" Cognitive dissonance "--another conceptual contribution to contemporary consciousness from social psychologists--may also be a part of the story here. Cognitive dissonance is the coexistence in one's mind of two incompatible thoughts, usually value-laden thoughts. People don't like experiencing dissonance, and do mental acrobatics of various kinds to get rid of it. People who spend hours cleaning fecal vomit-covered toilet bowls with a toothbrush to rush a pathetic fraternity will convince themselves they endured the humiliation and health hazards to be part of a holy band of brothers whose legacy will endure forever. People who spend months knocking on doors and getting them slammed in their faces over and over again for a religion making dubious historical claims will come to believe that religion must be the only true one on earth. People who write thousands and thousands of words about the dangers of some obscure piece of legislation and don't get around to doing the other work they were supposed to do will come to believe that legislation is as threatening to humanity as the Cuban Missile Crisis. You get the idea.
The cognitive dissonance idea can help make sense of why it's so hard for progressives to get comfortable opposing something that Obama is throwing his weight behind. It became pretty clear pretty fast, and was especially clear by 2012, that many of the promises and poses made by Messiah-like Candidate Obama in 2008 were seductive illusions. Either Obama never intended to try to deliver on them, or the structure of power in the U.S. is such that he could not have delivered on them even if he had tried. In any case, casting a vote for Obama again in 2012 was bound to arouse painful dissonance between two salient thoughts. One thought was, "It was ghastly of Obama to [insert Obama outrage here]" and the other thought was "I just voted for Obama." Research on cognitive dissonance suggests that we are strongly motivated to reduce this dissonance, either by kicking out one thought, kicking out the other, or bringing in a third thought to explain away the contradiction between the first two.
Many people, for instance, would reduce their voting-Obama-in-spite-of-what-he's-done dissonance with a third thought like this: "I had to vote for Obama; if I voted for a candidate whose policies and record I fully support, then an even worse alternative--Romney--might have won, and I would have had to live with the knowledge that I didn't take an effective stand against that potential disaster 1 ." This contradiction-explainer will soothe some reluctant Obama voters but not others, especially if they felt the need to cut corners on the truth and "talk up" Obama in order to influence others during election time.
Those who continue to suffer dissonance even after acknowledging the sadistic cruelty of the choice forced on them by the corporate-run two party system may have to reduce their dissonance in another way. For many this will mean knocking out either "I voted for Obama" or knocking out the thought, "It was ghastly of Obama to do X". Since the former would require an amnesiac break from a significant and memorable action, the latter is the one more likely to go. And the space emptied by that discarded thought will probably be filled with something like, "I'm sure Obama had a good reason to do X." The president's such a peaceful man, I guess he's got some kind of plan....
Note: Dissonance reduction processes are likely to be unconscious, meaning that you're not necessarily saying these thoughts to yourself or processing them in a way that you could relate clearly to other people. It's more likely to manifest as a mute discomfort with opposing any position that Obama is supporting, but not being able to articulate exactly why.
Potential antidotes to reality-distorting dissonance reduction involve cultivating a willingness to realize that sometimes we mess up, do suboptimal things, or do things with our backs (or psyches) to the wall. We do not always act with enthusiastic fullness of our intention. Most people can admit to this in theory, but are loathe to admit it in practice--or at least most individualistic Americans likely don't want to admit this (individualists tend to imagine that they have a "high integrity" self that stays unchanged across contexts ). Pretending to never be wrong, ignoble or weak is a particularly grating (and narcissistic ) American national habit.
Still, reality-alignment requires an understanding that it's okay to say something like the following to yourself and others: "Okay, I voted for Obama, and I hope I was right given the circumstances, but it's possible that I was wrong. In any case, I'm not obliged to support everything he does from now on."
Obama voters (and others like myself who voted Green but gave the Democrats money), would do well say this to the mirror ten times every day until the pain of the dissonance goes away. We'll all be a lot better off.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
