Echo chambers and party loyalty

David Horowitz's new book, "The Professors" is a must-read, not because it bashes liberal academics, but because it is the best book I have seen/read/found that underscores the danger of isolating yourself in an echo chamber of like minds. Yes, the bios on some of the professors at our nation's colleges are frightening and downright infuriating, but the bigger issue - that of ensuring that you at least strive to understand the arguments of your opponent - is being lost on two desperately important institutions that are shaping the minds of our new generations of citizens, workers, and thinkers - college campuses and political parties.

In a completely unscientific experiment, I spent a good deal of time the last few months listening not only to my radio station of choice, AM 1280 The Patriot, but also to the local Air America affiliate. The thing that sticks with me, now that my dial is tuned back to 1280, is that the listeners who call in to Air America have no clue what the fundamentals of conservative thought are, and while there are clueless callers to conservative radio, too, by and large they have a much deeper understanding of liberal fundamentals.

Why is that?
With apologies to my Utah reader (whose opinion that the local newscasts and newspapers are highly conservative is both logical and credible, in my estimation), mainstream media news largely echoes liberal (in the political, not classical, sense of the word), Democratic (capital 'D') views (Fox News being the obvious exception). (Wow, that's a lot of parentheses) This means that in addition to getting a left-handed spin during the easiest and most prominent means of obtaining daily news, the AA crowd is getting those views reinforced by the political commentators that serve as the shows' hosts. On the flip side, Conservative radio commentators (the good ones anyway) offer a deeper explanation of why MSM reports the way they do, and then offers conservative counter-arguments. Thus (here is the conclusion of my un-scientific experiement), listeners to conservative radio tend to have a broader understanding of issues than their liberal counterparts.

But what does that mean, and why did I go and get academia involved in this discussion?
An article I read a few months ago came to mind as I was reading the introduction to "The Professors":

In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Mark Bauerlein of Emory University points to three factors that explain why the academic world tends to exclude conservatives:

1. The Common Assumption. "The assumption is that all the strangers in the room at professional gatherings are liberals," he writes. "There is no joy in breaking up fellowship feeling, and the awkward pause that accompanies the moment when someone comes out of the conservative closet marks a quarantine that only the institutionally secure are willing to endure."

2. The False Consensus Effect. "That effect occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population." Bauerlein gives as an example the infamous statement ascribed to a New York Times film critic: "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." The same thing was certainly said in many academic halls after the 2004 election.

3. The Law of Group Polarization. "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs," Bauerlein writes. In old left circles, this meant racing to embrace Stalin. Nowadays, the far left does not simply oppose the war in Iraq. Instead it argues, "BUSH LIED!" or asserts that neoconservative Israeli loyalists have hijacked our government.

To be fair, items 2 and 3 happen on both sides of the political spectrum (obviously - and there I go with the parentheses again). As a recent delegate to the GOP's SD62 Convention (and the Senate District 5 and State GOP Conventions in the upcoming months), I saw #3 happen during debate on a couple of proposals to change/amend the MN GOP's platform. I won't get into specifics, but suffice it to say that the nature of the beast of the caucus system is to serve the fringe elements of the party instead of the cushy center. Thankfully, reasonable folks (I'm going out on a limb and including myself in that descriptor - I welcome your comments/refutations) were in the majority, and the fringers didn't get their way.

But getting back to the academy, I recall my days at college, when the campus newpaper was the principle source of "news" for nearly every student there (largely, in my estimation, because it was free). Combine the lefty views of most campus newspapers with faculty, which often have Liberal:Conservative ratios exceeding 15:1 (based on Horowitz's numbers), and the students themselves become part of the echo chamber. I'll leave it to you to think of the ramifications of letting the academy move to the extreme edge of the spectrum.

Who cares?
You should. Again, the biggest take-away from this should be to keep in mind the dangers of isolating yourself from opposing viewpoints. Open debate is crucial on every issue; as Dennis Prager often says, "clarity is more important than agreement."

Both political parties need to remember this, but do they? I'm open to comments on this, but being as objective as I can given my GOP affiliation, I honestly think that the GOP does a better job of keeping party principles in the center of their side of the political continuum. As Hugh Hewitt notes in his new book, "Painting the Map Red," the "political tent" of a party needs to be large in order to accomodate a ruling majority, but when individuals' behavior jeopardizes the health of the party, it's time to ask them to leave the tent, or at a minimum make it widely known that those individuals don't represent the bulk of the party (I'd offer up John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson as those folks that should we should consider booting out of the tent - yes, I know that Buchanan's a Libertarian, not a Republican - and still with the parentheses; I admit I have a problem). Read any prominent conservative blog - Townhall.com, BeyondTheNews.com, HumanEventsOnline.com, etc - and the bulk of the articles and commentary is reasonable and measured, especially when it comes from Washington politicians.

But click on HuffingtonPost.com or DailyKos.com, and you get a whole different ball of wax. These liberal sites are must-read for grassroots Dems, and they're anything but reasonable or measured. From celebrating Justice Alito's wife running out of the confirmation hearings, to commonplace use of truckers-may-blush profanity, to the maniacal pursuit of crimes with which to prosecute George W. Bush, it's the epitome of an echo chamber. And John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer are frequent contributors to these sites.

Why does this matter? Read the following excerpt of a US President's inagural address, and tell me who you think gave the speech. Better yet, tell me if it's a Democrat or a Republican.

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

Give up? It's John F. Kennedy, a Democrat. Can you imagine anyone but a center-right Republican giving that speech today? The bottom line is this: the Democratic party has been hijacked by its fringe members. The former party of the working class is now being run by voluntarily isolated wing-nuts (remember J.F.Kerry's naming of Hollywood elites as "the heart and soul of America" at the '04 Convention, or the fact that Michael Moore had VIP status there? Not exactly cozying up to the humble factory workers that built the party). If you're still voting Democrat, I encourage you to take a long and objective look at the people that your party is embracing, and then compare it to the right side of the aisle - which one better represents your world view?