Fresh back from Kevin Drum‘s, I’m a-wowing. Kevin was talking about something he got from Shankar Vedantam (whom I’ve heard of but don’t really follow). Vedantam, in turn, was discussing a study by
[p]olitical scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler[, who] provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration’s prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation — the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration’s claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.
Same thing happened when the topic was Bush’s claim that tax cuts increase federal revenue — almost twice as many conservatives who were shown a refutation of this by “prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials” toed the Bush line as did conservatives who weren’t given the refutation to read.
But Nyhan and Reifler found this phenomenon only among conservatives. “[Refutation] had little effect on liberals [and] didn’t cause them to actively believe the misleading information even more strongly.”
WTF? “Reifler suggests it’s because conservatives are more rigid than liberals,” says Kevin.
Maybe so. If I had to guess, though, I’d say it’s because right-wing talkers have spent so many years deriding “so-called experts” that they now have negative credibility with many conservatives. The very fact that an expert says a conservative claim is wrong is taken as a good reason to believe the claim. This could probably be tested by doing a study of factual information outside the realm of politics and seeing if conservatives react the same way. If they do, maybe that’s support for the generic rigidity theory. If not, it’s support for the theory that conservatives simply distrust political elites.
For more, here is Reifler’s online Q&A at the Washington Post this morning.
UPDATE: I should add that these weren’t the only two questions Nyhan and Reifler asked. They also asked a question about stem cell research in which it was liberals who might be expected to resist the truth. They didn’t find any backfire effect there either, though.
Given the growing friction among foloers since campaign season has kicked into high gear, and the increasing ability of each band of us to perplex the other, you see why this news fascinates me. I’d be very interested in what some of y’all propounding the conservative line here might self-report to confirm or refute Kevin’s theory.
But of course, to do so, you’d have to deal with a study from political scientists — and those two concepts alone may so put you off, you won’t want to talk about this at all. If that’s the case, I suppose it’d suggest that Kevin’s read has more going for it than Reifler’s . . . maybe. You tell me.
On the WMD issue, here is my take. There were indeed WMD’s in Iraq (of the chemical type) before the most recent War. Due to a failure of the US (the Rumsfeld/Rice plan) to have enough troops on the ground to provide border security and captured munitions security, both pre-invasion, during the invasion, and post-invasion, the WMDs were taken out of Iraq —most likely into Syria. This was both a military and political failure by the administration. Not only is it very bad from a security standpoint for such weapons to fall into the wrong hands, but it was important to find the WMDs to help validate one of the main reasons for taking the preemptive action against Iraq.
Almost every significant intel agency in the world and the UN believed Iraq to possess WMDs. So did the major players in the previous administration, as well as most notable members of Congress on both sides of the isle. And Saddam, while on the one hand saying he had no such weapons, threatened the use of such weapons in the event of an attack by the US/allies —the Iraqi troops in the field had chemical suits, masks, etc. So, is it more likely that so many were wrong, or that the WMDs were taken out during the pre-invasion/invasion chaos? I think most likely the latter.
But, the Dems let the Bush administration get away with this huge mistake and security breach. Why? Think about it. It was only after Howard Dean, during the Democratic primary debates, started gaining traction with the far left base of the democratic party with his anti-War position, that the other Dems came up with the “Bush lied” mantra to provide them with political cover for their pro-War votes. And the Bush administration was more than happy to defend that accusation, as opposed to the much more serious security breach issue caused by Rumsfeld’s miscalulation in needed troop numbers. And the Dems have been more than happy to continue the charade as well —- especially once it became hip to be against the War. IT got them off the hook.
Now, I don’t know where my theory fits in with this political scientist’s study results. My position has evolved from a lot of reading and observations, as well as applying logic and reason. Often times, the most simple explanation is the right explanation. And the WMDs having been taken out of Iraq is a much more simple and likely explanation, IMO, than the prospect of that many people/govt. agencies/etc., including Saddam, being wrong, or a sinister plot/conspiracy by Bush/Cheny to deceive democrats (after all, according to many dems, Bush is not smart enough to get out of the rain, much less fool all of them except Howard Dean (who conveniently was not in a position to cast a vote one way or the other), that quack dem (DK) who ran for president, and ….oh yeah, Obama (who also was conveniently not in a position to cast a vote at the time, as he was in the Illinios state legislature ). When water runs downhill, it usually follows the easiest path —the path of least resistance.
Maybe I am delusional,….and then again, maybe I’m not.
Awrighty, one vote pro-Kevin.
I think their theory is most certainly valid as evidenced by afotl’s response. He is very well read and interested in the subject of pre invasion WMD’s but seems to selectively rule out any evidence that does not support his preconceived notion that Sadam hid them. We on the left also look for evidence to support or preconceived notions. However because we’re less rigid we give the right more credit than they merit based on real evidence.
This may also explain that most bipartisan compromises happen because the Dems ‘cave’, infuriating most on the left. However, afotl is probably a lot smarter and better read than I am, so his point of view is most likely the correct one. (see how easily i cave!)
