Great Right-Wing Minds Think Alike (continued)

Recently, I got in a bit of back and forth in the comments section of this recent post concerning the accuracy of labeling the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) "right wing." I do agree that, in reality, very little of what is labeled in Western democracies "left" or "right" applies to politics in Taiwan, because "national identity" and all its ramifications is still the major driver of differences between the pro-blue and pro-green sides. Even though one could point to individual politicians on both sides that could be labeled "left" or "right" in the traditional sense, I still argue that it's possible to tease out some left/right differences between the two sides when one takes into account longer-term trends or historical background.

For instance, I pointed out that the DPP's platform before 2000 did contain a number of "lefty" policies,...

such as opposition to nuclear power, greater environmental regulations, progressive land management reform proposals, pro-labor policies, and the continued strengthening of democratic institutions that were far more prominent and credible than the lip-service to democracy paid by the KMT.

However, as we saw throughout the Chen years, whether it was a result of the inherent institutional weakness of the Presidency, the scorched-Earth opposition of the dominant KMT party in the Legislature, or the corrupting influence of big business and money in politics, most of these "lefty" DPP policies were never implemented or were abandoned. Instead, the DPP often followed the same government-led developmentalist policies of the KMT.

On the other hand, taken in historical context, it's hard to find much in the KMT that qualities as other than "right wing," from their continued worship of anti-communist, military strongman and dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to their long-term anti-environmentalist and pro-developmentalist policies throughout their 60-year reign on Taiwan, to their strong anti-union policies, to their current appeasement and pro-annexation policies with a fascist, authoritarian dictatorship like China. It's very hard to find much "liberal" or "progressive" about much of what the KMT has promoted for the last 60 years, other than lip service.

Now that I think I can stop feeling uneasy calling the KMT "right wing," I've been thinking more about ways that right-wing ideologues like Ma Ying-jeou and Rush Limbaugh might be alike: this new study found differences in the way right-wing and left-wing brains think.

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

...

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences.

Could this study shed light on why so many American conservatives still refuse to admit that deregulation has led to the collapse of the American banking sector, or that lower taxes have INCREASED the budget deficits, not decreased them? Or why deep-blue ideologues like Ma Ying-jeou still refuse to admit that the KMT lost the Chinese Civil War, that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) was "a savior of the Chinese Race-Nation," and not a ruthless, incompetent dictator, and that Republic of China CANNOT comprise the old Qing Empire: China, Tibet, East Turkestan (also called Xinjiang), AND Mongolia (Taiwan is listed as part of the ROC by statute only, apparently), no matter what the ROC constitution says?

No, I think you need something deeper and more systemic to explain such total obliviousness to facts and reality: epistemic closure, a closed-loop information filter that prevents any idea or assertion from being tested objectively against reality or facts. As Julian Sanchez summarizes in his excellent post on the epistemic closure of the right-wing in America:

Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This epistemic closure can be a source of solidarity and energy, but it also renders the conservative media ecosystem fragile. Think of the complete panic China’s rulers feel about any breaks in their Internet firewall: The more successfully external sources of information have been excluded to date, the more unpredictable the effects of a breach become. Internal criticism is then especially problematic, because it threatens the hermetic seal. It’s not just that any particular criticism might have to be taken seriously coming from a fellow conservative. Rather, it’s that anything that breaks down the tacit equivalence between “critic of conservatives and “wicked liberal smear artist” undermines the effectiveness of the entire information filter. If disagreement is not in itself evidence of malign intent or moral degeneracy, people start feeling an obligation to engage it sincerely.

If Republicans are guilty of this kind or reality filter, imagine what it's like for the KMT: for forty years, anyone who challenged the KMT one-party state or the official white-washed KMT version of history was arrested, tortured, or even murdered. Blacklists were maintained as late as 1992 of "political enemies" that were not allowed into Taiwan. Text books reflected the KMT's cultural and political hegemony. Encyclopedias that contradicted the official KMT line were physically redacted with a heavy, black marker.

Even now, all the symbols of national identity, such as flags, national anthems and government ministry symbols, the ROC constitution, CKS Memorial Hall, etc. all reflect and reinforce the KMT's version of history as being the saviors of the "one and true Chinese culture." The TV, newspapers, and other media are owned or controlled by pro-blue forces, all of which will reinforce the KMT's slant on history and the issues of the day. Any historical perspective or claim that contradicts their world view can be easily dismissed as "anti-Chinese propaganda" or just a "pro-green political smear."

As Michael Turton pointed out on his blog about the KMT:

...one of the most important components of KMT dominance over society is its Leninist drive to bring all the institutions of society under its own control. In Leninist forms of organization, Right or Left, the Party interpenetrates with society so that whether at home, on the job, or socializing, the Party is always in control, monitoring, and shaping the behavior of others.

The KMT dominates or controls all levels of society from all the national branches of government, including the executive, legislature, the judiciary, the military, to local police groups, 90% of all the media, the state-run news outlets, of course, to the university administrations at all the elite schools, teacher's and government worker's unions, cross-strait financial institutions and crime syndicates, all the way down to the Boy Scouts, farmer's credit unions, irrigation associations, and temple associations. All these levels of society are still dominated by the KMT.

Functioning in such an ideologically closed bubble, or epistemic closure, one will never have his or her world view challenged by facts or contrary historical views, which is why listening to and trying to debate someone like Ma seems like a rather fruitless endeavor. Good luck trying to poke any holes in Ma's ideological armor when trying to debunk his various ECFA delusions, such as ECFA being non-political and not touching on the ROC's sovereignty.

You'd have just as much luck convincing Sarah Palin that the United States wasn't "founded on Christian principles" or that Obama isn't a "terrorist-loving, closet-Muslim socialist."