are uncomfortable with moral principles, and we are especially uncomfortable with moral disputes. We prefer to think that morality is a matter for each individual to decide for him or herself.  So, in our political debates, we appeal to “the facts” in our effort to persuade, but “the facts” never persuade because underlying the debate is a difference of opinion over basic, moral principles, and that difference is concealed because we don’t like to argue over moral principles.

For example, underlying the debate over Obamacare is a basic moral question.  Is it a responsibility of the community to make sure that everyone has access to health care regardless of his or her ability to pay even if the community has to require everyone to be insured, or is that requirement so egregious an infringement on individual liberty that it ought not to be allowed? Those who support Obamacare say that the infringement on individual liberty is an entirely reasonable price to pay because it is a responsibility of the community to make sure that everyone has access to health care. Opponents of Obamacare find that the infringement on individual liberty is too high a price to pay because, ultimately, everyone must take responsibility for providing his or her own health care.

This disagreement extends to opinions over the current government shutdown.  Those who believe in the community’s responsibility to provide health care for its members see the president as a hero who has removed from the United States the stain of being the only modern nation that does not provide all its members  with  health care.  Such people naturally see the Republicans in the House of Representatives as blackmailers who would use the budgetary impasse as a lever to  move the country backward.  Those who believe that the infringement on individual liberty is intolerable see the president as the villain and the House Republicans as heroes.  No appeal to facts can possibly change these views.

Facts Can Make Us Uncomfortable

We do not like to debate moral principles, but we still have them, and since we do not like to debate them, we often do not think about them systematically.  Consequently, we are able to hold moral principles that are contradictory.  At some level, we may believe, for example, that each individual is responsible for his or her own welfare and at the same time believe that the community should help those who are unfortunate.  Such a person may – to use our earlier example – oppose the establishment of a food bank and yet be uncomfortable when he or she hears that many people are starving.  In this situation, it is easy for him or her to ignore the information or to impugn its source, to say, “That is an example of the liberal bias of the media,” or “That is an example of the conservative bias of Fox News."  We all do this. We ignore uncomfortable facts, or at least we give them less weight than comfortable ones, and so, even when we might be influenced by facts, we are not. In this situation, our preference for not examining our moral principles makes it hard for us to see their effects on our choice of facts to see.

Facts Can Rally the Troops or Help to Make a Case

Facts can be used to rally the troops. Facts that are consistent with our moral stances can be used by leaders to rally us behind their standard.  Thus, liberals are thrilled by the large number of people who tried to enroll in Obamacare last week, while conservatives are equally thrilled by predictions that Obamacare will ruin the economy. Facts can also be used to make a case. If we already know what we want, we can marshal facts in support of our view.  They help us to feel that we are right.

Thus, in a political debate, we see both sides marshaling facts, but neither side is really talking to the other side. Instead, each side is rallying its troops and strengthening its case in its own eyes. Facts are armor that helps to defend us against the enemy. They are not weapons to persuade him. As a result, we get parallel monologues rather than real dialogues. We will not be able to have real, political dialogues until we recognize that political discussions are not about facts. They are about moral principles.