If you think this is a serious problem, so do Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro. The former is a professor of arts and humanities at Northwestern University and the latter is president of that institution. The two have written a book meant to shed light on the rising acrimony in America.

They argue that our discord stems from “fundamentalist” thinking that makes people unable to see any merit in opposing viewpoints or consider weaknesses in their own. They write:

Not so long ago, it seemed as if [the era of] “grand narratives,” … as Jean‐​Francois Lyotard observed, was over. No longer would people rush to adopt theories that explain everything…. Also, not so long ago, it was an unchallenged commonplace that cultures are undergoing a far‐​reaching secularization that, in spite of occasional resistance, is unstoppable. The rise of militant Islam and what some have termed “fundamentalist Hinduism” have called the “secularization thesis” into question. Where are the inevitabilities of yesteryear?

Missionary nihilism / As Morson and Schapiro view matters, people are increasingly prone to categorical thinking that explains everything in terms of some essential text or belief system. They only see confirming evidence for their opinions and treat those who disagree as evil persons who must be squelched.

This sort of thinking is not limited to supposedly backward segments of society. Bear in mind that the authors are at one of America’s most prestigious, extremely selective educational institutions. Here’s what they say:

In our classes, we have seen students who adopt fundamentalist ways of thinking almost by default: not as a choice, but because they imagine that is just what thinking is. These students seem genuinely surprised that there are situations where one cannot find a uniquely correct answer, where one needs to make choices under uncertainty, and where those who recommend a different course of action might turn out to be right.

In short, many of the “best and brightest” young Americans exhibit fundamentalist habits of mind.

The academic world, the authors lament, has been falling more and more into fundamentalist thinking. There, it is mostly a “negative fundamentalism” where the possibility of knowledge is dismissed and those who claim to have some are treated with disdain. “There is such a thing as missionary nihilism,” they write, “and the humanities have seen it.” And that’s a big reason why enrollments in the humanities have been dropping.

What are the indicators of fundamentalist thinking? Morson and Schapiro point to several.

First, there is some canonical writing that is regarded as inerrant, such as the Bible, Koran, Das Kapital, or some tract proclaiming imminent environmental apocalypse. The answers to all questions can be found in them, provided you look long enough. Second, the true believers dismiss any counterarguments as the result of evil motives, mental illness, “false consciousness,” or some other defect. That protects the believers against any doubts about their belief system. Third, fundamentalists engage in assertion and avoid dialogue. They declare that certain things must be regarded as true, rather than arguing from evidence and logic. When fundamentalist perspectives clash, the result almost inevitably is violence.

So far, so good. Fundamentalist systems are atavistic. If humans hadn’t largely broken free of fundamentalism over the last 500 years or so, our lives would still be, as Thomas Hobbes put it, “nasty, solitary, brutish, and short.” Peace and progress depend on rationalism; fundamentalism gets in the way.

Market fundamentalism? / But there’s a gigantic failure of Minds Wide Shut: its condemnation of “market fundamentalism” as one of the causes of our growing antagonism.

The book’s chapter on this is itself an example of the closed‐​mindedness that the authors rightly condemn elsewhere. Morson and Schapiro write:

There are those whose faith in free markets is absolute and unwavering. To them, the role of government should be as small as possible, limited to such things as establishing and protecting property rights, which a market needs to function, and to providing “public” goods and internalizing externalities, called for by market theory itself.

Of course, there are people who argue for that position, no doubt including many readers of Regulation. These people do not, however, base their conclusions on some fundamental, postulated belief, but instead on carefully devised and well‐​supported arguments — arguments the authors don’t so much as acknowledge. Morson and Schapiro also do not point out any instances where a pro‐​market or government‐​skeptical economist asserted that some policy must be changed merely because it is inconsistent with “faith” in markets. Advocates of free trade, for example, do not stake their position on the mere fact that Adam Smith favored it. If “market fundamentalism” were a serious phenomenon, you would think the authors could give some clear examples — as they do for fundamentalist opponents of economic freedom.

