Is reality politically biased?

A quick reflex answer to the question is no, reality is not politically biased. It just is what it is without regard for human concerns or biases. But is that a complete or even correct answer right now in the context of American politics and human biology and behavior? It's arguably not. In politics, humans often perceive their realities according to the dictates of various factors such as personal identity, tribe loyalty, personal biases, self-interests, life experiences, cognitive ability, education, etc.

In that context, there is a significant difference between the perceived realities of the modern FRP (fascist Republican Party and its supporters) and non-FRP people and groups who are not so radical. Clearly, most of the FRP and the most of the rest of Americans see and believe in quite different realities. Which perceived reality is closer to real reality? Based on my politics and perception of reality, the FRP vision is significantly more distorted than most of the non-FRP perceptions. But is that true or just biased and/or flawed reasoning?

A few years ago, the question came up at Quora and some interesting thoughts were posted there:

There are basically two schools of Conservative thought throughout history. There are the Traditionalists, who work to preserve the status quo, preserving the ways of life, the social institutions of the day, and the stability and continuity that brings to a culture and a civilization. And then there are the Reactionaries, who actively fight against not only change but fight against the basic premises of the present day, and seek to return to some previous "golden age".

So immediately, we have a problem with Reactionaries: they are most often trying to return to a fictionalized, cleaned up version of that past era they view today as a golden age. That's one break with reality already.

Liberalism tends to value liberty and equality, so it was very much at odds with the status quo, when it came into its own as a movement in the 1700's Age of Reason. Liberals were people who opposed Monarchy and Oligarchy, who opposed state religion, etc. This philosophy and eventually politics was embraced by philosophers, such as John Locke, and generated all sorts of frightening new ideas that challenged the status quo: natural rights of mankind, a government based on a social contract with its people, the rule of law applies to leaders and citizens alike, a demand for representative democracy, tolerance of others and other ideas, etc. So basically Liberalism on its modern creation was set as a force to oppose the status quo of the day. In it's day, the American Revolution and the Constitution were radically liberal things ... godless representative democracy, rule by the consent of the people, not the divine right of kings, that was crazy stuff.

Following the traditions of Conservatism and Liberalism in the USA, it's been the Conservatives all along opposing change. In the slavery debate, the conservatives of the day (the Democrats) supported slavery, the way things were already. The Liberals (the Republicans) felt that slavery was wrong (1865) and that slaves should have the rights of citizens to vote (1870). Sure, it wasn't until 1920 that women won the same right... again, in it's day, a very liberal cause. Liberalism was a big reason for the USA's ascendancy in the world. When the US began, founded on some of the most liberal thinking to come out of the Age of Reason, we were established here without king, without aristocracy, and of course, without a status quo.  

If you follow American politics, you have absolutely heard that many, perhaps most, conservative leaders are not just conservatives, they're reactionaries. Sure, they're in opposition to social change ... I mean, look at the right wing hissy fit that erupted over the ACA (aka, Obamacare), the idea that healthcare should be affordably available to all US citizens (not claiming it's a perfect law, it's not, but it has pushed us just a little more in the direction of Locke's Egalitarianism). Look at the claim that LGBT folks should have the same rights to marry or adopt as anyone else. That's plain old conservatism.  

But you've heard all the "want my country back", "return to a Constitutional rule of Law", etc. That's all magical reactionary thinking, and it's rampant in today's Republican Party. They want to move us back to a 1955 that never happened -- of course, ignoring the 94% top tax bracket and the misogyny that allowed every wife to remain barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove. In order to actually believe these philosophies, you have ignore the realities of history.

That is one argument in favor of the FRP being reactionary and less tethered to reality. And, if one believes the kinds of things I have posted here about Christian nationalism (CN) (book review, chapter 6 review, chapter 7 review, etc.) and its agenda and influence on the FRP, it seems reasonable to categorize the FRP as "reactionary." The central lie that CN fights hard to establish as a fake reality is that the US was established as a Christian nation. That is historically false, but the lie is central to reactionary CN ideology and tribalism or social cohesion. And, as one expert on the CN political movement (Katherine Stewart) put it, to get people to believe a big lie, there needs to be lots of little lies to go along with the big lie narrative.

Arguably, the same thing is happening right now regarding the ex-president's and FRP's big lie about a stolen 2020 election. A hell of a lot of little lies litter the FRP political landscape in support of the overall whopper. The fascist media put great emphasis on spreading and reinforcing the stolen election lie.[1]

So, the question remains, is there in modern American politics a liberal bias in facts, true truths and sound reasoning, or is that just another illusion emanating from a self-deluded person?

Footnote: 

1. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote this opinion in December of 2017:

There are two central facts about 21st-century U.S. politics. First, we suffer from asymmetric polarization: the Republican Party has become an extremist institution with little respect for traditional norms of any kind. Second, mainstream media – still the source of most political information for the great majority of Americans – haven’t been able to come to grips with this reality. Even in the age of Trump, they try desperately to be “balanced”, which in practice means bending over backwards to say undeserved nice things about Republicans and take undeserved swipes at Democrats.

This dynamic played a crucial role in last year’s election; it’s one of the reasons major news organizations devoted more time to Hillary Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined. But it has been going on for years. It’s the whole story of Paul Ryan’s career: journalists trying to be centrists desperately wanted to show their neutrality by praising a Serious, Honest, Conservative, and promoted Ryan into that role even though it was obvious from the beginning that he was a con man.

And it’s still playing out, as we can see from what looks like a looming debacle in Facebook’s efforts to institute fact-checking.

Facebook wanted responsible fact-checking organizations to partner with, and several such organizations exist. But all of these organizations are constantly attacked by the right as having a left-wing bias – so it added The Weekly Standard, even though it clearly failed to meet internationally accepted standards for that role.  

So what’s the basis for claims that, say, PolitiFact is biased? Hey, The Weekly Standard itself has explained the criteria:

Surveys done by the University of Minnesota and George Mason University have shown that the supposedly impartial “fact checking” news organization rates Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims and twice as much, respectively.

Notice the implicit assumption here – namely, that impartial fact-checking would find an equal number of false claims from each party. But what if – bear with me a minute – Republicans actually make more false claims than Democrats? (emphasis added)  

Take a not at all arbitrary example: tax policy. The GOP is deeply committed to the proposition that tax cuts pay for themselves, a view that has no support whatsoever from professional economists. Can you find any comparable insistence on a view experts consider false on the Democratic side?

Similarly, the GOP is deeply committed to climate change denial, despite the overwhelming consensus of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous. Again, where’s the Democratic counterpart?

 

But the facade is so familiar and comfortable . . . .