When one writes about moral convictions, it’s probably a good idea to consistently live up to them. That way people can still disagree with your convictions, but they have a difficult time accusing you of hypocrisy.
Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, I failed to live up to one of my highest principles. Here’s the background. The story about the Obama administration’s attempt to force Catholic and other faith-based institutions to offer employees free contraception in their health care coverage was still fresh. I was asked to be on a panel before what looked like a crowd of about 1,000 conservatives, hungry for “red meat.”
A clip was played from Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program. It featured her commenting on the subject. I stupidly said before thinking, “I think she’s the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception.” I then added, “and all the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”
It didn’t matter that far worse things have been said in print and on TV about me. I am not supposed to behave like that. I co-wrote a book with my liberal Democratic friend, Bob Beckel, called “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America.” We also write a column together for USA Today. One of the principles in which I believe is not to engage in name-calling; which, to my shame, I did.
The next morning I felt bad about it, so I called Ms. Maddow to apologize. It wasn’t one of those meaningless “if I’ve offended anyone...” apologies; it was heartfelt. I had embarrassed myself and was a bad example to those who read my column and expect better from me.
Maddow could not have been more gracious. She immediately accepted my apology. On her show she said publicly, “I completely believe his apology. I completely accept his apology.” To be forgiven by one you have wronged is a blessing, it’s even cleansing.
Maddow also accepted my invitation to lunch and we will soon meet in New York. I am looking forward to it. Since the incident, which, of course, garnered a mini-tornado of media and blogosphere coverage, I have watched a couple of her shows. Without engaging in any qualifiers, she is a strong and competent advocate for her position. Why do so many of us only watch programs that reinforce what we already believe? Where is the growth in that? Whatever else she may or may not be, she is my fellow American.
I have many liberal friends acquired over the years. They are impossible to avoid in the media, but I don’t wish to avoid them. They became my friends because I stopped seeing them as labels and began seeing them as persons with innate worth. That is what I failed to do in my first response to Rachel Maddow. One might expect a pro-lifer like me to support the birth of fellow human beings and not suggest they should never have been born.
I expect to like Rachel Maddow because my instinct is to separate the value of a person from his or her political position. For some strange reason (demon possession, perhaps) I failed to do that at CPAC.
So, apology delivered and accepted and lunch will soon be served. I’m trying to decide whose career might be hurt more should someone take a picture of us enjoying a meal and — it is to be hoped, at least by me — each other.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Don't worry, Mr. Thomas. Politics is theater too and we know sometimes speakers have to perform their required Kabuki dance as expected by the audience. Both the left and the right know how this works. Let's move on.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
"Politics is theater"? I thought it was comedy.
jafs (anonymous) says…
This is heartening, that both of these people, who probably can't agree on much, are able to achieve this level of friendly interaction.
We need a lot more of this.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) replies…
A lot more.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
+1 It may be fun to put on the "uniform" of the left, right or middle, but in the end we ARE all Americans and the solutions lie within us all. Being an adolescent country does have its drawbacks, but we'll get through this.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"Why do so many of us only watch programs that reinforce what we already believe? Where is the growth in that?"
I do wonder if Cal will ask this very good question next time he appears on FoxNews? Does he only see it when in context of the left-leaning MSNBC? Also, does he recognize that it not only applies to programs we watch but also the company we keep and conferences we attend? He couldn't have expected differing points of view at his CPAC meeting.
I am not attempting to belittle his apology. It is a good one that appears to go beyond what is necessary to show its earnestness. We have all said things (and around here posted things) we wish we hadn't. I just wonder if he recognizes that his question of watching what confirms our beliefs could go so much further than just the television.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Bea: This book is a wonderful biologican and sociological explanation of what you desribe...
========= The Believing Brain: Michael Shermer
The Confirmation Bias: The Mother of All Cognitive Biases “………over the years I have observed the following: no matter what the issue is under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position….the confirmation bias is best captured in the biblical wisdom: Seek and ye shall find.
The confirmation bias is particularly potent in political beliefs, most notably the manner in which our belief filters allow in information that confirms our ideological convictions and filters out information that dis-confirms these same convictions. This is why it is so easy to predict which media outlets liberals and conservatives choose to monitor. We now even have an idea of where in the brain the confirmation bias is processed thanks to an fMRI* study conducted at Emory University by Drew Westen.
During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing a brain scan, thirty men—half self-described “strong” Republicans and half “strong” Democrats—were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments of the candidates, Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own preferred candidate off the evaluative hook. Of course. But what was especially revealing were the neuroimaging results: the part of the brains most associated with reasoning—the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex—was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions, and the anterior cingulate cortex—our old friend the ACC, which is so active in patternicity processing and conflict resolution. Interestingly, once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable, their ventral striatum—a part of the brain associated with reward—became active............
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
..........In other words, instead of rationally evaluating a candidate’s positions on this or that issue, or analyzing the planks of each candidate’s platform, we have an emotional reaction to conflicting data. We rationalize away the parts that do not fit our preconceived beliefs about a candidate, then receive a reward in the form of a neurochemical hit, probably dopamine. Westen concluded:
We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including the circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until then get the conclusions they want, and then get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.
===============
D. Westen, C. Kilts, P. Blagov, K. Hahrenski and S. Hamman, “The Neural basis of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Political Judgment During the U.S. Presidential Election of 2004.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18 (2006)
=
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's rather disturbing to me.
Did they offer any suggestions for how people could do that less, and engage their brains in reasoning instead?
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
Jafs: Hard to say. It's a fascinating study and political beliefs are just one chapter. If you are interested in this stuff, I highly recommend the book. We are drawn to what we already believe to be 'true,' it appears. I try and read people who make me mad and are far from where I think my mind is just to stretch and to argue with my own convictions. It's not fun, but it can help. If we are to reject an idea, I think it helps to know why and not to just follow the media's parade.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
I've not read the book, but do remember the reviews when it came out.
Since more people watch Fox than any other "news" channel, does that mean those who identify as conservative are more likely to seek out self-affirming news than those who are liberal? We are pretty evenly divided in this country, so you would think MSNBC would be equally as popular as Fox. It isn't. What does that tell us?
I just know that when I heard John Kerry speak, my brain tended to tell me I was tired.