A False Reality

A couple of weeks ago, I tried to imagine myself (unsuccessfully) into the mind of a Bush voter.  I realize that someone who holds to the religious belief that abortion is murder is unlikely to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  I also realize (though not without difficulty) that there is some evangelical portion of the voting public that believes their god has endorsed Bush for president.  It would be a challenge indeed to counter this kind of belief. 

But what of the others?  The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) has done a study on The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters that has been widely referred to on the web.

I read it with stunned disbelief.  (It's available in pdf here.) In brief, Kerry supporters are much more likely than Bush supporters to know what their candidate’s positions are on a variety of issues. Here is the summary (click for larger image):

I quote extensively from the Analysis below (all emphases mine):

. . . 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 holding so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted? . . .

. . . 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. . . Bush supporters also frequently misperceive their candidate’s foreign policy positions. . . 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. . . 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. . . Large numbers of Americans had a powerful bonding experience with the president--a bond that they may be loath to relinquish. . .

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.

So, many (perhaps most) Bush supporters are voting for a candidate they misunderstand, and with whom they likely disagree:

In all these cases [international policy positions], there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions, and they infer that Bush favors them as well. . . Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate’s positions on all these issues.

But most of us are not able to easily grip unreality without some assistance:

So why are Bush supporters clinging so tightly to these beliefs in the face of repeated disconfirmations? Apparently one key reason is that they continue to hear the Bush administration confirming these beliefs. . . To remain loyal and bonded to [Bush] means to enter into this false reality.

This brings to mind the Suskind story (which I wrote about here) and the resonance of many to the idea of a ‘reality-based community.’  Is our current world so unbearable that it is better to live in an unreality, than in the real, terrible, wonderful world? Are we so vulnerable, so fearful, that psychosis is preferable to sanity?

Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes. . . [He] 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.

A person cannot live in a fantasy indefinitely without consequences; neither can a country.

Comments

[a.]

Excellent article. Thanks. Wait until the sleepwalkers finally wake up. Talk about rude awakenings.

[Myria]

Thanks, you've helped explain why it is dems keep losing -- I never honestly imagind y'all were dumb enough to believe this crap, but it does explain a lot.

[Wolf]

Heh. I'm not surprised by this. I hang out in the ANTIbush room on WinMX, and every repub we get spouts something about obeying our president through thick and thin
or how we're traitors
Or why happiness is a bad thing.

[Wayne Baldwin]

I find it almost laughable that now we have liberal democrats preaching the objectivity of reality. Your mass of converging ideals is inherently self contradicting. Not to mention the fallacy that you lock people up with that have a different point of view than yourselves. Liberal democrats tend to be some of the most closed minded people in society. This is akin to Sigmund Freud’s fallacy of the defense mechanism of denial. No one could argue with Freud successfully that they were or were not neurotic. He could simply fall back on the accusation of denial … which is what your whole article has stooped to.