In lieu of recent events on this blog and in the larger political community, and with an eye to the intense political debates that will no doubt be occurring in the next two months, I have decided to coin a term that may be helpful to us all. That term is "partisan dissonance". I'd suggest using the acronym PD in parenthesis as a citation.
It is my belief that this term has not been used before, which may make me something of a linguistic pioneer, though I do not claim to be as brilliant as Noam Chomsky (PD) in this area.
What is partisan dissonance? It is a phenomena in which two intelligent members of society view an event, an idea, or the written word in two completely different ways because of their political beliefs. I will now cite a few examples of this phenomenon to better illustrate the point (note: these are fictional examples):
PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE A:
Partisan 1: Barack Obama has no experience at all and is completely unprepared to be President.
Partisan 2: Obama has a large number of experiences which make him well qualified to be president, including his legal career, his time in the Illinois State Senate, his experience as a US Senator, and his leadership during his campaign. How can you not see how experienced he is? It is so obvious!
Partisan 1: None of these experiences are sufficient to show that he is prepared to be President. He did nothing when he had these jobs, so he doesn't have the qualifications to be president. How can you possibly think someone so inexperienced actually has enough experience to be president? It is so obvious that he doesn't!
Partisan 2: Oh yeah? Well Sarah Palin was in the PTA and then the mayor of a town the size of Hoopeston. Sure she is a governor, but only for a year-and-a-half and that state is one of the smallest in the country. Obviously she is completely unprepared to be vice-president!
Partisan 1: What are you talking about? She is a governor and therefore has more executive experience than Obama. If anything she is more qualified to be president than he is!At this point, further discussion of these points is useless. This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.
PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE B:
Partisan 1: I can't believe we've had to suffer through eight years of conservative rule. It is time for a change!
Partisan 2: What are you talking about? Sure we've had eight years of George W. Bush, but he isn't a conservative. If anything, he is more liberal than conservative. Just look at the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, or NCLB. Obviously these are not the creations of a real conservative. What we really need this year is a return to traditional conservativism.
Partisan 1: What planet are you living on? Are you really saying that a president who slashed taxes for the richest Americans and deregulated almost every federal agency is not a conservative? You're nuts!
Partisan 2: I'm nuts? You don't even know what conservativism is. Please provide 25-50 concrete examples of the "conservative" decisions Mr. Bush has made so I can refute them all.
Partisan 1: I'm not going to bother listing all of the things that Bush had done that can be considered conservative. You should provide 50-100 examples of "liberal" decisions made by Bush so I can refute then all!At this point, further discussion of these points is useless. This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.
PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE C:
Partisan 1: The media is biased against Republicans. It is obvious from the way they treated Sarah Palin. They hate Republicans and are determined to make sure McCain doesn't win this election. I am disgusted by the media!
Partisan 2: The media is biased against Democrats. Look at the way they are fawning over Sarah Palin. Obviously these people want to make sure their corporate boss's party (the GOP) wins. I am disgusted by the media!
At this point, further discussion of these points is useless. This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.
PARTISAN DISSONANCE EXAMPLE D:
Partisan 1: Sarah Palin's speech was so negative and full of lies.
Partisan 2: Palin's speech wasn't negative or full of lies. She was telling it like it is! She is a pit bull with lipstick on and you have no right to call her a liar. You're a sexist pig.
Partisan 1: Well, the Democrats would have never given a speech that stretched the truth like Palin did. And she made fun of community organizers! What is wrong with her? Does she hate America?
Partisan 2: She was not making fun of community organizers! She was just pointing out, in her pit-bull-with-lipstick way, that Obama thinks he is ready to be president because of his experience as a community organizer. Obviously you don't understand politics. There is a big difference between criticizing a candidate or a party's experience and criticizing an entire group of people.
Partisan 1: No there's not! She was totally making fun of community organizers! And why wouldn't she? Did you see that there were only like three minorities at the entire convention? Republicans have a major race problem, so "community organizers" are obviously fair game.
Partisan 2: What? You just called me a racist! How dare you say I am a racist. Why do you hate Republicans so much?
