Do average liberals and conservatives distort reality?

It has been argued here and other places that hard core liberal and conservative ideologues are often, probably usually, blinded to reality by their ideology. For example, conservatives sometimes call liberals blind, liberals sometimes call conservatives blind, a few Germans call the Tea Party blind, irate entertainers do it, etc.  The disconnect arises because reality doesn't care what anyone thinks. Reality can and usually does significantly differ from what an ideologue's ideology says the world is. A distorted view of reality leads to political and economic failure and waste. That's a central California Moderates theme.

Australian Air Force F/A-18

Refueling near Nellis AFB, Nevada, March 9, 2012

But, that argument is directed at hard core ideologues. What about regular liberals and conservatives? Those folks may or may not typically vote in primaries, they may sometimes vote across party lines or they may even be in the "wrong" party, e.g., conservative democrats. Does their milder political temperament mean that they more accurately see reality for what it is? Probably. But that does mean that there is no ideology-induced distortion going on in many or most regular liberals and conservatives? No, it doesn't. There is no reason to believe that "soft" ideology wouldn't be a source of distortion, although probably not as much as it is for the average hard core ideologue.

Evidence of that includes the fact that most people (96% in one 2007 poll) consider themselves to be liberal, conservative or moderate. Why is that? It apparently has to be that way because, at least for the 61% who consider themselves liberals or conservatives, they must see different worlds or realities and different ways to address issues. If that is true, and it is for the most part, when they look at some issue or facts they see the issue and/or facts differently, weigh the issue or facts differently and/or otherwise analyze the things differently to arrive at their differing conclusions and perceptions.

 SM-2 missile launch from USS Oscar Austin

Training exercise, Atlantic Ocean, March 21, 2012

Something fundamental has to differ between groups, otherwise the huge gap in policy conclusions and world views we have today should be much smaller. There is only one true reality. That is undeniable. Differences of opinion must be largely grounded in political and/or religious ideology and/or analytical differences of some sort. If there is only one reality, then among sharply differing world views, opinions or versions of facts, (i) somebody simply has to be more wrong than others or (ii) the differing versions are all more wrong than right

What about the moderates?

Do moderates see reality with less distortion than liberals and conservatives? Maybe so. Some argue that moderates are pragmatists. Depending on how moderates and pragmatists are defined, that may or may not be mostly true. If being moderate means compromising between the left and right, it may not be so true for any given issue. If being a moderate means being pragmatic in the sense that if the (i) facts and (ii) logic without deference to ideology argues the best solution to any given problem could be liberal, conservative, compromise or none of those, then arguably that kind of moderate sees with less distortion than any other type of individual. That's the California Moderates definition of a moderate. Maybe some or most of the 4% in the poll who didn't call themselves liberal, conservative or moderate are that kind of moderate, i.e., mostly pragmatic.

 U.S Army personnel training with Bulgarian Air Force

AS532 Cougar helicopter

Hohenfels, Germany, March 18, 2012

Regardless, there is clear and solid logic to argue that even mild ideology leads to some degree of distortion and that leads to to some degree of inefficiency and waste. The argument explains the split among people who either do or do not believe that global warming is real and/or a serious issue, despite a relatively settled set of facts and overwhelming consensus scientific opinion. It explains how religious ideology can skew perceptions of reality and that is arguably true even for moderately religious people.

A reasonable conclusion is that average liberals and conservatives have the same "weakness" or "flaw" that hard core ideologues have, i.e., their ideological beliefs distort reality. They may inject a lesser degree of or different kind of distortion into political debate and thinking, but nonetheless its there. Of course, most or all average liberals and conservatives would dispute that. Everyone knows that they (i) are pragmatic and (ii) see reality for what it is; Its the political opposition that's blind, not me. That can't be true if you accept the notion that there is only one true reality. Otherwise, one has to accept the proposition that two or more often mutually incompatible realities exist at the same time. That's pure religion of some sort, although it arguably does accurately describe modern U.S. politics.

 Marine MV-22 Osprey taking off from George H.W. Bush carrier

Atlantic Ocean, March 20, 2012

Collectively, these considerations clearly argue that pragmatists as defined here would generally make the best political leaders and thinkers, all other things being equal. Maybe at least about 96% of Americans would dispute that assertion as well. Despite that, no one can accuse California Moderates for thinking only inside the box. Its that darned pragmatism - it frees the mind and goes where the road takes it, i.e., not in the ditch. That is ideology's typical destination.