# Enchanted America *Published September 2018 by the University of Chicago Press. 288 pages, 41 line drawings, 2 tables. Authors: J. Eric Oliver (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago) and Thomas J. Wood (Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ohio State University). The book that put empirical data behind a claim Weber made theoretically a century earlier: that the fundamental political divide is not between left and right but between those who experience the world through rational-analytical cognition and those who experience it through intuitive-enchanted cognition — and that this cognitive divide has become ideologically sorted, with intuitionism now concentrated on the political right.* ## The argument ### The intuitionist-rationalist divide Oliver and Wood argue that the most important force shaping American politics is not ideology, partisanship, or economic interest but a deeper cognitive divide between two fundamentally different ways of making sense of the world: **Rationalists** understand reality through science, evidence, logical analysis, and institutional expertise. They trust data, defer to credentialed knowledge, and evaluate claims by testing them against evidence. Their epistemology is empirical and their ontology is materialist — the world is a mechanism to be understood through systematic investigation. **Intuitionists** understand reality through gut feelings, instinct, pattern recognition, emotional resonance, and what the authors call "folk wisdom." They trust their own experience over expert claims, embrace narrative explanations over statistical ones, and evaluate claims by whether they *feel* true rather than whether they can be empirically verified. Their epistemology is experiential and their ontology is enchanted — the world is animated by hidden forces, intentional agents, and meaningful patterns that rationalist analysis misses or dismisses. The authors develop an empirical measure of intuitionism — a scale that captures beliefs in the paranormal, supernatural, and conspiratorial — and demonstrate that this measure predicts political attitudes, candidate preferences, and policy positions more powerfully than traditional left-right ideology. ### The ideological sorting Oliver and Wood's most consequential finding: **the intuitionist-rationalist divide has become ideologically sorted.** A generation ago, intuitionists were dispersed across the political spectrum — many Americans believed in both God and science, both tradition and progress, both gut feelings and expert knowledge. Today, intuitionism is concentrated on the political right, and rationalism on the political left. Modern conservatism has become an intuitionist movement, defined by conspiracy theories, strident nationalism, distrust of expertise, and hostility to institutional norms. This sorting is not natural or inevitable — it's the product of specific institutional and media developments. The right-wing media ecosystem (Fox News, talk radio, the conservative internet) has created an information environment that rewards intuitionist cognition: narrative over data, emotional resonance over empirical verification, pattern-recognition ("they're all connected") over systematic analysis. The left has increasingly identified itself with expertise, science, and institutional credentialing — which appeals to rationalists but alienates intuitionists. ### Trump as the intuitionist candidate Oliver and Wood argue that Trump captured the presidency primarily because he spoke about politics in a way that resonated with intuitionist cognition. His communication style — gut-level assertions, conspiratorial thinking, narrative over data, emotional intensity over analytical precision — was not a departure from rationality but an expression of a *different cognitive mode* that a large portion of the electorate uses to navigate the world. Trump didn't need policy expertise or logical consistency because his audience evaluates claims intuitively: does this *feel* right? Does this person *seem* to understand what's really going on? Does this narrative match my sense that hidden forces are at work? Trump's conspiracy theories (rigged elections, deep state, "they're after you") are not failures of reasoning — they are intuitionist cognition operating as designed, identifying intentional agents behind complex systemic outcomes. ### Chapter structure | Chapter | Focus | |---|---| | Introduction | "You Believe in Reason, and I Believe in the Bible" — the fundamental divide | | Ch. 1 | The psychology of intuition: why the monster in the closet feels real | | Ch. 2 | Measuring intuitionism: the empirical scale | | Ch. 3 | Who is an intuitionist? Demographic and psychological profile | | Ch. 4 | Intuitionists and ideologues: how the cognitive divide maps onto politics | | Ch. 5 | Truthers and *Trumpenvolk*: conspiracy theories and the Trump coalition | | Ch. 6 | Feeling White and hating foreigners: intuitionism and ethno-nationalism | | Ch. 7 | Scary foods and dangerous medicine: intuitionism beyond politics | | Ch. 8 | A nation divided by magic: the historical sorting (with Calvin TerBeek) | ## The Weber connection: empirical Entzauberung The deepest intellectual significance of *Enchanted America* is its relationship to Weber's concept of **[[Entzauberung]]** (disenchantment of the world) — a connection the authors gesture toward in their title but don't fully develop, and which the KB can make explicit. Weber argued in 1917 that modernity is defined by the progressive elimination of magic, mystery, and transcendent meaning from public life through the expansion of rational calculation, bureaucratic procedure, and scientific explanation. He called this *Entzauberung* — the "de-magicking" of the world. He also recognized that this disenchantment produces a psychological void: rational-legal authority is efficient but offers no drama, no heroes, no cosmic significance. Oliver and Wood have, in effect, **empiricized Weber's theoretical framework.