MOTIVATED REASONING

There's been a lot of rhetoric recently about the supposed depravity of "Bush haters," even from some who claim to have castigated "Clinton haters," although I haven't done the research to know if they're playing straight. But I don't see why "Bush hating" is any more interesting a phenomenon than "Bush loving," which manifests itself in reflexive habits of defending the administration against charges of wrong-doing. For a particularly fine example, see Jonah Goldberg's comments on the Plame affair, here. "Bush loving" is the same thing as "Bush hating," with respect to the truth of what is being asserted -- the signs are just reversed, if you will.

In a different context, Harold Spaeth and Jeffrey Segal write:

[I]f human beings have an unlimited capability, it is the ability to rationalize our druthers. We ought never underestimate our talent for motivated reasoning. (Majority Rule or Minority Will, 43).

I'm not sure that I agree with Spaeth and Segal on judicial behavior, but this seems to me to be a generally good observation about political commentary -- especially commentary that runs in the well-worn grooves of punditry. This is not a big secret, of course (with respect to my own motivations as well), but there is something fascinating in the spectacle of it all.