As we rush headlong into the fall election cycle, the Season of Stridency, some recent brain imaging research -- reported in the Scientific American -- demands to be noted.
The research explains why politics is a dialogue of the deaf: when we listen to opposing political views, we actually become hard-of-hearing.
The technical term for this is "confirmatory bias," which means we accept (and greedily hunt for) data that validates our beliefs, and dismiss even rational evidence that undermines it.
Now, the biological basis for this has been uncovered. The Scientific American describes how researchers used a" functional magnetic resonance imaging... study [to] show where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions." (The increasing use of brain scans to study emotional states -- from lying to being in love -- is an area with lushly fertile cultural and legal implications that someone should write a book about).
The reason the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was inactive among Clintonites wasn't his policy o
The results, which were revealed at the 2006 annual conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, reported on work done in advance of the 2004 election. "While undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves."
As anyone who's spent ten minutes at a bar or plopped in front of Hardball might surmise, "... in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook."
What gets really fascinating, though, is the way that our gray matter engineers this black and white worldview, and shuts down our reconsideration apparatus. The magazine writes that "The neuroimaging results... revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure."
Wow. An ancient pleasure system that enables us to get our jollies from being validated, and that allows for the conflation of self-justification and moral certitude.
When our belief system is challenged -- by logical argument, empiricism, relativist "facts" -- our rational brain turns into Paris in August.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning" said Psychologist Drew Westen who led the study, which was conducted at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.
Now that we know our primitive brains are hard-wired to tune-out anything that might topple our nicely stacked belief structures, much gets clarified.
For example, we have an answer for Thomas Frank, who asked with clever frustration "What's The Matter With Kansas?" as a synecdoche for conservative, middle-class Americans who repeatedly vote against their economic self-interest.
The point is that nothing's the matter with Kansas. It's enjoying perfectly normal brain functioning, thank you. Rational arguments about tax breaks for the rich and the hideously widening income disparity simply bounce off the slumbering dorsolateral prefrontal cortex like hard rain off drought-hardened Kansas fields.
Changing opinions is difficult because it actually means the reduction of pleasure. (Conversely, for a Republican to listen to Fox News involves the release of chemicals associated with comfort. It's a pint of Haggan-Daaz for the neocon soul.)
What does that mean for our current frozen political tundra where the parties are close to a 50/50 split? It means a lot. To start, Democrats are not going to achieve success by winning debating points or pointing out the hypocrisy of their opponents or by asking voters to "think differently" about issues. Or with a PowerPoint. (Truths -- inconvenient or otherwise -- arrive DOA in our wetware, like bugs on a windshield).
The trick is to attract swing voters by activating their volatile orbital frontal cortex, which governs emotions. Use language and metaphors and reference systems with epically deep positive associations -- Lakoff's framing approach -- and by doing so create a new emotional architecture. This is how the Republicans gradually won over millions of voters -- from the days of the Silent Majority to the Reagan Democrats -- who were historically hostile to their values.
Democrats need to use the confirmation bias to get inside that all-powerful orbital front cortex. Conservatives did it by convincing millions that they weren't the party of the rich and powerful, but defenders of the Little Guy because they were the believers in small government. And, of course, they were the only ones to whom the defense of America could be entrusted.
By contrast, the Democrats became the media elite, piggy feeders at the trough of big government, and global sissies. (Which, as Peter Beinart points out in his new book, is a relatively recent archetype.)
Republicans have stayed true to these themes for decades, and gradually but succesfully created an artificial but emotionally anchored world where repeated examples of this political dichotomy were populated and imprinted to reshape opinion. Once Kansas was transformed, the confirmatory bias kicks in, and you've got a self-propelled cycle of biochemical self-justification and hormonal joy.
The Democrats have lacked the consistent and relentless focus required to ignite the orbital front cortex of enough voters. Clinton did it based on his personal magnetism, but he failed to create a worldview strong enough to usher in its own confirmatory bias for the future.
It was his primal story that launched him: poor kid with an abusive and alcoholic step- father makes good, and through the pain develops a powerful empathy and drive to succeed and help others. At the end, he is almost brought down by his undisciplined eroticism, the need to engulf the world.
The Clinton saga demonstrates one muscular way to create confirmatory bias: through a powerful narrative, one that arouses our unconscious imprints of legends and fairy tales and heroes.
The narrative keeps the rational brain at rest long enough to give the orbital front cortex a chance to fire away. Let the confirmatory bias gain enough ground with enough voters, and the familiar Teflon effect appears.
Reagan managed to do this on a personal and policy level. But Clinton didn't. The reason the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was inactive among Clintonites wasn't his policy on Bosnia or welfare reform but his individual power and fable. You can build a personal legacy on that, but no more.
So why was Kerry unable to succeed at creating a confirmatory bias? Despite his heroic exploits, his persona was disconnected from his mythology, he didn't appear as someone whose life had mythic over-notes. He talked too much. He couldn't control his wife. His narrative was arc-less. As a result, when he was attacked, there wasn't enough emotional currency in the bank to offset it.
The research reported in the Scientific American should be at the front of the the briefing book of every Congressional candidate this year. And every political consultant for years to come. To de-funk the Democratic party means to come to grips with the difference between hearing, and listening. You're just not going to change the hearts and minds of America without a better understanding of its brain.