** Where Weber theorized that disenchantment produces a demand for re-enchantment, Oliver and Wood demonstrate it empirically: a measurable portion of the population uses enchanted (intuitionist) cognition as their primary mode of understanding the world, and this population has been captured by the political right. ### The three-layer synthesis The Weber-Oliver/Wood-Stenner synthesis produces a more complete analytical model than any single framework alone: | Layer | Thinker | Question | Answer | |---|---|---|---| | **Structural** | Weber | What historical process produces the demand for re-enchantment? | *Entzauberung* — the disenchantment of the world through rationalization, bureaucracy, and the elimination of transcendence from public life | | **Cognitive** | Oliver & Wood | How does the re-enchantment demand manifest psychologically? | As a stable cognitive style (intuitionism) that experiences the world through intuition, pattern-recognition, and enchanted ontology — and that has been ideologically sorted onto the right | | **Activation** | Stenner | When does the re-enchantment demand become politically mobilized? | When perceived normative threat activates authoritarian predispositions — the intuitionist population becomes politically potent when it perceives its worldview as under attack | The synthesis: **Weber explains *why* the demand for enchantment exists** (disenchantment produces a void). **Oliver and Wood explain *who* the enchantment-seekers are and how they think** (intuitionists with a specific cognitive style). **Stenner explains *when* they become politically mobilized** (under normative threat). Together: a structurally produced cognitive population, ideologically sorted and threat-activated. ### What "enchantment" actually means, politically Oliver and Wood's framework makes explicit what Weber left implicit: that **the fundamental division in modern politics is not about policy but about ontology** — about what kind of world you think you live in. | Rationalist ontology | Intuitionist ontology | |---|---| | The world operates through impersonal systems | The world is shaped by intentional agents | | Complex outcomes result from structural forces | Complex outcomes result from hidden plans | | Expertise is how you understand complex systems | Expertise is a power grab by a credentialed elite | | Evidence determines truth | Experience and intuition determine truth | | Institutions are (imperfect) mechanisms for managing complexity | Institutions are (corrupt) instruments of hidden power | | Uncertainty is normal; knowledge is provisional | Certainty is available to those willing to see the truth | This is not a difference in political opinion — it's a difference in *how the world works*. Policy debates between people who share an ontology can be resolved through evidence and argument. Debates between people with different ontologies cannot, because they disagree about what counts as evidence and what constitutes an argument. **KB application:** This explains why the right-wing media ecosystem's most effective rhetorical mode is not *argument* (which addresses rationalists) but *narrative* (which addresses intuitionists). Fox News doesn't present evidence and invite viewers to evaluate it — it presents stories with heroes, villains, hidden plots, and cosmic stakes. QAnon doesn't make arguments — it tells a story about hidden battles between good and evil. Trump doesn't present policy platforms — he enacts a narrative of a single heroic figure fighting a corrupt system. These are not failures of rationality; they are intuitionist communication operating perfectly. ## The media ecosystem as sorting machine Oliver and Wood's most operationally useful finding for the KB: the ideological sorting of intuitionism is not natural — it was **produced by the right-wing media ecosystem.