Delusion Carries Bush

With an Iraq occupation-like level of incompetence in carrying out the mechanics of vote-counting -- something America has only had a couple of centuries to get right -- the results are as yet uncertain and may not be known for weeks.

Even then, given the passions, given the "separate realities" in which a scientific study has now found Bush and Kerry supporters to exist, and given the impotence of public debate in contemporary America to resolve any question that is political, it's hardly inconceivable at this point, with Kerry not conceding, that a constitutional crisis could develop (a prospect raised by the New York Times in the 2000 election).

Nevertheless, it's looking like 4 more years.

That scientific study is worth contemplating. A joint project of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, the October 21, 2004 report -- "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" -- is commendable for not shying away from the logical implications of its findings, even though they are not politically neutral.

Among the report's several key findings:

In recent months the American public has been presented reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the heads of the Iraq survey group David Kay and Charles Duelfer (chosen by the president), concluding that before the war Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor even a significant program for developing them. Nonetheless, 72% of Bush supporters continued to hold to the view that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Only 26% of Kerry supporters hold such beliefs.

Here is the report's concluding analysis:

It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values (such as the proper role of the government) or strategies (such as how best to defend US interests). As we have seen, the current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality.

So why is this the case? And, more specifically, why are Bush supporters clinging so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted? As discussed, one key possible explanation for why Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program, and supported al Qaeda is that they continue to hear the Bush administration confirming these beliefs.

Another possible explanation is that Bush supporters cling to these beliefs because they are necessary for their support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the president would not have. To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the continuing costs in terms of lives and money. Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information.

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to their perceptions of world public opinion. Despite an abundance of evidence that world public opinion has opposed the US going to war with Iraq, only 31% of Bush supporters are aware that this is the case, and only 9% are aware that Kerry is a more popular candidate than Bush in world public opinion.

Finally, Bush supporters also frequently misperceive their candidate's foreign policy positions. In particular they tend to assume that he supports more pro-multilateral positions than he, in fact, does. In all cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions they impute to Bush. They have trouble believing that Bush does not favor them too.

So why do Bush supporters show such a resistance to accepting dissonant information? While it is normal for people to show some resistance, the magnitude of the denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of a whole series of high- profile reports about prewar Iraq that have been blazoned across the headlines of newspapers and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonizing reflection. The fact that a large portion of Americans say they are unaware that the original reasons that the US took military action--and for which Americans continue to die on a daily basis--are not turning out to be valid, are probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news.

The roots of the resistance to this information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11, and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. In response to an unprecedented attack on US soil, with the prospect of further such attacks, Bush responded with a grace and resolve that provided reassurance to an anxious public. In the war with the Taliban he showed restraint as well as effectiveness. Large numbers of Americans had a powerful bonding experience with the president--a bond that they may be loath to relinquish.

When the president turned his focus to Iraq, this robust public support begin to waver. His case about Iraq's WMD and support for al Qaeda touched a nerve, but most Americans were not entirely convinced of the imperative to act. Most wanted Bush to first get UN support and allied participation before going into Iraq and were willing to stick with the inspection process for a while longer. Many were very wary of the US getting itself into a position reminiscent of Vietnam, when the world turned against the US.

Nonetheless, the majority was still inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and backed him when he decided to go ahead without UN approval. At the same time, though they acquiesced, a majority of Americans did not actively favor taking action at the time Bush did. This was Bush's war.

If all had worked out as advertised, the president's relation with the public would probably have not missed a beat. While the initial war was easier than the public anticipated, the aftermath was much more difficult and drawn out than originally assumed. Concurrent with these rising costs, the benefits of the war began to be challenged by the failure to find WMD or evidence of Iraqi support for al Qaeda. The extent of international criticism took on tones of the Vietnam period.

Gradually the support for the decision to go to war and, concomitantly, public confidence in the president, began to wither. Moving in tandem down this slowly descending arc were the declining beliefs that Iraq had WMD and links to al Qaeda, and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq.

But now, while others have peeled off, Bush supporters continue to hold onto their image of Bush as a capable protector. To do this it appears that many need to continue to screen out information that undermines this image.

Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes. He admits that he was surprised that WMD were not found, but does not say that the most reasonable conclusion is that they were never there and continues to talk about "disarming" Iraq. He asserts that he never said that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but maintains that there were contacts with al Qaeda in a way that implies that they were significant. Most telling, his supporters as well as his opponents overwhelmingly say that they hear him still saying that Iraq had WMD and supported al Qaeda. To remain loyal and bonded to him means to enter into this false reality.

Bush may be right. Admitting his mistakes may shatter his idealized image in a way that some supporters may not forgive. But there also risks in succeeding in getting elected based on false beliefs. The number of people in the public who see through the illusion will likely continue to grow, eating away at the implied mandate of an election. Further, the cohesion of society can be damaged by a persisting and fundamental division in the perception of what is real, undermining pathways to consensus and mutual sacrifice, and making the country increasingly difficult to govern.