Partisan 1: I didn't call you a racist, I said your party has a race problem. Though I would add that several Republicans are now using racial terms to try to bring down Obama. But that doesn't mean you are a racist! There is a big difference between criticizing what the party does and criticizing an entire group of people.
Partisan 2: No there's not! You are calling all Republicans racist!
At this point, further discussion of these points is useless. This is an unfortunate case of partisan dissonance.
Researchers have yet to find a cure for partisan dissonance. Until that day, psychologists believe sufferers should band together to share their experiences with this disease. Maybe if we all work together to listen to each other's struggles with PD we can make the difference in the spread of this horrible disease. And maybe, just maybe, our children won't be forced to suffer as we have.
I'd like to make this thread a place for those us who suffer from PD to share our stories, our struggles, and our triumphs. From one sufferer to another, I say welcome!
I had a similar thought cross my mind concerning the postings on this blog--from which quite a few other examples could be derived.
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
Partisan dissonance could possibly one explanation for the zillion blog postings about the many ramifications of the upcoming election. My suspicion is that it might be more that some folks just want to scratch their nails across the blackboard to aggravate other posters. There has been very little concrete factual posting, but a lot of name calling and put downs that have not educated other bloggers.
My take away from all that I have read is cognitive dissonance in that very little posted has made logical sense on either side of the political spectrum. This is somewhat akin to all of the letters-to-the-editor in the Sunday N-G about how important it is to save Kickapoo. I agree that it makes absolutely no sense to close any of the targeted places. But not one letter gave any concrete information about the cost to run the place, would the amount of money spent on flying the governor to Chicago actually pay the annual cost, what are the demographics of those who use the place, what will be the cost to society, etc. This is what is needed not only to save Kickapoo, but also to help who to support in the upcoming election.
I have finally defaulted to factcheck.com and Kathryn Hall Jamison (I did hear the labor hour folks on WEFT yesterday berate Jamison's comments made Friday night on Bill Moyer) because of the huge amount of misinformation being posted, not only on Illinipundit, but on any other blog that I have randomly read.
Pattsi Petrie
P.S. The posting done by the Kickapoo superintendent's daughter, living in CA, listing the actions that she has set in motion to save the park are very impressive.
Well, I think there is a truth out there somewhere but I think it is interesting to see how people view the same event through extremely different lenses. I watch McCain and I can't believe people are actually going to vote for this guy. Like ... who are the 30% of Americans who approve of Bush's job as president? That seems impossible to me.
And I think politics is pretty unique in this regard. If you are watching football and someone on your team commits a clear foul, usually there isn't a whole lot of griping. Yeah, he got him. You move on. But in politics it is so different. There are still people who think the Swift Boat attacks were legitimate, even after they have been repeatedly proven to be ********. And there are folks who still think we found WMD in Iraq, even though nothing has ever turned up.
Maybe it is because of the perceived importance of politics. Or maybe it is the nature of people who follow politics. I really don't know. But this PD stuff is really ripe for the picking right now. Almost every thread on this site is degenerating into attempts to communicate basic, seemingly logical facts to people who just-don't-get-it. It has become a phenomenon and I think it is fascinating.
Cheers!
(EDITED by IP to remove profanity. The cursing is getting prevalent on here - not just by you, D.Boon. Can everyone please clean it up a bit?)
"I watch McCain and I can't believe people are actually going to vote for this guy."
Yes. I feel exactly the same way about Obama. And I realize McCain is a less-than-stellar alternative, and I still don't understand the appeal of Obama.
Just a quick question: What percentage of the left leaning posters on the site actually try to interpret facts to come to a conclusion on something? How about for the right leaning posters?
I imagine it'd be in the same in reverse on a site like Kos.
Upon the dedication of the new Newman center, I took it upon myself to finally read Apologia Pro Vita Sua. So it is merely by coincidence/providence that I read this nugget last night that has some applicability here.
Yes. I feel exactly the same way about Obama. And I realize McCain is a less-than-stellar alternative, and I still don't understand the appeal of Obama.
Think of Obama as a liberal Reagan and you might get it.
You have I believe hit the nail on the head. But not for the reason you believe.
Look at your examples. Not one involves an actual difference of policy or fact.
We have one party with two vocal wings and a megaphone media who concentrates on the name calling.