** A generation ago, intuitionists existed across the political spectrum. Today they are concentrated on the right. What happened? The right-wing media ecosystem created an information environment optimized for intuitionist cognition: | Intuitionist cognitive feature | Media ecosystem expression | |---|---| | Pattern-recognition over analysis | Conspiracy theories that connect disparate events into coherent plots | | Intentional agents behind outcomes | "The deep state," "the globalists," "they" | | Emotional resonance over evidence | Outrage-driven programming; moral panic cycles | | Narrative over data | Stories of individual threat (immigrant crimes, trans athletes) over statistical trends | | Distrust of institutional expertise | "Don't trust the mainstream media," "do your own research" | | Enchanted ontology (hidden forces at work) | QAnon, spiritual warfare theology, "the plan" | Meanwhile, the left increasingly identified itself with institutional expertise — science, academia, data journalism, credentialed analysis — which appeals to rationalists but actively repels intuitionists, who experience institutional authority as a threat to their own experiential knowledge. The result: a self-reinforcing sort. Intuitionists leave the left (which disrespects their cognitive mode) and join the right (which validates it). Rationalists leave the right (which increasingly rejects evidence-based reasoning) and join the left (which celebrates it). The parties become cognitively homogeneous in ways that amplify the original divide. ## Reception and criticism *Enchanted America* received polarized reviews. James Druckman (Northwestern) called it "the single most important book on public opinion in the last quarter century." James Stimson (UNC Chapel Hill) praised it for identifying something "that changes everything" — that what political scientists had been interpreting as defective reasoning was actually a different cognitive mode entirely. Critics raised legitimate concerns. The intuitionist-rationalist frame risks **condescension** — implying that intuitionists are simply wrong while rationalists are simply right. Oliver and Wood partially anticipated this (intuitionism evolved for good reasons; it's fast, efficient, and often correct in small-scale social environments), but their prescriptive framework — "rationalists must learn to speak to intuitionists" — can read as the enlightened explaining things to the benighted. There is also a measurement question: the intuitionism scale includes items about belief in ghosts, psychic phenomena, and the paranormal. Critics have asked whether this captures a genuine cognitive style or merely proxies for religiosity, education level, or cultural context. The answer affects how portable the framework is. ## KB significance **1. The empirical Weber.** Oliver and Wood provide the data Weber lacked. Weber theorized disenchantment and the re-enchantment demand; Oliver and Wood measured it, identified the cognitive population, and tracked the ideological sorting. The combination — Weber's structural theory + Oliver/Wood's empirical findings — is the most complete framework in the KB for understanding *why* the right-wing media ecosystem works the way it does: it is an enchantment machine operating in a disenchanted world, and its audience is a cognitive population that experiences the world through intuition rather than analysis. **2. The sorting diagnostic.** The finding that intuitionism was once dispersed across the political spectrum and is now concentrated on the right is a historical claim with institutional causes. The KB can trace the sorting mechanism: the construction of the right-wing media ecosystem (from talk radio through Fox through digital platforms) created the information environment that sorted intuitionists rightward. The sorting is not about "people getting dumber" — it's about media institutions creating cognitive environments that attract and retain specific cognitive styles. **3. The communication-mode framework.** Oliver and Wood's framework explains why policy-focused, evidence-based political communication systematically fails to reach a large portion of the electorate. It's not that people are uninformed — it's that they process information through a different cognitive mode. Effective communication with intuitionists requires narrative, emotional resonance, experiential validation, and personal trust — exactly what Trump provides and what technocratic liberalism does not. **4. The ontological divide.** The deepest contribution: the recognition that the political divide is not ultimately about policy but about **what kind of world people think they live in.** This reframes the KB's entire subject matter: the right-wing institutional ecosystem isn't just advocating for conservative policies — it's constructing and maintaining an enchanted ontology for its audience, a world of heroes and villains, hidden plots and cosmic stakes, where gut feeling is more reliable than expert analysis and where a single extraordinary leader can cut through the iron cage. ## See Also - [[Entzauberung]] — Weber's disenchantment thesis; the structural precondition Oliver and Wood empiricize - [[Max Weber]] — the authority typology; charismatic vs. rational-legal; the iron cage - [[Karen Stenner]] — the activation variable; normative threat mobilizes the intuitionist population - [[Bob Altemeyer]] — RWA scale; the personality-level complement - [[Solomon Asch]] — conformity; how the media ecosystem maintains intuitionist unanimity - [[Stanley Milgram]] — obedience; what happens when intuitionist authority becomes coercive - [[Power Theory]] — the analytical framework - [[Political Psychology]] — the hub page - [[Antonio Gramsci]] — hegemony; how intuitionism became "common sense" on the right - [[Fox News]] — the population-scale intuitionist sorting machine - [[Movement Conservatism]] — the institutional history of the ideological sort