Even though I don’t feel that I qualify as a proponent of all things conservative, I’ll fill in until one shows up.
I’m voting on Kevin’s view.
I read approximately 5-20 research papers and/or five or six professional journals with the results of another 2-3 papers in each of those. Add to that another 10-20 research abstracts a month for a multitude of years and you can begin to see that most hard science professionals have an idea what it takes for a paper to be considered as research. I state this fact only to establish that I recognize "research" when I see it. That being having been said: THIS AIN’T RESEARCH! At least not in the sense of it having been submitted for a peer review journal and accepted for publishing. It is not even close to being ready for any journal of any credibility. I’m thinking National Enquirer before Reader’s Digest.
This is nothing more than an essay of their ideas that they are attempting to sell and in to make there own political stance appear legitimate and at the same time self-promoting. And I don’t think that Nyhan is unfamiliar with that latter claim.
This is little more than a ruse that they are attempting to sell to people that do not know the difference between research and slick sales brochures. Interesting they make the claim that the "conservatives" won’t accept experts claims. Of course in this case they are the "experts." What could we the unwashed and ignorant masses possibly know? With garbage such as this, which is being sold under the guise of "research" it is not only much more likely to insure that fact will not change, but make it more probable.
They could have saved themselves some time and just asked people, "Will being sold a bill of goods in news storys change your opinion after we correct the story?" I’m going to venture they would have better results.
To best sum up most conservatives view of most news storys that quote from crapola like this, sold under the guise of research, I’d suggest the adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
And yes, I read the entire paper. Twice. Just to be sure.
Here’s the actual paper. http://www.duke.edu/~bjn3/nyhan-reifler.pdf
I could dissect the paper here, but it would bore the hell out of most people. I know it did me, but I really wanted to see how they came to their conclusions.
They need to keep their day jobs and hope that blogging starts paying off.
shaves: *5-20 research papers and/or five or six professional journals and 10-20 research abstracts a month *, 1st, I readily admit you’re way outa my league but may I ask the general subject of these papers/journals/abstracts-legal? I ask only out of interest.
Deleted.
AFOLT @1
There were indeed WMD’s in Iraq (of the chemical type) before the most recent War.
Condi said we didn’t want the next cloud to be of the mushroom variety, and Dick and W repeated variations on that theme. We were sold that invasion on the grounds of nuclear weapons, and to hype up mere chemical weapons , which have far less destructive power, after said nukes failed to materialize, is bait and switch bull****. Failure to distinguish between orders of magnitude’s difference among chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons while glomming them all together under the heading of “WMD” is clever neo-con framing to lower the bar for that “Bush Doctrine” (that none of y’all ever heard of) invasion justification.
OP99, go back and re-read Bush’s speech making his case for the War. While some believe he over-”hyped” the nuclear possibility aspect of Saddam’s threat based upon the evidence of Saddam seeking yellow cake, others simply believe he meant what he said — that Saddam was seeking yellow cake —that he wanted to develop a nuclear weapon program —which he most definately did. That was not a “lie”, Wilson notwithstanding, as there was as much evidence in support of that conclusion as not. Bush did not say that Saddam had nuclear weapons. No one was saying that. Thus, the only logical WMDs that could be in Iraq would be chemical weapons, including chemical munitions that could be delivered by long range missiles —-missiles that Saddam did have in Iraq —missiles that exceeded the parameters he accepted as a condition to the end of the Gulf War.
The real question here, as far as the case for War is concerned, is whether there is ever a strong enough case for a preemptive or humanitarian based War when we have not yet been directly attacked by the enemy —whether human rights violations supports a case for War —whether the violation of UN resolutions supports a case for War —whether the ambition and mere attempt to obtain that which is declared forbidden and allegely poses a potential threat to the US supports a case for War. IF you can say yes to any of these reasons, then the War in Iraq logically was justified.
If one believes that the only true cause for War is in response to a direct attack on the US, then the only “justified” War since WWII was our attack of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack —clearly, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, protected and aided by the Taliban, from within Afghanistan, were responsible. And that is it — the other Wars, under such a policy, would not have been justified: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the War in Bosnia, and the latest War in Iraq — none were sparked by direct attacks upon the US. I am closer to this position than the other.
For instance, I did not think the first Gulf War was justified. I couldn’t give a rats arse about the sovereignty of Kuwait, nor Saudi Arabia. Ditto with respect to the UN and its resolutions. Without that War, the War in Iraq likely would not have happened. Once we established the precedent of making a case for War based upon violations of UN resolutions, then we created at least part of the pretense for the second War in Iraq.
The same can be said for the humanitarian based Wars like the War in Bosnia. Using this justification, we could be literally fighting Wars all over the globe at any given time, serving as the world’s policeman. With such an arbitrary trigger point, where do you draw the line?
Ditto fighting Wars to protect “democracy”.