Just ask yourself whose purpose that serves.
Is it dissonance or design?
"Think of Obama as a liberal Reagan and you might get it."
But he's not even close to that. Reagan had accomplished quite a bit by the time he first ran for the Presidency in 1976. Of course, he had thirty more years in which to do so.
But I don't understand why anyone has any faith Obama will be able to accomplish any of the things he's promising given his almost complete lack of accomplishment throughout his career to this point.
I don't think you really can get it. It is my opinion that Obama has more than enough experience in government and politics to be an effective leader. But beyond that basic fact, he has many things going for him that someone like McCain just lacks. Obama was, for example, a person who worked with poor people for years of his life. As a person who works with a lot of poor folks myself, that means something to me.
And Obama is a Christian who has a heart for social justice, which also means a lot to me. He is incredibly intelligent and a natural leader. He is cool-headed (no drama Obama) and doesn't seem to blow his top. And he seems naturally curious about the world. I can easily see him working with leaders from other countries to solve our problems without more wars and useless killing. Whereas McCain is known as the man who never met a war he didn't like.
Experience is one piece of the puzzle. It is not some magic formula that can be used to determine whether or not a president will be successful. Hell, George W. Bush was governor of Texas for quite a while before taking the oath. Lots of executive experience there. Look where that got us.
Obama has enough experience, for sure, but he also has a lot more than that. McCain might have a lot of experience, but he aint got much more than that. And Palin? Does she have anything at all besides well-paid speech writers and skeletons in the closet?
Gordy, I never understood why anyone could stand Reagan. I thought of him then, and still do, as a gifted politician whose vision of government was fundamentally immoral. Obama's vision of government matches mine and his gifts are greater. Obama made me understand why people liked Reagan. It's vision and leadership that matter in understanding this phenomenon. I'm not saying you should agree (I certainly don't expect you to agree with my attitude toward Reagan!), but focus on the philosophies they represent. You'll get it, even if you don't agree with it.
I don't think you really can get it.
It is my opinion that Obama has more than enough experience in government and politics to be an effective leader. But beyond that basic fact...
I think you are right - I don't think we can "get it" either.
I read this today at the NRO corner:
"Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is too dim to get your point is not itself a particularly brainy way to win others over..."
If you are suggesting that Democrats/liberals have a monopoly on this characteristic, let me paraphrase the famous description of the difference between liberals and conservatives: "A conservative at age twenty has no heart, but a liberal at forty has no brain."
Which side would you imagine came up with that comparison? (As it turns out, the quote is originally attributed to Winston Churchill but it has certainly been commandeered by the right.)
The conviction by the left that the right is stupid is one of the defining and least attractive characteristics of contemporary politics.
I don't think the point is that conservatives are stupid, I think the point is that conservatives think Americans are stupid. The RNC was the perfect example of that: "Look at us! we're going to change this terrible government that we ... uh ... have been in charge of for the last 8 years! uh ... Change! and, uh ... Reform! Yeah!"
This point can be reinforced by the way the run-up to the war was handled. And the fact that the McCain campaign has picked someone completely unqualified as VP. "Look, she's hot! And she is mean! And she killed a moose! Vote for us!"
Yeah, conservatives think Americans are stupid. And if Americans vote for conservatives to screw up the country for another four years they just might be proved right.
But I doubt it. Americans are too smart for this crap. Right?
Oh I get it, Boon is giving us another example of PD. Well done!
Regarding the terrible government, what exactly does the public view as most terrible? Pelosi and Reid's congress.
Liberals must thing Americans are stupid - they want the government to educate their children and the government to force them to "save" for retirement.
"Look, she's hot! And she is mean! And she killed a moose! Vote for us!"
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the reason Americans like her more than Obama. I was really wondering and hoping that your nice little article on PD was somehow going to be reflected in a more rational examination of the Republican side of this election. Oh well. Join the club. There was a time a year or so ago that people thought that Obama was going to be a new kind of politician. That fantasy has been shattered as well.
(As it turns out, the quote is originally attributed to Winston Churchill but it has certainly been commandeered by the right.)
Churchill never said it: www.winstonchurchill.org
Thanks, Mike. I found this on the Google Questions site:
"The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): 'Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.' It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."