Pitts on Cocooning

Today Leonard Pitts demonstrates yet again why he is the current holder of the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He is tackling one of my favorite subjects... cocooning. Or, as he calls it, "living in alternate realities." But rather than just making general observations, he has found someone who has done clinical studies to test this theory. First, however, requests that we ask ourselves a question and look for an honest, unbiased answer in our hearts.

A question for my Republican friends: Would you still love George W. Bush if he were Bill Clinton?

Seriously. If it were Clinton who had invaded Iraq based on erroneous intelligence, Clinton whose decisions had led to the deaths of over 1,200 soldiers, would you be foursquare behind him the way you are for Bush? Would you still support him even as he is vilified by half the country and much of the world?

And for my Democratic friends: Would you have felt the same about Clinton had he been Bush?

Had it been Bush who had an affair with a White House intern, Bush who looked the nation in the eye and lied about it, would you have been so willing to forgive? Would you still have opposed removing him from office?

In other words, are you guilty of double standards and outright bias?

I'll save you the trouble: Yes.

I've taken that challenge and I can honestly say that I passed. If Bill Clinton were the one launching the war in Iraq and continuing in this manner, I would still be 100% opposed to it and taking him to task as strongly as I do The Worst President Ever. Then again, I may not be the best person to take that quiz. The fact is I voted for Bush's dad. (I still maintain he must have been adopted. Dubya and his father are as far apart on the intelligence and morality scales as red and violet are on the rainbow.)

Pitts then moves on to a study conducted by Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University. Westen's study provides some insight which I think we could all have predicted has we been asked to.

[When asked] whether people make decisions based on bias or fact, bias won hands down.

In a key scenario, respondents were lead to believe a soldier was accused of torturing people at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The fictional soldier claimed to have been following orders from superiors who told him the Geneva Convention had been suspended. He supposedly wanted to subpoena President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to prove his case. Respondents were asked if he should have that right.

Some were presented with strong ''evidence'' corroborating the soldier's story. Others had only his word to go on.

But the strength or weakness of the evidence turned out to be immaterial. Researchers were able to predict people's opinion over 80 percent of the time based simply on their opinions of the Bush administration, the GOP, the military and human rights groups. Those who had less affection for the president sided with the soldier even when the evidence was weak. And fans of the president tended to side with him even when the evidence was overwhelming.

We believe what we want, facts be damned.

It's hard for anyone not to fall victim to this phenomenon to some degree, but it's always worth the effort to try. That's why I keep on reading some hard right wing blogs every day, such as Powerline and the despicable Michelle Malkin. Besides... it's always good to know what the enemy is up to over in their camp.