Neal Gabler: Republican is Religion, not Political Party

If belief in one’s own point of view is unshakable and not subject to exceptions, one writer says the Republican Party has fully met the definition of a religion. Neal Gabler declares that’s why it is impossible to reach them with rational arguments.

Neal Gabler of the Los Angeles Times has a point of view that he says shows how rigid Republicans are in their thinking. He maintains it should get folks thinking and wondering what about politics makes people take untenable positions and be so intractable there is nothing left to debate. That’s his underlying argument as he examines the modern tenets of Republicanism and its dedicated followers. He says, “Conservatism has been converted into a religious belief, and now compromise doesn’t have a prayer.”If compromise is touted as Obama’s political strategy, does this mean he has no chance of success unless it is only with Democrats? This goes along with a Huffington Post article in September of last year entitled There’s No Arguing with Conservatives---No, Seriously Scientific Studies Prove It. What Dan Sweeney writes is that when conservatives are offered factual, reality-based arguments refuting their positions, they cling to their beliefs even harder. A scientific study by political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided information to two groups of volunteer, both given the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One of the groups was given an argument from the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that maintained before the US invaded in 2003 Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Thirty-four percent of conservatives given only Bush administration claims believed Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons. On the other hand, those given a rebuttal or argument through the report believed Iraq really did have weapons in spite of the evidence presented to them. Sweeney writes, “The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.” He goes on to say it is the same with the information about tax cuts, where in spite of economist information and actual experience to the contrary, conservatives believe they really do create cash flow. Obama is said to be seeking a compromise with conservatives over such matters as health care reform according to the Boston Globe. If Gaber’s argument is correct and the scientific study valid, will Obama continue to have difficulty selling his agenda with logical discussion? Since, according to experts, that is Obama’s great strength, how might this affect his promises for change?