A FEW WORDS ON THE EFFICACY OF CHANGING ONE’S MIND
Inconstancy? Or proof of the never ending individual quest for enlightenment?
There is, abroad on both sides of the ideological divide, a prejudice against anyone who stakes out a position on an issue and then alters their thinking on that issue when new information or a new reality presents itself. Changing one’s mind is a no-no and is either a sign of a weak will or worse, a lack of courage to stick to one’s “convictions.”
When re-examining the underlying assumptions which form the basis for rational thinking on any issue, the mind changer is denigrated as a cowardly wretch, a loser, an insincere fake. I am not saying it is an occasion for congratulations or a pat on the back. But the disapprobation associated with sincerely altering one’s views based on a rational re-analysis of one’s thinking is disturbing.
The political internet places a premium on closed mindedness, rewarding those who march in lockstep with the group. Deviation from the Party Line is discouraged by a loss of prestige and respect, and a consequent loss in readers and links. Any blogger can tell you this is true. More recently, some conservative commentators and pundits have learned the truth of this convention when they “strayed” from conservative dogma and embraced a more independent line of thinking.
Certainly, I am not trying to advance the idea that disagreements over politics and policies should not be vigorous and sustained. But criticizing someone simply because they changed their mind on an issue? Something is wrong with that picture - at least the way I have been encouraged to think over my lifetime. I tried to put this into words several times over the nearly 5 years I have been blogging but probably lack the intellectual chops to get it right.
This was my latest attempt from a few months ago:
I return once again to the theme of making this site a “Blog of Self-Discovery” or, the “Writings of the Self-Absorbed Man” if you prefer. In truth, after more than 4 years of struggle, I am in many ways, more of a stranger in my minds eye than I was when I began this journey of self criticism; challenging everything I believe, forcing me to justify the underlying assumptions of my philosophy to my own satisfaction.
Although it should be the goal of any examined life to make such a quest a lifelong pursuit, it is a journey that is best begun when one is young, I think. At age 55, one has lived too much, experienced too much, seen too much, lived and loved and lost too much to retain the suppleness of mind that can process and absorb the terabytes of information we mainline every day. Can we recognize what all of this data is doing to us, how it is changing us, why it challenges our long and comfortably held assumptions as new insights are gleaned and new directions in thought are explored?
For those handful of you who have taken seriously my earnest but woefully inadequate attempts to put into words the “velocity of my thoughts” on the nature of man, of conservatism, and the threads of history and the evolution of man’s relationship to the state that seeks to find a complementary connection between them, please bear with me over the next few days as I attempt to explain the insights that have been granted to me recently.
What brought this subject to the fore was a link from Instapundit I received today where Glenn Reynolds made note of my change of mind on the value of tea parties. He linked to this post that contains my original thoughts on the first efforts of the tea party movement last February.
Reynolds took me to task for that post, writing “If this keeps up (and I think it just might) the amateurishness will fade away soon enough. Then Moran will probably complain about the loss of authenticity.”
My post was too snarky by half and not very well thought out. I vividly recall the reason for that snark, however; there were 9,000 conservative activists at CPAC in Washington, D.C. and yet the tea party in Lafayette Square during the conference drew a measly 300 participants. The disconnect between the rhetoric promising a “new American revolution” sweeping the country with paltry turnouts elsewhere also drew my criticism.
Since then, I have changed my mind on the tea parties and believe them useful. Why? Because the underlying assumptions I had originally formulated that informed my position changed dramatically. The April 15th protests showed massive growth in numbers and the dynamism of the movement. And yet, the criticism I received then (as well as Reynold’s implied criticism of my change of heart today) was not about the substance of my argument but rather the fact I had simply accepted a new reality and altered my beliefs accordingly.
At the time last April, even Reynolds agreed with my critique that the tea parties were amateurish and disorganized. We differed on the belief that they would grow into something significant. My fault was in underestimating the organizers, not in analyzing what went on at the actual events.
To be wrong is human. But admitting error or admitting a change of heart on the political internet gives most commenters leave to question your intelligence, your principles, even your integrity. It doesn’t matter if the underlying assumptions you originally used to justify a position become irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if new information comes to light to challenge your beliefs. You are supposed to ignore this and “stay the course.”
This is counterintuitive thinking as far as I’m concerned. And it is destructive of rational discussion of issues big and small. But as long as this mindless group think dominates both sides of the ideological divide, there will be little independent thought to temper the extremes of right and left nor will there be room for consensus to solve the problems that are bedeviling us.
Rick,
I think your post is a defensive - Glenn was not taking you to task for not “staying the course” - what ever that’s supposed to mean relative to criticism about the tea party protests.
