A Philosopher's Blog

The Republicans’ Epistemic Problem

Posted in Epistemology, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on November 14, 2012
English: Karl Rove Assistant to the President,...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that focuses on knowledge: determining the nature of knowledge, sorting out what we can (and cannot) know and similar concerns. While people often think of epistemology in terms of strange skeptical problems such as the brain–in-the-vat and the Cartesian demon, it actually has rather practical aspects. After all, sorting out what is known from what is merely believed is important for the practical aspects of life. Also a significant portion of critical thinking can be seen in terms of epistemology: determining what justifies believing that a claim as true.

In very rough and ready terms, to know a claim is to believe the claim, for the claim to actually be true and for the belief to be properly justified. As any professional philosopher will tell you, this rough and ready view has been roughly beaten over the years by various clever thinkers. However, for practical purposes this account works fairly well—provided that one takes the proper precautions.

My main purpose is not, however, to do battle over the fine points of an account of knowledge. Rather, my objective is to discuss the Republicans’ epistemic problem to illustrate how politics and epistemology can intersect.

As noted above, a rough account of knowledge involves having a true belief that is properly justified. As might be imagined, the matters of justification and truth can be debated until the cows (if they exist) come home (if it exists). However, a crude view of truth should suffice for my purposes: a claim about the actual world is true when it matches the actual world. As far as justification goes, I will stick with an intuitive notion—that is, that the belief is properly formed and supported. To help give some flesh to this poor definition I will use specific examples where beliefs are not justified.

As I discussed in my essay on politics and alternative reality, political narratives are typically aimed at crafting what amounts to an alternative reality story. This generally involves two types of tales. The first is laying out a negative narrative describing one’s opponents. The second is spinning a positive tale about one’s virtues. While all politicians and pundits play this game, the Republicans seemed to have made the rather serious epistemic error of believing that their fictional narratives expressed justified, true beliefs.

While epistemologists disagree about justification, it seems reasonable to hold that believing a claim because one wants it to be true is not adequate justification. It also seems reasonable to hold that a belief formed by systematically ignoring and misinterpreting available evidence is not justified. That is, it seems reasonable to hold that fallacies do not serve as justification for a claim. Hence, it seems reasonable to hold that beliefs based on such poor reasoning do not meet the standard of knowledge—even if we lack a proper definition of knowledge.

One clear indicator of this was the shock and dismay on the part of conservative pundits such as Laura Ingraham. A bit before the election she said “if you can’t beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party.” Other pundits and spinions expressed incredulity at Obama’s ability to stay ahead of Romney in the polls and they were terribly shocked when Obama won the actual election. This is understandable. On their narrative, Obama is the worst president in history. He has divided the country, brought socialism to America, destroyed jobs, played the race card against all opponents, gone on a worldwide apology tour, weakened America and might be a secret Muslim who was born outside of the United States. Obviously enough, such a terrible person should have been extremely easy to defeat and Americans should have been clamoring if not for Romney, then at least to be rid of Obama. As such, it makes sense why the people who accept the alternative reality in which Obama is all these things (or at least most of them) were so shocked by what actually happened, namely his being re-elected. The Republican epistemic and critical thinking problems in this regard are well presented in Fox’s Megyn Kelly’s question to strategist Karl Rove: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is it real?”

After Obama’s victory, the conservative politicians, pundits and spinions rushed to provide an explanation for this dire turn of events. Some blame was placed on the Republican party, thus continuing an approach that began long before the election.

Given their epistemic failings, it makes sense that they would believe that the Republican Party is to blame for the failure to beat such an easy opponent. To use an analogy, imagine that fans of a team believe that an opposing team is pathetic but as the game is played, the “pathetic” team gets ahead and stays there. Rather than re-assess the other team, the fans are likely to start blaming their team, the coaches and so on for doing so poorly against such a “pathetic” opponent. However, if the opposing team is not as they imagined, then they have the explanation wrong: they are losing because the other team is better.  Put another way, their team is not playing against the team they think they are playing against—the pathetic team is a product of their minds and not an objective assessment of the actual team.

In the case of Obama, the conservatives and Republicans would be rightfully dismayed if they lost to someone as bad as their idea of Obama. However, they did not run against that alternative Obama. They ran against the actual Obama and he is not as bad as they claim. Hence, it makes sense that they did not do as well as they thought they should.  To be fair, the Democrats also had an Obama narrative that is not an unbiased account of the president.

