Back in the 1950s, Leon Festinger popularized the psychological theory of “cognitive dissonance”. This dissonance occurs when people experience two or more values, beliefs, practices, factual evidence, choices, etc. that are in conflict with each other. This often produces stress. Humans frequently strive to reduce this stress by “maximizing/minimizing” or “re-interpreting” one of these factors to bring it into consonance with the others.
This cognitive dissonance can easily be observed in our political polarization. On Thursday evening there will be a televised debate between Biden and Trump. The debate has not yet occurred. The candidates might perform poorly or well. They might make mental gaffes or perhaps they might be clear and insightful. Even though the debate has not yet happened, our minds are hard at work and we “know” which candidate “won” the debate. Trump’s supporters will claim that he won the debate and explain away any defect. Those who support Biden will do likewise. The truths spoken in the debate get lost in the shuffle, because “my preferred candidate is obviously the better public servant and must have won the debate. My favorite news source (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) agrees with me, so, it is clear that my candidate won.”
Another example is the role of chanting at political rallies. It is common for MAGA supporters to chant “Build the wall! Build the wall!” as the solution to the immigration crisis. The fact that most people at the rally are chanting the same slogan gives the impression that a wall must be the right answer. Nevertheless, it drowns out the dissonance of the weak points of the argument. Trump had four years to build the wall, but he did not do it. In addition, a wall might slow the flow of immigrants, but it would not stop the drug traffic. The drug trade is so lucrative that “better” methods will be used: boats, airplanes, drones, tunnels, and the border with Canada.
On the other side of the political divide are the pro-choice advocates who chant “My body, my choice! My body, my choice!” There is some truth in the chant, but here again, the chanted slogan drowns out the weakness of their position. At some point in the pregnancy, the fetus acquires some human rights. Pro-choice advocates are quite reticent about assigning a point in time for these rights, but Roe stated that it was at the beginning of the third trimester.
Our society is in trouble. The third of the population on “my side” thinks the third on the “other side” are crazy and bereft of any moral compass. Many have therefore resolved, “I won’t listen to my opponents. I will choose only those news sources and friends that agree with me.” Such a life is not worth living, because in such a world, big and small truths get drowned out.
Is there a way out of this morass? There is, but it is a road infrequently traveled. It means respecting the essential humanity of my opponent and accepting as much of her/his arguments as my conscience and integrity permit. It means accurately describing their positions and not distorting them. Are we up to the challenge? I have a deep hope in God, and a flicker of hope for all humanity because we are all created in God’s image.
Lindy Scott 