In modern political parlance, the term echo chamber has come to mean an environment where a given individual only encounters opinions and philosophies that mirror their own, giving rise to a reinforcement of that person’s original positions while insulating them from any conflicting information.

Although both progressives and conservatives accuse each other of living inside of their own respective echo chambers, any clear-minded, honest person will admit that the progressive echo chamber is more isolated, more dismissive of even the possibility of considering an opposing viewpoint and more outright hostile to the other side.

It has long been said that progressives view conservatives as not only incorrect on the facts, but also as outright evil, while most conservatives see progressives as sorely misguided and somewhat naïve but not evil per se.

Speaking from my own anecdotal experience, I see conservatives far more likely to be friends with progressives and to be able to enjoy their shared common interests (perhaps sports, classic movies, music/concerts, etc.) than the other way around. I have encountered very few progressives who don’t define another person’s entire friendship worthiness by whether that person buys into the big progressive tenets, such as abortion, gender fluidity, race/ethnic-based quotas, etc. If a conservative doesn’t align with a progressive on those (and other) issues, then that person is not merely “wrong,” they are evil and therefore not worthy of respect and civil treatment.

This all comes to mind after I received my latest copy of my college alumni magazine, Boston University’s Bostonia. Published three times a year, Bostonia is an eclectic mix of local Boston happenings as they apply to the school/alumni, maybe a few general interest articles on food or art, and always—always—a hyper political piece espousing a popular progressive stance. This piece, which is usually the cover feature, is written not to persuade an undecided reader with a balanced presentation of all the relevant angles, but instead is written from a pointed progressive angle, assumed to be correct with a definite air of “If you don’t accept all of our assumptions and hypotheticals at face value, then you’re obviously a mental inferior.”

This edition’s cover story, “How the AR-15 Divided a Nation” is such a predictable anti-gun/anti-NRA/anti-Republican Party screed that it contains no surprises whatsoever, presents no new information, and cites no new cause/effect insights of any kind. The article starts by using the cheap rhetorical device of listing the locations of well-known recent mass shooting sites:

A mall in Allen, Tex.

A grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y.

A supermarket in Boulder, Colo.

A synagogue in Pittsburg, Pa.

And so on, fifteen in all. Although the author reluctantly admits that the AR-15 was not the weapon of choice in all these shootings, that model, which the author refers to as a “black rifle,” is offered as being the perfect representation of the “core problem of gun deaths and gun violence in the U.S.”

That is so incorrect and wildly unprovable that such a conclusion comes off as totally preposterous to anyone with a logical, analytical and open mind. In the progressive echo chamber, logic and open-mindedness need not apply. Blind, unquestioning adherence to the party position is all that’s needed. If you disagree, you’re not merely wrong; you’re evil.

There are other countries with very high gun ownership, such as Switzerland. The Swiss do not have a gun violence or mass shooting problem like we have here today in America. Back in the 1950s-1970s, gun ownership in the U.S. was still high (not as high as today, perhaps, but still very high) and yet mass shootings were not an issue in the country and no individual weapon was being singled out on the cover of a college alumni magazine as defining the shape of politics in our country.

Many people point to the very real, indisputable change that’s taken place in America over the last few decades with respect to adherence by young people to the traditional values of right/wrong and morality, the concept of realistic expectations, patience, dealing with disappointment, the notion that things will not always go their way every time.

Quite the opposite: Kids are taught, often by their Gen-X and Millennial parents’ examples, that they’re entitled to always have what they want, both socially and materially, without delay or having to work hard for it. The cliché of the Millennial college graduate expecting a six-figure salary and a posh office right out of the gate is, sadly, too true in too many cases. And their kids notice. Disappointment and frustration follow, too often with heart wrenching consequences.

Think of it this way: Let’s say the government suddenly removed all the traditional road laws and limitations. There was no speed limit. There was no median separating one side of traffic from the other. Drivers were encouraged to drive as they please, have as much fun as possible behind the wheel and not to be concerned with other drivers.

What would happen under these conditions? Car accidents and fatalities would skyrocket. The roads would be unsafe, since new drivers are being told, “Do as you please. Immediate gratification without regard to others is your right.” But in the progressive echo chamber, they’d blame Honda for the increase in traffic deaths, not the removal of traditional, time-proven laws, family values and regulations.

Question a progressive about the wisdom of abolishing the long standing and time-honored standards of socially acceptable behavior and responsibility, and you will be dismissed instantly as an evil, unknowing Neanderthal, incapable of grasping the sophisticated subtle nuances of modern society. The cause-and-effect is right there, but in the progressive echo chamber, the residual background noise level is simply too high for accurate information to be heard.

Image: Evbestie, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 4.0