His gripe was that
A. You didnt seem to appreciate the potential behind it and that you dismissed it too easily
B.It may not be easy to please all the people all the time - hence his snark about you dismissing them as “inauthentic” if they became more organized.
C. You were not able to see it atleast initially - for what it was - a wave of protests not just against the spending policies of Democrat politicians but against the policies of ALL politicians including Republicans.
The tea-party protests in my opinion were much more organized opposition than what the GOP has managed to do in the Hill so far. Given that the party is weak, the grassroot protestors have sensed that it is time that they depend on themselves instead of Washington politicians to voice their opinions and general displeasure at what is going on.
In Glenn’s defense, he has also suggested some thing more than protesting - he has asked people to regularly participate in local councils and local meetings and ask the tough questions about how money is being spent in their local economies.
Your point about counterintuitive thinking is well taken but i dont think Glenn or any one else for that matter is against that - he isnt asking you to march lock step with you. His main gripe is that you didnt take it seriously enough initially even though he did - while both of you had access to pretty much the same facts and the same situation on the ground.
As regarding the “consensus” for the problems bedeviling the country, I personally feel that there is nothing much at the moment. Let the stimulus play out - let the real effects of cap and trade and a “public option” health care plan play out and then we can talk about building a consensus.
In the mean time conservatives should offer their health care plan (like Dr.Coburn did) and their stimulus plan (like Paul Ryan did EVENTUALLY after a joke played by Pence and company initially did).
If the public rejects these plans and is in more favor of the DEmocrat’s version of these plans, then you have to have the humility to admit that a majority of Americans have decisively turned against its founding principles and try AS BEST AS POSSIBLE to live in this new world.
Because we are not merely talking about this or that “plan” but how much more expansive the Government has become and how much radically a citizen’s relationship with the Government has changed. If Americans are ok with more and more Govt intervention in their personal lives, they will get what they want - they may not like it later on, but they will get what they want NOW.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/5/2009 @ 8:59 pm
What does changing one’s mind really mean? Let’s stick with the old Greeks for a second ‘I know that I don’t know’. We know far too little to really understand the world but realizing this ’should’ make us a little humble. Case in point perhaps Karl Marx, his analysis in “Das Kapital” was actually in part brilliant. However, he thought he could explain everything by his deterministic dialectic (not the only one at the time) and ultimately his philosophy put into reality failed. So how could it be that quite a number of brilliant minds e.g. part of the Western Left kept defending a failed system? I guess there is just one answer to this, not wanting to be a traitor, romanticism, belief in ones superior intellect come to mind. However, these forces on our minds are by no means restricted to one political philosophy, they are universal.
I’ve had many changes of mind for whatever reason. I try not to be so full of poop to believe all those changes were due to unselfish noble and rational reasons. Anyway, before I get to carried away, Congrats Rick for the ability to sometimes see things differently after time. A philosophy, again example Marx, without the ability for self criticism is doomed to fail. And we don’t want that now, do we?
Comment by funny man — 7/5/2009 @ 11:09 pm
So exactly what are the tea parties about.
Obama cut taxes so the TEA, Taxed Enough Already, is nonsense.
Doubling of the deficit? Where were the teabaggers when George Bush did the same damn thing in a period of growth. Obama’s spending is a reaction to the worst economy since the depression. We had and have no choice.
You were right in your first position, Rick.
The teabaggers are a joke.
They are nothing more than “I hate Obama” rallies. The teabaggers need to quit whining about losing an election and just once try to offer constructive ideas.
Comment by jharp — 7/6/2009 @ 9:37 am
jharp said:
Eight years of Republican governance shed light on two basic rules:
1) Never admit you were wrong about anything.
2) If you change your mind in light of new information you are a gigantic sniveling pussy intellectual who hates America.
What you’re suggesting is that Tea Party people help fix the problems that their programs and policies caused. Unfortunately though, this would violate rules 1 and 2 above and is therefore impossible.
This is unfortunate.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/6/2009 @ 1:33 pm
You were right the first time Rick.
Comment by michael reynolds — 7/6/2009 @ 5:58 pm
Rick, I have to agree with Chuck and Michael about your first opinion being correct, except that the tea parties might serve the useful purpose of bringing out new potential leaders of the Conservative movement. All the rallies and protests that make up the tea parties aren’t so much about the cause, they’re about developing skillets and enthusiasm that hopefully will take over the GOP from the loonies that now control it. Obama and the Democrats need an honest opposition, not an insane one!
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 7/6/2009 @ 6:10 pm
Please make believe I didn’t wrote “skillets”; I of course meant “skill sets”!
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 7/6/2009 @ 6:12 pm
It is comical to watch the derision thrown at the “tea-bagging” crowd. It is even more comical to watch the agony of these people who dont like Rick changing his mind.
