Play Poker Online

Online Poker at Full Tilt Poker
Play poker at the only online poker room designed by the world’s best players.
Advertising
I'm ditching Movable Type in favor of WordPress, so this blog is moving once again:

http://www.studioglyphic.com/blog/

Please update your links, bookmarks, and RSS Feedreaders. All comments have been disabled.

« Winning in Roulette | Main | Pirate Adventure »

December 27, 2004

Man vs. Fact

In some parallel universe I could spend my days reading blogs and the New York Review of Books and drive about in a 911 Turbo. In this universe, I have to settle for the blogs and the NYRB. In "How Bush Really Won," Mark Danner shares his personal experiences with Bush supporters and analyzes the competing campaigns.

Many of the Bush supporters I spoke to were educated, well-informed people. They watched the news and took pleasure in debating politics. And yet they clung to views about important matters of fact that were demonstrably wrong. Steven Kull, the public opinion expert at the University of Maryland who authored the study from which these numbers are drawn, acknowledges that although one reason they "cling so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted...is that they continue to hear the Bush administration confirming these beliefs," the prevalence, and persistence, of these misperceptions is "probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news." Rather, Kull writes, "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 percent of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61 percent 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."
It's somewhat unfair to single out Bush supporters. Cognitive dissonance is a common human phenomenon; just think of an argument between two people over some bit of trivia, where resolution comes after the location of two or three authoritative references, and both parties end up in a bad mood. If it gets that bad over some meaningless thing, think how much worse it might be over a subject that incites more passion and may be tied up in a person's identity.

It's also somewhat unfair to make a blanket statement about Bush supporters. I've spoken with Republicans who have admitted Iraq was a mistake, or that the case for war was misleading, but it didn't change their support for their candidate. Anecdotal, sure, but I think you get my point. I may not have agreed with their perspectives/conclusions, but at least we were talking about the same reality.

The main idea that comes across in Danner's piece is that it was the Man, and not the facts, the logic, or anything else, that decided this year's election.

Posted by glyphic at December 27, 2004 01:56 PM

Comments

You and I have batted this around a bit before. Cognitive dissonance isn't necessarily the correct term since it assumes that the mainstream news media is projecting the "truth" and Bush supporters just aren't assimilating it. A more reasonable explanation is that Kerry just wasn't a good candidate. I'm sure there are millions who were looking for a reason to vote for him, but couldn't find one among his "I'm not him" declarations. Another reason for the disconnect between the media "truth" and the voters is the backlash against an activist media, and the resulting lack of trust in a group with ulterior motives and objectives.

The combination of a subpar, uninspiring opposing candidate and flagrant media advocacy led to the re-election of a mediocre president. No matter how bad a situation is, you must PROVE that the alternative is better. The Democrats (and the media) failed.

Posted by: ToddCommish at December 28, 2004 09:03 AM

I largely agree with your comments with regard to Kerry being a mediocre candidate. That's why it's so amazing that he actually came as close as he did.

But whether Kerry was a good candidate or not doesn't change the fact that many Bush supporters were willing to overlook important, sometimes disturbing facts in their support for their man.

Without a basic agreement on what is truth/fact, there's really no foundation for making a case of any kind for any candidate. I think that's Danner's main point; that it's the images and words and the feelings they evoke that make a bigger impact on people.

Posted by: StudioGlyphic at December 28, 2004 12:10 PM

« Winning in Roulette | Main | Pirate Adventure »

Pokersite

PokerStuff

LA Cardrooms