While some find it easy to criticize the “Bush Doctrine” (assuming they can even consistently and accurately articulate what that is), this begs the question: What would be your policy? What would that look like? What would be your trigger point for War?
These are very difficult questions, the answers to which our country has been struggling with since WWII. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I just know that I favor peace over War, diplomacy over killing, and a big stick in case War is deemed to be absolutely necessary –no using the military to win hearts and minds, but instead to deliver a fatal decisive victory and get the hell out. I am uncomfortable with Wars that are preemptive based upon a perceived but unrealized threat, humanitarian Wars, pro-democracy Wars, Wars to uphold UN resolutions, etc. Despite my discomfort, I could be wrong. And the price of being wrong could mean loss of our freedom and loss of lives.
Now that Palin has been asked such a question, I would like to see every other candidate on the presidential tickets asked the same question, and not be allowed off the hook. We need to know where all of them stand. What does each of them consider the appropriate trigger point to justify War. As our potential commander in chief, each of them may be called upon to answer that question. And when that moment comes, its not just politics, but life and death.
As for the study cited above, I believe the underlying premise to be flawed. There is a big difference between opinion and fact. And in the examples given, the alleged “facts” are largely unproven and simply constitute opinions. And the use of the term “experts”, as most lawyers well know, really does not mean much of anything except a claim of expertise based upon knowledge and experience. A statement by an “expert” is only as credible as the demonstrated credibility of that expert. And on many topics, there is no consensus even among the “experts” —this is particularly true with respect to economics, where you can pretty much find an “expert” to support almost any proposition. This is true of many other topics, including the justification for War, global warming, etc. Often, the source of their livilihood or personal politics dictates their opinions. Funny how that works, even with “experts”.
AFOTLproves the theory well with the argument in the article. According to him Bush didn’t lie (forget the intelligence reports and the whole Valerie Plane incident) and the fact no weapons of mass destruction were found. The Dems decided to lie when they said Bush lied. So Bush didn’t lie it’s a lie to sayBush lied when he said Iraq was acquiring uranium eve though Bush had intelligence reports to the contrary and anyone who said Bush lied is a liar. It’s the Pee Wee Herman theory, “I know you are but what am I?”. How profound. Ugh.
Yes, AFOTL at 8 is an example of defense lawyering with a bad set of facts. I’m just amazed at all of that.
After reading State of Denial on the heels of Legacy of Ashes I almost feel sorry for Bush. The CIA screwed up royally, passing off stepped up satellite passes as “increased activity” and the administration fell for it. Rumsfeld then steps in, ignores Powell’s suggestion of the use of overwhelming force and tries to invade on the cheap.
Our forces were given lists of over 900 WMD sites, most of which would have been easily discounted by previous intel. The forces were then told there was no priority to the list and not to bother trying to investigate or secure any facility on the list because there was no manpower for either.
What makes me more mad at Bush than anything is his firing Powell and leaving Rumsfeld in too long.
The Iraqi gov’t was too dysfunctional and corrupt to pose a serious threat. Example: the reason they were looking to secure the “aluminum tubes” was not because they had a nuke program but to cover Sadaam’s son’s cronies’ butts because their gov’t contract to provide standard artillery munitions left the Iraqi’s with shells that would not fire.
I think diplomacy and UN sanctions would have worked. Just like the USSR, Iraq would have collapsed on its own under Sadaam as the people became more fed up with the failure of Iraqi electrical and other infrastructure. All of this was only a short time away, as we learned after we invaded.
We may have had to then step in to keep the ethnics from killing each other (the Kurds would be toast otherwise) but I would imagine our coalition would have enjoyed UN support in the effort. I think you would have seen a confederation of states splitting oil money controlled by the UN probably replacing the real corrupt with the just sort of corrupt. Hopefully we would enjoy some degree of stability until we could reduce our dependence on the region.
Then they can all pound sand for what we care, just ask Darfur.
Long story short we were headed over there in any event, our failure to let our troops do it right at each and every step is why we will be there for a long time to come no matter who is elected.
Morning, Evell, roger, and confounded.
What makes me more mad at Bush than anything is his turning the country over to Dick Cheney and his crazies.
He had one good guy in Powell and he neutered him. Have you seen Burn After Reading yet Lotus? I have a feeling that is our CIA in spades.
Haven’t seen the movie yet, just the trailer, Evell (when I saw “Vicky Christina Barcelona” the other day — now there’s a movie I’d love to live in). BAR looks interesting fer sher.
I’m not as sold on Powell as you are, though. He “good soldiered” far too much far too long for his country’s wellbeing. One really-well-placed resignation in protest would have meant a lot in those days, but he didn’t provide it.
Can’t disagree with ya at 14. Bet he wishes he had that to do over. Part of the point Woodward makes in State of Denial is that is the way soldiers are and with DR at the helm none of the military guys would shake Bush up and give him an accurate picture even when asked outside of Rumsfeld’s presence.
Powell was probably scared of what moron they would select if he did resign.