In political debates, most of us think we first study the issues and then reach the best conclusions based on arguments and evidence. Unfortunately, writes A. Barton Hinkle, research suggests people often do precisely the opposite. To a much greater degree than we would like to think, we choose up sides first. Then we align our conclusions with what our side thinks about a particular issue. Then we adopt the arguments that best support the conclusions our side favors — even if we dispute those same arguments in other cases. If you'd like an example, Hinkle says, take the current debate about guns.
Teen activists are righteously angry—but righteous anger does not produce sound public policy.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz's Testimony on FBI Failures Should Be a Wakeup Call for the Media and the GOP
Republicans were wrong to side with the state on privacy issues, and the media was wrong to lionize anti-Trump G-men.
Privacy advocates have long warned about potential abuses. Will the mishandling of the Carter Page investigation change some minds?
Clint Eastwood's masterful true-life drama about a wrongly accused American hero doubles as an awkward brief for Trump.
No, but that's not stopping a litigious vegan from making his case.