Why do people still support Bush?
I am bewildered by the magnitude of the extremes that Bush supporters will come up with in order to try to justify or excuse the most pathetic lack of leadership in America in the past generation. This has lead me to wonder why, as even a rat knows to leave a sinking ship.
After doing a little research on this subject I have found some most interesting things. People who often feel strongly about an issue and back it so forcefully will tend to remain fixed to the issue even if the concept is found to be completely flawed. Reason being, that if people are to admit that a concept, issue, or subject that they so strongly supported were flawed then it would be an admission that they were wrong for supporting it. So why is it so hard for people to admit when they are wrong?
I have come to believe that our society encourages fluidity, herd mentality, politically correctness to the extreme that it is now seen as impolite to disagree with others. Psychologists call this a "comfort zone" bias based on research suggesting that breaking from the status quo is, for most people, emotionally uncomfortable. It requires increased responsibility and opening oneself up to criticism. The desire to conform to the beliefs and behaviors of others is recognized by psychologists as a fundamental human trait. It's reinforced by fear of regret—a disproportionate concern over being placed in a situation in which it is apparent to others that we have failed.
Another point is our attachment to emotional response as oppose to a rational one. An example might be on your TV any given night during a news broadcast in which the commentator asks the guest, “How do you FEEL” instead of “What do you THINK”. The first time I realized I had heard this was the day after September 11th when on CNN, Paula Zahn asked a guest, “How bad do you feel about this”, and needless to say I wanted to hurl at such a stupid question. One of the critical elements in our past educational system was that of logic and rational argument, which seems to escape more and more people each day. I am reminded of a scene from Gone with the Wind; during a party the men and women divide and go about their own discussions. The men are standing around with glasses of brandy and cigars discussing the upcoming Civil War and its potential consequences and then I remember the saying, “It’s not polite to discuss, religion, race, or politics.” I can’t help but think I might know how Galileo felt when he was imprisoned for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - The Searcher
I very much enjoyed the psychological perspective of your post, as well as the link to the Lawrence book :)
2 - D L Ennis
You said: >>Psychologists call this a "comfort zone" bias based on research suggesting that breaking from the status quo is, for most people, emotionally uncomfortable. It requires increased responsibility and opening oneself up to criticism.<<
No one catches more criticism these days than Bush supports…Why should they fear (braking) from the status quo?
What difference does it make why people support Bush? He’s not going anywhere until his present term is over anyway. This stuff is getting so old…Let it go already!
D L
3 - Dr. Kurt
"So why is it so hard for people to admit when they are wrong?"
Two words: Cognitive Dissonance.
Most of us have a really hard time separating "I was wrong" from "I am bad."
So, the standard human response is to alter our perceptions of reality so as to maintain our comforting belief that we are good, and right, and deserving...
Pretty pathetic, eh? Think how much mental steam one saves by simply saying, "Wow, I really screwed the pooch on that one! Live and learn." Then, we could actually move on to some new ideas.
4 - gonzo marx
D L sez...
*This stuff is getting so old…Let it go already!*
ummmm......no
you see, he may be a lame duck, but he is still in office, and can still cause untold damage to our Nation...the National Debt for example...another war even...
i do so enjoy when a GOP type wants to have something current "let go"...many of those same folks are the ones that still bitch abotu FDR...and will scream about Slick Wille Clinton at the drop of an adverb....
but i digress...
Excelsior!
5 - D L Ennis
I'm not a GOP type for onr thing. And no matter what he can still do with the rest of his time in office, no amount of bitching about him is going to stop it. Isn't obvious that he don't care what anyone thinks? We need to spend less time worrying about things that we can't do anything about and look to the future. Is there anyone who will do a good job in office going to be running. I doubt it! They may do things differently but in one way or another it will be just as screwed up. They are all cut from the same cloth!
And thin curly wood shavings to you too brother Marx.
D L
6 - Al Barger
Yeah, this is some faux intellectual self-congratulatory NONSENSE. It's nothing more than mile-wide brushstroke ad hominem on Bush supporters. You're not even connecting the cheap psychology to the Bush supporters in any specific way.
Every single bit of your psychobabble could be turned just as or more easily against the Bush HATERS, who in fact seem to exhibit much stronger pack mentality than the Bush supporters.
There are a lot of legitimate possible reasons for supporting Bush, at least in bits and pieces. But you don't actually want to know any of that. You just want to pat yourself on the back for being so superior.
7 - DJRadiohead
Interesting you mention President Clinton...
There are a lot of Bush supporters who don't understand Clinton's appeal anymore than Bush detractors understand Bush's appeal.
This is a challenge and peculiarity of the current polarized climate.