Asking why Bush supporters are "clinging so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted," the "Separate Realities" report speculates that perhaps the truth -- namely, that they supported the decision to go to war even though the reasons given have turned out to be false -- is "difficult to bear." According to this theory, Bush supporters are suppressing awareness of "unsettling information" in order to avoid "cognitive dissonance."

I find this plausible. But we should note that it does not imply that suppressing dissonant information is particularly a trait of Bush supporters.

The 74% of surveyed Kerry supporters who correctly responded that Iraq had no WMD are correct, but their correct perception co-exists comfortably with their prior viewpoints. So their "separate reality" may be just as independent of real reality as the Bushites'. The Kerry supporters were simply lucky.

Why do so many people inhabit "realities" that are independent of real reality? In a discussion on NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen's blog (previously referred to in my Descending into Barbarism), one visitor attributed it to the unreliability of the press:

A Scientist's View

[W]hen journalists use the word "objectivity", they are not speaking English. Grab a dictionary and have a look. Nothing in either of the two dictionaries I have at hand makes any mention of the notions of balance or "he said she said" that define what journalists mean by objectivity. Instead, dictionaries define objectivity as referring to what most lay-people think it means, and what they wish they were getting when they read the newspaper: The real truth. That which can be observed. That which exists not just outside of the journalist's mind, but also outside of the minds of the Republican operatives and Democratic spinners that he interviewed for the story.

[T]here are several other professions whose reason for existing is mostly/entirely to find the objective truth: scientists, judges, lawyers, and policemen, for example.

Let me recommend to the serious journalists the technique used by scientists. To oversimplify, scientists start by pointing out what "he said" and what "she said" too. This is the first 1% of their effort. They then go on to work hard to understand the real facts, and with the last 99% of their effort craft an article in which they describe what they find to be the facts, exactly how they were checked, and why the reader should be confident that they have gotten the facts straight, and how the facts relate to what "he said" and "she said".

I responded:

Jim recommends the obvious reform: get the facts and report the truth. Perhaps this approach will come to gain a little more favor. But that would hardly be enough. What has to be recognized is that deceit has proven itself so useful it is PERVASIVE, in business and politics. It's beginning to define our culture.

Hence my view: a single conceptual leap would greatly strengthen our ability to promote our common goals of justice and security: in a modern society, the citizenry must understand, as it does not today, that large-scale deception is a social offense on par with obvious crimes that directly cause physical harm.... Deception can produce transfers of money whose effects are identical to theft. And it can mislead the nation into war -- especially when a doctrine of preemption has been adopted. (From Mistaken War.)

The discussion was initiated by Prof. Rosen's Oct. 23 reflections on the breakdown of the authority of the mainstream press, the phenomenon of "separate realities," and the related "assaults on the very idea of a neutral observer."

Ironically, when the ensuing discussion brought up the "Separate Realities" report (referred to as the PIPA report, since it was produced by the Program on International Policy Attitudes), the discussion itself demonstrated the existence of separate realities among its participants.

I noted this in a later discussion on Prof. Rosen's blog, initiated Oct. 31 with the title, The Coming Apart of An Ordered World: Bloggers Notebook, Election Eve. A visitor had said:

Your basic conservative feels angry about the perceived unfairness, and powerless about being able to change it. We believe that press bias is worth a lot of points in the popular vote.... Yes, we would like to fix the problem. If that involved destroying existing news media outlets, we wouldn't shed a tear.

I responded:

We have a cultural problem here. Viewers/readers are uncomfortable with confrontation -- so the press doesn't do it. That, however, would be the way to resolve who's objectively right or wrong.

We have an example right here on Prof. Rosen's blog.

In the recent "Too Much Reality: Is There Such a Thing?" discussion, Stephen Waters (sbw) conveyed by means of an ambiguous comment that the PIPA report was somehow biased. He commented: "Before you get carried away with the PIPA Report, the phrasing of the questions was directive. Different questions would have led elsewhere."

He was asked to elaborate. His response was unintelligible, at least to me.

Others commenters also made clear they felt the PIPA report unfair in some way. However, I and others cannot see any basis for their point of view.

Here is the heart of the disease: even after a discussion directly addresses an issue, people on both sides walk away with their original prejudices intact and unchanged. Everyone's "reality" remains safe.

sbw surfaced to object to my remarks. Someone else called Tim (he apparently does not disclose his full name) also arose, arguing against me that the PIPA report was indeed biased. We exchanged a number of messages on the forum -- but our realities remained separate. In my reality, frankly, I fairly conclusively established for most observers that these two gentlemen just didn't make any sense at all. (To compare with your own reality, you can view the full discussion for yourself.)

The lesson, as I opined to the forum, was:

If people like Tim and Stephen Waters were regularly confronted in public debate, then there would not be "separate realities" in American politics, and propaganda would be exposed for all to see as blatant falsehood.

Related: Irreconcilable Differences