I've come up with my own "political confirmation bias" litmus test, and I'd like to offer it up for consideration by the greater Internet.
I'd argue that the most fundamental, prevalent, relevant, negatively-affective problem in political discourse is confirmation bias. It's when we "count the hits but not the misses". It's where we look for evidence that supports what we believe to be true but ignore evidence to the contrary.
This is the fundamental mechanism that allows people to look past political corruption when it's "their guy [or woman]" and then shout from the rooftops when it's "the other side's guy [or woman]".
Based on reading a few 10s of thousands of comments on political articles, I'm fairly certain it's also the most common way people navigate the veritable nightmare* of controversial political news.
(* Firehose? Tsunami? Choose your metaphor.)
I'm going to break the test down into two categories:
You'll want to consider the questions in whatever group you most identify with, meaning, it doesn't have to be an exact match.
For each question, if changing the context of a headline (from "Trump" → "Obama" or "Obama" → "Trump") changes your take on the headline, well: you have confirmation bias. That change can go either way ("What's acceptable for Trump is not acceptable for Obama" or "What's not acceptable for Trump is acceptable for Obama").
The goal here is to test "self-consistency" in your thinking (and to try to get as close to self-consistency as possible).
There's a wonderful example that doesn't directly involve political affiliation but is much more focused on the 1st amendment right to protest: it's the story of the recent Canadian Trucker protest.
(Yes, they're Canadian, so the 1st amendment doesn't apply to them, but it does apply to the idea of protesting in the US)
If you're unfamiliar with this story, the short version is that protesters have shut down downtown Ottawa, the Canadian capital, for eight days in a row (and counting). They're protesting Covid vaccine mandates by the government. They're doing so by parking trucks to block bridges and roadways, and apparently have been doing an awful lot of honking of their truck horns at all hours of the day/night. This has disrupted trade between the US and Canada and several auto-makers (on both sides) have lowered production as a result.
The confirmation bias breakdown here is very simple:
For supporters of this protest, as a litmus test for your political self-consistency: substitute "Black Lives Matter" protesters for "Canadian Trucker" protesters.
Or, if you'd prefer, substitute "LGBT Rights" protesters for "Canadian Trucker" protesters.
If you're in group #1 (supporters): if you'd be similarly okay with BLM protestors (and LGBT protestors) blocking major roads and bridges and shutting down a city in protest, well, then you're probably self-consistent. On the other hand, if you'd be calling for said BLM protesters to be arrested (which I guarantee every one of my conservative friends would be), well, you have confirmation bias.
The reason is simple: if the Canadian Truckers have a valid point to protest, and their mechanism for affecting said protest is acceptable, valid, reasonable, rational, etc ... well, then anyone with a valid point to protest is allowed to employ the same mechanism for their protest.
Even simpler: if you're pro-1st amendment (and it's accompanying mechanisms of expression), then you're pro-1st amendment for everyone (employing the same mechanisms).
(Reference #1, Reference #2, Reference #3)
The idea here is, for every headline you read about Trump and are okay with, meaning, you don't see a problem with his behavior, decisions, etc .. you need to substitute "Obama" [or "Hillary"] for "Trump" and then re-consider whether you'd have a problem with the behavior, decisions, etc.
If your thinking then changes: you have political confirmation bias.
And is the response is "That's fake news", well, the question still stands: If it's fake news when it pertains to Trump, is it still fake news when it's applied to Obama/Hillary?
If you flipped on any of these, it's time for some reflection. If some of them are "fake news" for Trump (but not for Obama/Clinton), same deal. They're either consistent: both okay / both not fake news .. or both not okay / both fake news. You can't pick one or the other and view them through a different lens. If you do, you're experiencing confirmation bias.
Same idea here: for every headline you read about Clinton/Obama and are okay with, meaning, you don't see a problem with their behavior, decisions, etc .. you need to substitute "Trump" for "Obama/Hillary" and then re-consider whether you'd have a problem with the behavior, decisions, etc.
If your thinking then changes: you have political confirmation bias.
I'd add the same disclaimer for "fake news" but it's quite clear to me that it's never fake news when it's negative press about Obama and Hillary Clinton (whereas it's always fake news when it's negative press about Trump).