Its almost as if no one cared to read the rest of the post as soon as they realized that Rick changed his mind.
I admit that these people should have protested during Bush’s administration as well. But that complaint about being partial to Obama’s deficit alone misses the point - what Obama has done in the first six months to the deficit is staggering.
You have to ask yourself this question - did you support the Bush Admn deficits ? If no, then why are you defending Obama’s deficits - just as you accuse the Tea Party movement of being partisan, are’nt you being partisan as well?
Is this the “change” you all “believed” in ? The argument that there was “no other choice” but to ramp up Government spending by monstrous levels shows an intellectual laziness and rank ignorance about fundamental economics.
How is that “no other choice but the giant boondoggle of a stimulus” working out ? you know that bill that was 1000 pages long and passed in such a hurry so that unemployment is kept under 8 % ?? Well, dont worry it does not even start to have any positive effects until 2010. But there’s already talk of a second stimulus !
How do you over come debt ? Why, by piling on more and more debt I suppose !
National Health care “option”, Crap and Tax, Trillion dollar stimuluses that favor the various rent seekers of the Democrat party - enjoy it while it lasts.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/6/2009 @ 6:37 pm
Nagarajan Sivakumar Said:
6:37 pm
“You have to ask yourself this question - did you support the Bush Admn deficits ? If no, then why are you defending Obama’s deficits - just as you accuse the Tea Party movement of being partisan, are’nt you being partisan as well?”
No, I didn’t support the Bush deficits and yes I do support the Obama deficits.
Obama’s spending is to prevent economic catastrophe. Bush’s spending to invade and occpuy a country that was no threat to us.
“Is this the “change” you all “believed” in ? The argument that there was “no other choice” but to ramp up Government spending by monstrous levels shows an intellectual laziness and rank ignorance about fundamental economics.”
Yeah. It’s pretty much the “change” I expected though I felt the stimulus wasn’t enough and I wish he’d fight harder for a single payer health care system.
“How is that “no other choice but the giant boondoggle of a stimulus” working out ?”
Fair. And be patient. little of the stimulus money has been spent and we might need to increase the amount. You obviously don’t grasp the magnitude of the ruin Bush and the GOP have brought down on us.
“Well, dont worry it does not even start to have any positive effects until 2010. But there’s already talk of a second stimulus !”
bingo.
“How do you over come debt ?”
Same way everyone in the history of the earth has. By increasing productivity.
Try thinking about it as a student loan.
Comment by jharp — 7/6/2009 @ 7:32 pm
jharp, your ignorance is overwhelming. 1) You accuse tea party participants of being Obama haters (without proof, as if your pronouncement of it being true makes it true), when the invective you spew towards Bush makes you a hypocrite of the highest order; 2)You are poorly educated on both economics and current events. Obama cut taxes already? Wow! When did that happen? And when did overcoming debt occur from increasing productivity? When you charge up your credit card, does it get paid off because you are more productive at work? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Debt is reduced when it is paid off. There are many ways to do that (stop spending, increase taxes, or some combo of the two), but simply increasing production is not a cure-all, especially when your idea of a production increase it a bunch of make-work programs that employ bodies, but produce nothing (i.e. government jobs). 3) Conservatives abandoned the party when Bush abandoned conservative principles. We were harshly critical of Bush’s unfettered spending, just as we are now critical of Obama’s.
And your silly use of the word “teabagger” highlights your immaturity.
Comment by lionheart — 7/7/2009 @ 1:51 pm
“No, I didn’t support the Bush deficits and yes I do support the Obama deficits.
Obama’s spending is to prevent economic catastrophe. Bush’s spending to invade and occpuy a country that was no threat to us.”
Prevent economic catastrophe ?? Well, i thought that was the TARP funds were meant for - or atleast so i thought until they started using it for bailing out GM, and everything else that they wanted to control.
It is amazing for what passes off as “debate” and how assertive JHarp is in saying the catastrophe would have not been prevented but for stimulus bill to be passed ! What kind of catastrophe is it when the stimulus would not take any meaningful effect as neglible as it is until the middle of 2010 !
The TARP legislation was voted on when Bush was President -this was supposed to be the “catastrophe-saver”. Please know basic facts before getting into a debate.
And Bush was criticized AS MUCH for expanding Govt at levels not known since LBJ ( Medicare prescription, No child left behind, no cuts in any spending program) AS FOR invading Iraq - even when you rant against Bush, you dont seem to understand where he did the greater damage.
“Same way everyone in the history of the earth has. By increasing productivity.
Try thinking about it as a student loan.”
Increasing productivity by increasing the size and scope of Government - now that is a jaw dropper !
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/7/2009 @ 7:15 pm