8 - Dave Nalle
>>Neo-conservatism is eroding the foundations of the Republican Party with its Liberal Trotskyite belief system, and if it is not stopped soon, it will burst the party like the levees of New Orleans. I half believe the biggest reason for lack of opposition from the Democratic Party is that they don’t know how to attack a system in which they too embrace, and does in fact share many of the same expansionist policies.<<
This is a good point, though the term 'liberal' shouldn't be applied to the Neocons. They are leftists and reactionaries, but they are not any more liberal than the democrats are. Personally I'm hoping that the Neocons DO burst the party asunder. I think that the true moderates in the GOP and the Libertarians have enough in common to survive and function as a party in their own right, and I'd like to see the Neocons and Theocons go off and form their own extremist party.
Dave
9 - gonzo marx
D L ..you misconstrue..i was not referring to you as one of those "GOP types"..just in general..
you must admit, they do use that bit a lot, trying to get the public to forget about what they did yesterday as they try and sell what they are going to do to us next...
as for running next in '08...waAAAAAaayyy to early to get into that bit of madness, concentrate on understanding what the miserable pigfuckers are doing to us now...keep score...do NOT let ANY of them, on either side of the aisle get away with it...
as i have said many times, there is rarely anyone i want to vote FOR, but there is always someone i want to vote AGAINST...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
10 - Preston Parkhurst
Dave, maybe "neo-Jabobin" would have been a better term to use in that context. As a person who spent a good many years in the Buchanan crowd (minus the attachment to the religious right) I still chuckle at the labels of Liberal or leftist that I seem to attract. I would love to see a GOP of traditional conservatism again, or even a backbone among democratic moderates but I don't think either one will be showing up any time soon. I have noticed what seems to be a surge in the Libertarian ranks since former GOP'rs like myself have become disenfranchised with the current state of the GOP. I suspect to some degree that the same is occuring on the democratic side of the street since it appears that current democrats (even moderate ones) can't seem to muster a backbone of opposition when the opportunity lays at their feet, while the democratic constituents continue to scream. If nothing else the mid terms should be interesting.
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
As long as we're talking about splitting parties, anyone want to join me in the creation of the Tecmo Bowl Party?
I call 49ers. Montana/Rice 2008
12 - Bob A. Booey
Sussman's the Henny Youngman of this site.
I vote for the Zack "Preppy" Morris/A.C. Slater ticket or the Kelly Kapowski/Jessie "Mama" Spano ticket.
That is all.
13 - Joanie
I don't agree with Bush on everything, but I also don't write someone off who has the nation's security and protection of our freedoms at heart.
14 - Baronius
I recently posted a defense of the Bush Administration, responding to a list of 10 administration "catastrophes". I didn't see most of them as catastrophes; in fact some of them I considered praiseworthy. So let me say something pretty obvious: we each view things through our own prisms.
During the Clinton years, many conservatives were fascinated by the man's psychology. We were seeking a way to understand him because we couldn't believe that any normal person would behave the way he did. Likewise, I've heard many people analyze Bush's Iraq policy in Oedipal terms.
There's a danger in treating the other person's views as a disorder. You lose sight of everything but your theory. I'm often amazed at how similar Dole 1996 and Kerry 2004 were, but moreso at how few people recognize that fact. Both candidates said, essentially, here's your chance to get rid of the fungus. Neither candidate offered any positions, thinking that it would be sufficient to be a different lever in the voting booth.
I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I tried to comprehend Gore's strange behaviours and completely missed the political positionings that motivated them. Ditto Kerry.
Anyway, my point: I supported Bush. Through my prism, I grant the benefit of the doubt in some instances; I see the political necessity in others; I agree with the ideology behind others. I'd blame Clinton for Brown's corruption but never think of blaming Bush for Rove's possible misdeeds. (That was deliberate irony.)
Any president is 50% correct (+/-1%), 100% of the time. I see Bush as 51% right each time, and rate him 100%. You see him as 49% right each time and rate him a 0. There's no need for a psychological study beyond that.
15 - Matthew T. Sussman
Quite an honor to be dubbed the Henny Youngman of the site.
Take my blog, please!
16 - Les Slater
Comment 14 posted by Baronius
The most sane of any comments on this topic so far.
17 - Dave Nalle
>>I have noticed what seems to be a surge in the Libertarian ranks since former GOP'rs like myself have become disenfranchised with the current state of the GOP. <<
I think that's the wrong move to make. Now is the time for Libertarians to move INTO the GOP and position themselves so that when things start to fall apart they'll be able to help put the party back on track.
Dave
18 - Voltairean
I believe the most important factor is that many of the people who continue to support Bush are simply misinformed. Imagine getting all of your information from some combination of Fox News, talk radio and at church. If these are your media sources, you might still believe today that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 or that Iraq had WMD. Check out the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a non-partisan research center at the University of Maryland, which repeatedly supports my claim that Bush supporters are misinformed. One study shows that even after the Duelfer report to Congress, 72% of Bush supporters continued to believe Iraq had WMD. This is likely why Bush and Cheney continued to talk up a link between Saddam and 9/11 as well as finding WMD in Iraq long after both were shown to be false. Here is a link.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Press10_21_04.pdf
Here is another great study done by PIPA that showed that Fox News watchers were by far the most misinformed while people who listened to NPR were the most informed. I was limited in the number of URLs so you will have to search for it at PIPA.