The authors try to make up for this lack of evidence by appealing to authority — citing people who are generally hostile to markets and the concept of spontaneous order. First, they quote George Soros, who claimed in his 1998 book The Crisis of Global Capitalism that those who think government should play little or no role in economic regulation “believe their conclusions to be certain.” But believing that your conclusions are correct (rightly or wrongly) is not the same thing as fundamentalism; it merely means you have high confidence in your belief, whether because it’s grounded in some fundamental belief, or because of the sound logic of your argument, or because of empirical support.

The closest Morson and Schapiro come to demonstrating their point is to cherry‐​pick a statement by Nobel economics laureate Gary Becker to the effect that he was sure that Americans would agree with his position in favor of allowing the sales of human organs once they considered his arguments. Again, this is a statement of confidence in his argument (and persuasive powers) and not a fundamentalist assertion. And if someone had disagreed with Becker, he would have replied with more arguments, not with a fundamentalist dismissal.

The authors also rely on economist Joseph Stiglitz, who decried what he saw as unwarranted confidence in free markets. That, however, does not show that market advocates are guilty of fundamentalism; it only shows that Stiglitz was not persuaded by them.

Not only do Morson and Schapiro fail to demonstrate that “market fundamentalism” exists, they also give no reason for calling advocacy of markets divisive. Going back to the 19th century, there have been economists who have argued that we would be better off if government stayed out of the economy. For the most part, their arguments were brushed aside by politicians and interest groups, which is why today we have a leviathan state. So why is it harmful for some economists today to make the case against, say, tariffs, federal student loans, or rent control laws? Elsewhere, the authors quote John Stuart Mill on the importance of counterarguments to test and strengthen positions. What is divisive or harmful about subjecting any policy to a radical critique?

The notion that markets are mostly all right but need a large dose of government control is deeply rooted in the minds of most Americans, including the authors. Very rarely do the “fundamentalists” get their way and convince authorities that some instances of government control are counterproductive and ought to be abolished. There are, however, some such cases. We got rid of the Civil Aeronautics Board and its airline price‐​fixing regulations. That, by virtually all accounts, turned out very well for consumers. Fortunately, that decision was not stopped by cries of “market fundamentalism.” As rationalists, Morson and Schapiro should understand that each argument for or against government control needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

Just how feeble this part of the book is can be seen in the authors’ discussion of the minimum wage. They write that while a few economists would abolish it and others would raise it to $25 per hour, the best policy must lie somewhere in the middle. That conclusion doesn’t follow at all. Radical or extreme positions are not refuted just by pointing out that they are “out of the mainstream.” In fact, by calling arguments for eliminating government intervention in certain areas “fundamentalist,” the authors are aiding and abetting exactly what they spend the rest of the book deploring, namely the way so many people dismiss arguments they don’t want to consider by pinning a pejorative label on them.

Market fundamentalism is a strawman. It’s a shame the authors thought they needed to include it in the book.

How did we get here? / Despite their “market fundamentalism” discussion, Morson and Schapiro have identified a real problem. They earnestly implore people to listen to and reason with one another. So how do we get there?

What’s missing from Minds Wide Shut is analysis of the causes for rising fundamentalism. The authors briefly adverted to a major cause when they mentioned their students who believe that fundamentalist thinking is thinking. Throughout our educational system, students are increasingly subjected to teaching that’s meant to indoctrinate them, to see the world in black and white, to ignore the necessity of tradeoffs. American students learn to accept and defend certain positions (positions that are invariably favorable to governmental control) rather than to identify and evaluate evidence before coming to any tentative conclusions. That begins in grade school and continues through high school and into college. The demands that speakers be prevented from talking on campus and that books with “hurtful” material be banished come from students who have been taught for years that such exclusion is virtuous. We won’t successfully combat fundamentalist thinking until we return our schools to teaching knowledge and pull the plug on political activism.

The resurgence of fundamentalism is a serious problem for liberal societies. Minds Wide Shut is a worthwhile introduction, but it calls for much more work.