True Believers

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Stuart Benjamin has a post that I think misses the point. He quotes at length from a PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) press release from the University of Maryland.

The report is about the many misperceptions Bush supporters have regarding Iraq. It's the same list we've seen before--WMDs, Iraq and Al Qaeda, world perception, etc. According to PIPA, Bush voters are way off while Kerry voters are much better at getting their facts straight.

First, you don't need to be Clintonian to see ambiguity in the questions. Even after checking out the Duelfer report, for instance, it really does depend on what you mean as to whether or not Saddam had WMD programs. I'm afraid I'd still get a lot of the answers "wrong."

But this is minor. Let's assume Bush supporters do get all these things wrong. This is to be expected. People who support the war in Iraq are more likely to accept things that favor their beliefs, even if false, than those who oppose the war. Why do you think they support the war? In the same way, those who oppose the war are more likely to believe myths that go along with their beliefs.

However, the "non-partisan" PIPA report comes to a different conclusion:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

So, in other words, PIPA asks questions designed to show that only Bush supporters are wrong, and then comes up with one-sided reasons as to why Bush supporters are wrong. The more prosaic explanation--that people tend to believe things that support their side--is apparently not even considered, much less tested, by PIPA.

This psychological rule doesn't just apply to Iraq. Read The National Review. They're conservatives and--guess what?--they look at any issue and conclude conservative thinking is right. Read The Nation. They're liberals and--guess what?--they look at any issue and conclude liberal thinking is right. Now I'm not saying no one can be right. I'm not even saying either side can't be completely right. I'm just saying there's a tendency to fool yourself which is hard to get around.

Stuart Benjamin concludes his piece asking "Isn't it disappointing for so many supporters of any presidential candidate to have such misperceptions on issues as central as these?" Well, no. I'm pretty confident there has never been any considerable group of supporters for any important Presidential candidate at any time in our history who didn't have at least some significantly wrong perceptions.