It also makes sense that they would explain the loss by blaming the voters. As Bill O’Reilly explained things, Obama won because there are not enough white male voters and too many non-white and female voters who want “stuff” from the government. This explanation is hardly surprising. After all Fox News, the main epistemic engine of the Republicans, had been presenting a narrative in which America is divided between the virtuous hard working people and those who just want free stuff. There was also a narrative involving race (as exemplified by the obsessive focus on one Black Panther standing near a Philadelphia polling place) and one involving gender. Rush Limbaugh also contributed significantly to these narratives, especially the gender narrative, with his calling Sandra Fluke a slut. On these narratives, the colored people and women are (or have joined forces with) the people who want free stuff and it is their moral failing that robbed Romney of his rightful victory. However, this narrative fails to be true. While there are some people who want “free stuff”, the reality is rather different from the narrative—as analyzed in some detail by the Baltimore Sun. In response to such actual evidence, the usual reply is to make use of anecdotal evidence in the form of YouTube videos or vague references to someone who just wants free stuff. That is, evidence that is justified is “countered” by unwarranted beliefs based on fallacious reasoning. Ironically, the common reply to the claim that their epistemology is flawed is to simply shovel out more examples of the defective epistemology.

As might be imagined, while the Republicans had a good reason to try to get people to accept their alternative reality as the actual world some of them seem to have truly believed that the alternative is the actual. This had a rather practical impact in that to the degree they believed in this alternative world that isn’t, their strategies and tactics were distorted. After all, when one goes into battle accurate intelligence is vital and distorted information is a major liability. It does seem that some folks became victims of their own distortions and this impacted the election.

People generally tend to want to cling to a beloved narrative, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, there is a very practical reason for the Republicans to work on their epistemology—if they do not, they keep increasing their odds of losing elections.

My Amazon Author Page

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 5:39 am

    Ideas? Who needs ideas? Obama got 98% of the black vote. Race trumps the need to think at all. Just look at skin color.

    “Obviously enough, such a terrible person should have been extremely easy to defeat”

    Like Bush, the man who did more damage to America than bin Laden?

    And since when is democracy a guarantee that the best person holds office? Vladimir Putin is an elected official. Despite the media’s attention on the protests in Russia, Putin holds very high approval ratings, much higher than Obama’s.

  2. T. J. Babson said, on November 14, 2012 at 7:04 am

    I think the best analogy to Obama is Hugo Chavez. He has done tremendous damage to Venezuela, but a lot of people still seem to like him.

  3. What went wrong | Civil Commotion said, on November 14, 2012 at 7:40 am

    [...] LaBossiere explains last week’s Republican losses as an epistemic [...]

  4. WTP said, on November 14, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Got this from my last post, which hasn’t shown up yet…
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Is this a new policy or am I just special?

    • WTP said, on November 14, 2012 at 11:22 pm

      ok, so maybe something to do with what was in the post itself…hmm…

  5. magus71 said, on November 14, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Mike, take your blood pressure meds before watching this:

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 11:47 am

      I’ve been hearing Pat for years, so why would I need meds to hear him say the same sort of stuff again?

      In any case, running keeps my blood pressure nicely in check.

      • magus71 said, on November 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm

        Just wanted to remind you of why you hate America.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 15, 2012 at 1:38 pm

          And why is that? Is it because I live here, picking America above all other countries? Is it that I have benefited from being a citizen and repay benefits with hate? Is it that I accept the professed values of life, liberty and justice and I am dismayed that they are ignored or trampled? Tell me, oh sage, the ways of my hate.

          • magus71 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:14 am

            I’m rather dismayed that your ideas of life and liberty always seem to benefit one party. That you are dismissive of arguments made against your party, ignore the ignoramuses in the Democrat party (they are legion) cherry pick statements made by people who aren’t even politicians (Coulter, Rove, Palin) in order to make it seem like Republicans are dumb.

            See, I agree with Romney about the 47%. Like he said: “I’ll never convince them.” He knew that with some, they like nothing more than an entitlement. You will not be convinced. Obama failed. He will drive this country into the ground. But he’s a Democrat, so he’s good. What aspect of the economy is better than when he took office? Wall Street? Don’t you hate Wall Street?

            You’re making the same arguments you made in college. I’d like to congradulate you for your consistancy, except that in college we were young. And nothing correlates more with stupidity than youth.

            • biomass2 said, on November 16, 2012 at 12:45 am

              Could I just use the first paragraph of your 12:14, change a few words (like changing Democrat to Republican) to make my point?
              I’d also like to eliminate those names and note that the primary , campaign, and post -election Romneys have done a fair job of making Republicans seem dumb directionless and untruthful.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:53 am

              I’m not claiming they are dumb. In fact, Republican intellectuals such as Newt are now making claims similar to mine. I actually want a functioning and effective opposition party. I miss the old Republicans. I’m trying to help.

  6. ajmacdonaldjr said, on November 15, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Think about when and why the GOP came to be… and you will discover why it is dead now – and forever. These things happen every 150 years or so.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 16, 2012 at 6:45 am

      True-it is about time for some new parties. Tories and Whigs, perhaps? Or the New Bull Moose?

  7. norm said, on November 19, 2012 at 5:23 am

    Don’t be so rovian, fellows . It’s very simple, actually…….YOU LOST


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,911 other followers

%d bloggers like this: