For the Sake of Arguments

Reflections on how we talk about ethics, politics, and religion.
  For the Sake of Arguments
  • Blog
  • About

Trump Voters and Trump Supporters

8/10/2017

8 Comments

 
Picture
In the 1950s, a psychologist named Leon Festinger introduced the world to the idea of cognitive dissonance. According to Festinger, humans experience a tension between their commitments and their experience of the world, and they are motivated to resolve this tension. One of the forms of dissonance Festinger studied is called “postdecision dissonance,” in which a person makes a difficult decision and then has to find a way to live with the consequences of that decision.
​
Say, for example, a person has to decide between buying an uncomfortable, ugly, affordable car or a nice, eco-friendly, expensive car. No matter which car the person decides to purchase, there are good reasons to have made the opposite choice. These reasons linger in the person’s mind, creating cognitive dissonance. They may try to reduce this dissonance, Festinger observed, in a few different ways:

  1. By convincing themselves that they didn’t have any choice—“Sure it’s bad for the environment, but what could I do? I’m not made of money.”
  2. By distancing their present selves from their decision—“Yeah, I bought that car a while ago. Right now, I’d probably buy something different.”
  3. By reassuring themselves that the alternative was not desirable—“I’m not looking to impress anyone; why would I need a fancy car? It doesn’t look that good anyway.”
  4. By telling themselves the decision was not very important—“A car is a car. As long as it gets me from A to B, everything’s okay.”
  5. By standing by their choice, rationalizing it, and looking for further reasons to convince themselves that they made the right decision—“You know, it’s got great headlights. Not many people realize that. And plus, I don’t have to worry about it getting stolen.”
Festinger’s research is part of what’s called normal psychology. That is, everybody does this all the time and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.

Several months into President Trump’s time in office, I’m seeing postdecision dissonance in some of my friends who voted for Trump back in November. Since the election, Trump has not acquitted himself very well. He has continued to lie unabashedly, failed to pass substantive legislation, demonstrated no real understanding of diplomacy, tried to interfere with a federal investigation, been hypocritical about his vacation time, been consistently self-obsessed and churlish, and—most recently—threatened war with North Korea. Even if there are things to like about Trump’s presidency, these negative elements emerge in people’s minds, and people who voted for Trump in November have to resolve this dissonance one way or another.

With this in mind, let’s make a distinction between a “Trump voter” and a “Trump supporter.” A Trump voter is someone who, in November of 2016, cast a ballot for Donald Trump. A Trump supporter is someone who has to some degree taken option #5 above and is continuing to stand by Donald Trump, defend even his hard-to-justify actions, and trust that he is making America great again. [1]  

This is almost too obvious to even mention, but Trump voters do not have to be Trump supporters. But given the pressures of cognitive dissonance, the nature of political polarization, the use of shaming rhetoric in America, and the faults with many of Trump’s critics, we can understand why Trump voters who might otherwise reject some of Trump’s policies feel pressured to be Trump supporters. There is a pressure for Trump voters to refrain from publicly criticizing Trump because it would increase rather than decrease postdecision dissonance, because it might give aid and comfort to political rivals and international enemies, and because it might alienate one from one’s colleagues and friends.

It is to Trump voters, then, that I make my appeal, and it has to do with each American’s decision whether to support or protest the possible nuclear war with North Korea.

If you voted for Trump because he was the Republican candidate and you felt like you had no choice,
I understand. You have a choice now. There’s a long history of responsible conservatives opposing unjust and unnecessary wars, and you can choose take a stand against war with North Korea.

If you voted for Trump because he said he would install pro-life Supreme Court justices, or because he promised to promote job creation,
I get that. Remember, though, nuclear war with North Korea is a completely different issue and no one expects you to support it simply because you agree with President Trump on another topic.

If you voted for Trump because you strongly disapproved of Hillary Clinton,
Okay. The election is over, though, and this is not about Trump versus Clinton or Republicans versus Democrats but about international order and the morality of war.

If you voted for Trump and you don’t think the election mattered that much,
You might have a point there. But nuclear war definitely matters.

Regardless of how one voted in the last election, we can all recognize that provoking a nuclear war with North Korea is a bad move. Many Trump voters recognize this and are distancing themselves from Trump's rhetoric. Whatever decision you made in November of 2016, I urge us all to think carefully about the decision to support Trump’s threat or distance ourselves from it.

Whatever car you bought last year, let’s not drive it off a cliff this year.




[1] Of course, there are presumably also people who consistently stand by Trump simply because they agree on principle with everything Trump has done. There are reasons for standing by any single Trump action besides the pressures I describe in this blog post.
8 Comments
beltrami
8/11/2017 10:36:24 am

Thanks for the article.
As both a Trump voter and Trump supporter, using your terms, it strikes me as pretty easy to flip the same point back on hardliner Trump dissidents.

For the Sake of Argument, let's just call people that were strongly opposed to Trump NeverTrumpers, whether of the conservative or progressive/left variety. Many NeverTrumpers as of Nov 8th, 2016 (and before) were convinced that Trump posed an existential threat to the republic. He was either a Machiavellian mad genius, stoking latent and unruly anger in the basest parts of certain sections of the population to propel himself to power OR a raving, ranting, racist but born-rich idiot without basic understanding of facts - a failed businessman with little ability besides vomiting bombastic words that just might be the right grenade to throw at the den of disconnected politicians that rural America hates so much.

That was generally what I observed in NeverTrumpers. And while I'll not focus on the pretty glaringly obvious tension between "wtf evil fascist dictator" and "lulz no legislation so ineffective so incompetent" which otherwise incredibly smart people swing between on the regular, it bears pointing out. The options NeverTrumpers present are evil or stupid, but usually both. That's not just uncharitable. It's an intellectual cop-out. Be that as it may, the conclusion of NeverTrumpers was most definitely that we can't let this scheming authoritarian devil/stupid racist clown get near the nuclear codes.

Millions of NeverTrumpers had this opinions, with close variety. Would they not be suffering under postdecision dissonance as well? After all, if they were wrong about Trump, then that says some pretty drastic things about how unperceptive and frankly straight wrong they are on an issue in which they invested massive emotional energy. Long discussions, donations, preachy blogs, and finally either a vote for Hillary or an abstinence of vote oozing with self-righteous moral gravity. The whole nine yards. What a personal disaster it would be for a NeverTrumper to be wrong about a thing to have gone so far out on a limb on! (by the way, it only takes one look-up of election night newsroom mashup videos on Youtube to see that 80% of news media was shocked. They're in the postdecision bias trap as much as anyone else. You think that could color the way they present current events at a personal and institutional level now? I'm convinced of it. As are millions, including POTUS, who see most corporate news as self-interested, dishonest, and in a word fake)

This is where cognitive dissonance comes in. I 100% acknowledge that Trump supporters are susceptible to it. I'm just saying that NeverTrumpers are as susceptible to it. You laid forth a litany of seemingly objective facts about current events that you present as a stern wake-up call for us Trump supporters to take off our rose-colored bias glasses and see how bad things have really gotten.

In response I'd present to you a historically high stock market, high consumer confidence, great job numbers, killing the disastrous TPP, massive trade win on sugar imports, potential NAFTA renegotiation, NATO allies increasing spending, massive investments and reinvestments from major corporations (psychological effect even bigger than just job additions), the much-needed shakeup of a stale party numb from losing the culture wars, ND pipeline construction, pulling out of an economically disastrous climate deal, unprecedented 2-for-1 regulation cutting policy, huge increase in ICE effectiveness, reduction in government bureaucrat jobs, illegal border crossing reduction, massive moves against MS-13 and other gangs, 9-0 SCOTUS travel ban win, ISIS at historical lows, symbolic visit to Western Wall, conference against radical Islam in Saudi Arabia, decisive/drastic but not egregious action against supposed Syrian chemical weapon attack, striking down parts of Obamacare by executive order, loading up DOJ and DOEducation with conservative lawyers, 5-0 GOP wins in special elections, ending Mexico City pro-abortion policy, and making the anti-Garland gambit pay off with pro-life SCOTUS pick Gorsuch.

That was literally off the top of my head, as it came to me and evidently quite scattered. Now I suspect that the deconstructionist instinct in a NeverTrumper (you?) would take that list and start chipping away in indignation "lol no those were effect of Obama economic policies, dummy... wow that's a pretty biased way to view that... omg climate change is a huge threat... umm ICE is evil... wow what about Saudis funding terrorism... well that's just stupid protectionist economics... etc etc

I'm not interested in litigating every fact. I'll only say that for your list of "how bad things really are" I, and many Trump supporters, have point by point rebuttals to every point, as you have for my list.

