Categories
Politics

Cognitive Dissonance in Politics

When in college (the first in my family to attend) I became fascinated with the term “cognitive dissonance” first coined by a psychologist in the 1950s. 

It is defined by my American Heritage Dictionary as “a condition resulting from inconsistency between one’s beliefs and one’s actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.”

            Another definition found on line told me that cognitive dissonance “causes feelings of unease and tension” which people try to avoid by “’explaining things away’ or rejecting new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs.”

            We all experience this condition.  We cheat on our diets and rationalize it; for years I smoked cigarettes while believing that smoking could kill me.  We tell lies but consider ourselves honest. I believe carbon emissions are dangerously warming the planet but drove a gas-guzzling motorhome for seven years.

            Certainly we see cognitive dissonance in both our religion and our politics, the two subjects that polite people in my parents and grandparents days were told to avoid. Many people today say they avoid churches because of the “hypocrites” who say they believe in loving their neighbor but hate  people they dislike—immigrants, gays, foreigners, or members of other religious or political groups.

            We have just lived through the presidency of Donald Trump, who was seen by many conservative Christians as a savior of family and religious values despite his verified sexual exploits, his habitual lying, cheating his workers, and his illegal and unconstitutional behavior.  Many members of the Trump base were comfortable with this inconsistency and convinced themselves that anything bad said about Trump was a lie.

            As humans, we are adept at converting our uncomfortable feelings into certainty.  Those who disagree with us, we say, are completely mistaken.

            This helps explain both the belief in the lie that Trump won the 2020 election and the commonly heard statement last year that COVID-19 was a “hoax.”

            It might not be so bad if we didn’t replace our discomfort with strong anger and violence directed at those with whom we disagree, but the events of January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol show how difficut this is to do.  

            Cognitive dissonance will always exist, in both our personal and our political lives. It is an unfortunate part of our human nature.

            What does not have to continue is American acceptance of those who are proud of this inconsistent morality.  We do not have to act as if those who lie have as much right to publicly do so as those who speak the truth. To be blunt, our TV reporters do not have to humor those who speak nonsense before the camera, using foolish statements about the existence of conspiracies to justify their own discomfort with the truth.

            We should laugh them off the stage, challenge their right to be taken seriously when they clearly are speaking nonsense, and then, if they persist, ignore them and deny them a public platform.

            Stop people talking about Ivermectin on television unless they are talking about a horse or a treatment for river blindness; don’t seek out people to interview who want to proclaim that they have “the freedom of choice” or the “constitutional freedom” to endanger the lives of others by not being vaccinated or wearing a mask during a COVID-19 pandemic.

            And we should do all this politely but firmly!

            To help better understand this problem, I recommend a book by social psychologists Elliot Aronson (who worked with the man who invented the term “cognitive dissonance”) and Carol Tavris: Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts (2007; updated in 2020).

            A shorter look at their argument is found in Atlantic (July, 2020) titled “The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic.”

            And when talking to a family member who has refused COVID vaccination, it is best not to start the conversation with “How could you be so stupid?” 

 Instead, ask your relative to find someone who shares their political views but has been vaccinated; ask that person to explain why he or she did that.

            If that doesn’t work, just tell your relative to just stop watching television.