Similarly, most polling on Election Day showed that the majority of voters prefer democratic issues. Robert F. Kennedy has an excellent article on this here
http://www.sentienttimes.com/05/june_july_05/disinformation.html
All of this attest to the power of the republican propaganda machine which they have built over 30 years with billions of dollars. In addition to the vast edge in right wing think tanks which provide 80% of news punditry and enjoy a vast edge on the nations op-ed pages, the machine utilizes Fox News, talk radio and churches. Further, the Bush Administration has worked overtime at propaganda which happens to be illegal. That has not stopped the administration from, among many other things, putting a partisan hack with no media experience in the press room, making their own “news” segments to be shown on local news, paying reporters and pundits to promote the administrations policies and setting up a war room and using the social security administration to promote its reform plan. Google Bush and propaganda for a wealth of more detailed information.
Further exasperating the media problem is the administrations policies on stifling any dissent or media that wrongs them. Ask an inappropriate question and never ask a question again. And main stream media outlets are owned by corporate America who often have legislation in front of the government and do not want to piss off the executive branch. All of these work together to distort the truth.
Finally, I recommend reading George Lakoff’s work on why progressives can never get through to conservatives. No matter the evidence, its in one ear and out the other. He explains why this happens. Basically your question in a nutshell. You can find lots of information about his work at the Rockridge Institute website.
I will add that the public sentiment on Iraq really began to turn only when people started seeing friends and family die or come back with terrible injuries and bush’s base of support began to see a big chasm between the information they were being fed and the reality they were seeing with their own eyes.
But the larger media problem is probably the greatest threat to our democracy and to the country. Media consolidation has had devastating affects and it needs to be reversed and laws like the fairness doctrine need to be enforced.
19 - steve
I am not mis-informed. I will support Bush II until the first week in NOV/08!
20 - Preston Parkhurst
To baronius: I feel that those who seek some single party utopian answer to politics tend to be zealots stuck in a dogmatic dystopia, as opposed to those who are more thoughtful and are using a myriad of things such as conventional wisdom, contrarian common sense, and a pragmatic approach to come to a conclusion on each individual political position. Granted most people including myself tend to generalize in politics because most Americans only see things in black and white or good and evil despite the complexity of politics and policy today.
Hardest part about not belonging to any mainstream political faction is listening to one half who agrees with half of what I say, then listening to the other half who agree with half of what I say, then stepping back and wondering why people still cling to the idea that the middle is some place to avoid?
Dave, interesting perspective, and a very good point. At local and state levels of politics there seems to be much more of a traditional political atmosphere than when one reaches the national level, generally speaking of course. When we reach the level of President, both parties seem to gravitate to the extreme which is a bit odd but does explain why most Americans are constantly voting for the "lesser of two evils".
21 - RogerMDillion
"I also don't write someone off who has the nation's security at heart"
Really, Joanie? Then why are the borders wide open? Nothing is going to be done by Bush unless another attack happens here and it is proven that a terroist walked through Tiajuana.
Bush is not a leader, but a follower. He reacts to situations and polls just like any politician.
22 - Dave Nalle
>>Further exasperating the media problem<<
The word you are looking for here is exacerbating, btw.
Dave
23 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, interesting perspective, and a very good point. At local and state levels of politics there seems to be much more of a traditional political atmosphere <<
I have to say that when I was a GOP delegate here in Texas there were some scary, creepy people in attendance at events I went to. Seeing the other delegates made me much more aware of how amazing it is that we get any kind of reasonable results out of the primary process.
>>than when one reaches the national level, generally speaking of course. When we reach the level of President, both parties seem to gravitate to the extreme which is a bit odd but does explain why most Americans are constantly voting for the "lesser of two evils".<<
I wouldn't agree with that? Neither Bush nor Kerry was terribly extreme. They actually agreed on most of the hot button issues of the election.
Dave
24 - Baronius
Voltairean - Hilarious.
25 - Joey
I'm still confused at the number of people who still support
Kerry, Dean, Gore. They are losers (in the political campaign sense of the word) and should probably remain out of sight, out of mind. Overall America doesn't like a loser, or a second rate candidate.
We need to pick a winner. With out the tarnish of past campaigns lost. That's the stategy which needs to be employed. Can Clinton run again? Will Hillary run? The pool in the last primary was pretty deep, yet this group got all the media inertia. It's almost like it was planned.
The media is stupid. These guys are done. Over done, jerkey, shoe leather, can't get a fork in them done, southern fried done. Don't listen to the media... don't look at the pictures and say, this guy is cute, or presidential looking... listen to what comes out of the candidates mouth. Listen to the debate, the articulation. Listen for doublespeak or hypocracy, differing opinions from the same person. That's pandering, don't need it - it signals a fake idiot. And most of all, don't listen to the press, they are complete and total money whore's. Where the money is (in sales of newspapers, advertising etc...) is where and what the news media will promote.... it sells. News is a commodity, a business, not a source.