It's an information war (waddup Alex Jones). We don't disagree on principle much, I suspect. We disagree on f

Reply
beltrami
8/11/2017 10:37:46 am

[got cut off]

It's an information war (waddup Alex Jones). We don't disagree on principle much, I suspect. We disagree on facts and their interpretation. This is colored by our perception of reality, which is informed by our postdecision bias, which you wrote about.

You're as susceptible to it as me. I'd probably say even more at the moment, since you're the one with the more active threat to your emotional decision (Trump won. That's already a huge potential trigger for cognitive dissonance for your side, while for mine it's a validation of our worldview). Something like impeachment would be an equally worldview shattering threat to me, although I'm sure I could cognitive dissonance my way out of it.

And no, that's not a relativistic stance. I firmly believe you're mostly wrong in your view on Trump and current events. You firmly believe I'm mostly wrong on my view of Trump events.

I don't really know where to go from here. Do you? I'm asking honestly. Blah blah information echo chambers, blah blah positive feedback loops. I don't have much hope for fixing these problems. The internet age has separated our realities. We are watching two radically different movies about reality. It's fundamentally unsustainable.

As far as nuclear war, in my movie both Trump and Kim are rational actors. They're doing a war of words and perception, and all the pearl-clutching about Trump recklessly matching Kim's rhetoric is funny to me. I have never slept sounder at night. Because I absolutely trust Trump to know what he is doing in high-stakes rhetorical maneuvers with self-interested egomaniacs.

Unless he stumbled into billions and billions of dollars in the ruthless real estate business, then entered the entertainment industry and stumbled his way through it to dominate reality TV with his show, while not understanding people, then entered politics as the archetypal amateur and stumbled his way through an entire party apparatus that opposed him and then stumbled his way to the office of the presidency.

Golly gee, he might just stumble his way into a more advantageous geopolitical position in the Korean peninsula, too! I'll be shocked though - seems like this idiot's stumbling luck has just gotta run out at some point!

See what I mean?

Thanks for reading. All the best

Reply
Marty
8/11/2017 10:57:01 am

As a Trump supporter I agree with Beltrami 100% on perception. I think a lot of people get lost in the media war of words over Trump's actions. I also think there is a case to be made that all his post-election moves have been fundamentally rational and for the most part beneficial. Cognitive bias makes that case easy for some of us to believe and unthinkable for others.

Take the military transgender ban for example: in the world of facts about mental health, medical cost, and suicide rates it is a completely rational choice. Factor in confirmation bias and it's just more "evidence" that Trump is a bigot.

Reply
Russell
8/11/2017 01:22:47 pm

Thanks for the response; this is an insightful counterpoint. I completely agree that the effects of cognitive dissonance apply across the board, and your analysis of NeverTrumpers is spot-on.

For my own part, what I'm hoping is that people can get beyond Red Team/Blue Team polarization and try to evaluate issues independently. Not only independently of their respective party lines, but to some degree independently of other issues. This will still result in deep disagreements but won't get distorted by being subsumed in the massive question "Trump: yes or no?"

Consider an analogy, the question "Are Tom Cruise movies good?" The best answer is "Well, yes and no. Top Gun and Rain Man? Yes. Mission: Impossible 2 and The Mummy? No. Minority Report and Valkyrie? Kinda. Eyes Wide Shut and Oblivion? I have no idea."

That's what I want people to be able to do with litanies like the one you give of Trump's achievements. To say, for example, "Trade win on sugar imports, reduction of bureaucracy? Great. Pulling out of climate deal and ramping up ICE? Bad. Shaking up stale GOP? Kinda. Conference in Saudi Arabia and moves against MS-13? I have no idea." Disambiguating can lead to more nuanced evaluations that free us from some of the pressures to conform that affect liberals and conservatives alike.

For what it's worth, my own predictions about Trump (back in February; http://www.forthesakeofarguments.com/blog/what-is-trumpism ) was that Trump would probably have success in aspects of governing that are most like business, and likely make missteps in aspects of governing that are utterly different from business (for example, being commander-in-chief). So I'm more willing than NeverTrumpers to trust that Trump could succeed in bringing prosperity through his deal-making and economic know-how. But I'm less confident than you are that Trump knows what he's doing in his dealings with volatile foreign leaders, let alone confident he has thought deeply about the moral implications of war.

