Interesting take on how political debate is framed

[.]

I'm not sure just how valid this piece is regarding how political positions are taken depending upon how the debate is framed but it bears some looking into. It actually might help shed some light on why both conservatives and liberals seem to shift positions on some issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/10/the-depressing-psychological-theory-that-explains-washington/

On a first read I can't really form too much of an opinion but it's an interesting theory that bears a closer look.

[chauffeur]

The second to the last paragraph sums it up quite well. 

"Worse, the world is complex, and very few of us can take the time to develop sound opinions on the vast range of issues that arise in Washington. Even if you're a health-care expert, the likelihood that you're also an expert on Chinese currency manipulation, and ethnic tensions in Syria, and prison policy, is pretty slim. So people end up relying on the authorities we trust, be they media figures, issue advocacy groups or politicians. But those validators aren't simply concerned with the truth. They're looking to get ratings, to fundraise, to maximize their influence, to get reelected, to retain standing among their peers. Their reasoning is motivated, too. But that's not how their followers see them."