I Don't Want to Know

During a recent trip across Middle America, I got into two revealing conversations. These “not quite” discussions provided some discomfiting insights into how Obama supporters think.

The first exchange was the more moderate. It began with my being told how Obama saved the automobile industry. When my turn to say something arrived, I started to explain why this wasn’t true. But I did not get very far.

Before I could elaborate on the reasons Romney’s advocacy of a non-government sponsored bankruptcy would not have killed General Motors, my adversary jumped up and with a wave of her hand, headed for the kitchen. On her way, she tearfully exclaimed, “I don’t want to know,” and disappeared from view.

We eventually reconciled by agreeing to be friends, but the political dialogue was over. The second incident was a bit less gracious. It too began with the other party telling me he would not vote for Romney. In this case, he launched into a monologue on Mitt’s faults.

As readers of my columns may know, I am not disposed to allow unsubstantiated opinions to go unanswered. Also, as I hope most will concede, I keep up-to date on current events; hence I was not without rebuttals.

In this second instance, however, I was even less able to say anything. This time my interlocutor did not immediately leave the room. Instead, he firmly told me that he would not allow a political discussion in his house. No matter how unambiguously I replied that I should have the right to answer, he pounded the table and insisted the conversation was over.

Well, the conversation was over, because he stood up and walked out. He did not say he would not listen, but he would not, even when I told him what he was doing was shameful. In the process, he alerted me that no amount of effort, or civility, or accuracy can make people who don’t want to hear, do so.

As a sociologist and university professor, I have long been aware that liberals do not read what conservatives write. I have also been aware that liberals are disinclined to accept challenges to debate from the likes of me. They prefer to pat each other on the back and assume that only they know the truth.

It now seems that this attitude is widely prevalent in liberal circles. These progressives, in part, because they consider themselves smarter than their opponents, plainly do not want to be exposed to ideas they do not already believe.

This makes it predictable that Obama supporters will swallow anything said in his defense. Nevertheless, in reflexively dismissing evidence that does not confirm their pre-existing commitments, they are prepared to accept the most patent nonsense.

Not long ago, when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, told Fox News she did not know if the Pac that put out the ad accusing Romney of having caused a woman’s death from cancer was a Democratic affiliate, I laughed out loud.

But then I took a moment to reflect. I realized that millions of Obama voters would, in fact, credit this piece of idiocy. Many would also agree Romney is a murderer, a tax cheat, and a vulture capitalist. They would likewise accept the proposition that Paul Ryan wants to “end Medicare as we know it” and throw Granny off a cliff.

When people’s minds are on automatic pilot; when they will not listen to counter-evidence, there is nothing one can say. People, who do not want to know, do not change their opinions. They just repeat the same tired talking points as if they had been handed down from Mount Sinai.

My hope is that there are not enough of these folks to re-elect Barack. But whether or not this is the case, there will be enough campaign drivel between now and Election Day to fill the emptiest of conformist heads.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University