Josh Marshall wonders why people believe what they believe. He begins with the common tendency among conservatives to deny climate change:
There’s been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science.
He misses a step here. The fundamental problem is not that conservatives desire to oppose science but that they are willing to ignore scientific evidence when it conflicts with their views. If there was a commonly held belief in global warming but the scientists came out against global warming, then conservatives would agree with the scientists.
Conservatives primarily reject the scientific consensus on climate change for two reasons. It is preferable that global warming not be true since it leads to undesirable real world consequences, and conservatives exhibit a strong tendency to ignore facts when they conflict with what they want. Secondly, climate change is a problem which can only be solved with government coordination. As conservatives oppose government action which does not involve invading other countries or torture, it is simpler for them to deny the science than to concede there is a problem which where government coordination is necessary.
Josh extends this to other areas:
Another way of looking at this is that in our politics and society, group association seems to give certain beliefs or policy positions a mutual ‘stickiness’ even if they do not seem to be connected together in any logical or consistent way, or any way that would make sense out of the context of our culture and society.
George Lakoff, among others, has presented arguments as to why conservatives and liberals share a set of views. There are also other people such as myself who do not generally agree with the traditional set of views associated with either party. Prior to 2006, Republicans did a far better job of sticking issues together which did not necessarily need to belong together. They found ways to convince social conservatives to support the goals of fiscal conservatives, and vice versa. Over time this has broken down, contributing to the end of their governing coalition.
It is also not necessarily the case that those who are liberal on social issues or foreign policy will support traditional Democratic issues on the economy and taxes. It was far easier for many to vote Democratic when they were the main opposition to an increasingly extremist Republican Party, but it is harder to keep people with a variety of views united behind a governing party. That is partially why Democratic support is in some ways weaker now than it was before the election.