All that is to say, people do indeed live in antagonistic political media bubbles, and I'm glad this exchange has been an exception.

Reply
beltrami
8/14/2017 04:33:01 pm

Thanks for the link to your other post on Trumpism. I agree with most of it. It's right, as you point out, to emphasize the ironically benevolent side of your first point on his selfishness. And so in my mind that does actually put it an markedly different category than "Ayn-Rand-style," since the selfishness is applied to the collective/national level, not the individual.

As far as your last point here about foreign policy combined with the other post, you seem to be bothered by the brutal pragmatism of it all: "Trump simply assumes that self-interest is the whole point of foreign policy, and can only explain why we help others without compensation in terms of stupidity or weakness."

I see your concern, especially from a humanitarian/Christian point of view: Trump doesn't have high moral principles for how to govern the world. His realpolitik is so blunt that it's tough to sketch any outline of what he would do in any situation based on principle and without context. I'm sure that can have risks. But I sleep well because I think most of our foreign policy blunders have been because of moral axioms applied naively to the world, whether nation building in the ME under Bush or fanning Arab Spring under Obama. My hope and confidence is that national selfishness is a massive check on Trump. He's not going to topple Kim because he feels sorry for North Koreans, opposes communism as an idea, or anything. He'll do it if Team America's national interest is served. I'm ok with that. I firmly believe the "what's-in-it-for-us" mindset is a massive check on trigger-happy grand chessboard foreign policy types.

Also, I do think that this position is actually an extremely old one. We may not have seen it described in this language of business, but the policy outlook without weighty and predictable principles brings a defacto aversion to entanglement and nimble neutrality that reminds me of Washington's farewell, even if it's dressed up in bombastic Trumpy language.

"For my own part, what I'm hoping is that people can get beyond Red Team/Blue Team polarization and try to evaluate issues independently. Not only independently of their respective party lines, but to some degree independently of other issues. This will still result in deep disagreements but won't get distorted by being subsumed in the massive question "Trump: yes or no?"

That's a great point, and I would be thrilled if that were not the question we had to focus on. I would love to evaluate each question independently.

While blind loyalty and the post-decision bias you describe are certainly impediments to this, I see another. The vitriol and hatred coming towards Trump and his supporters. Is some of it justified? Certainly. But are things at unprecedented levels? I think so. The social capitol cost, at least in white collar and academic circles to supporting Trump is so disastrously large that frankly I'm shocked you even had experiences with such friends to write about in the first place. If you support a policy of Trump here or there, it had better be a rather obscure one, and come with 30 lashes of self-flagellation and caveats before you make it known. The counterargument is simply: "yep - unprecedentedly vociferous opposition for unprecedentedly misguided policy." And so a "Yes" answer to your (admittedly non-ideal) question of Trump: Yes/No? is not just misguided, but is morally reprehensible.

This is actually what bothered me in the first place about your article. It left no room for simply agreeing with Trump's policies for the most part. No room for "oh yeah he's a crazy bastard alright but I think he's got a good heart and he's working for America" which is where many people are.

Having the gall to write up a psychological diagnosis for why someone could possibly categorically support Trump is what bothered me enough to reply with what was basically "sure but the other side might have it too buddy." (I don't know you, so I admit that I was pretty uncharitable in how I read it.)

In an environment where support for Trump the man (not individual policy) is met with "oh honey, there was a psych paper from 1950 that describes what you might be going through," I don't blame people that want to flip the table and say "to hell with nuance. I'm doubling down!"

So it would be great for people to give Trump supporters just a half inch of breathing room so they have space to go issue by issue a bit and admit when something's wrong. Because right now the margin for error is 0, the stakes are derision, and the blame is on the back of uncharitable opposition. We see it happen to POTUS, we see it happen to those who publicly support him. It's not a recipe for nuance. It's not a recipe for backing down from partisan lines. It's a recipe for the very same tribalism they hate in Trump.

And this is actually awful - I think we both agree there. It makes for loyalists, not thoughtful citizens.

So overall I'd love to be in a situation where people can

beltrami
8/14/2017 04:34:14 pm

[cut off]
So overall I'd love to be in a situation where people can go issue by issue. Some of that is definitely postdecision bias you describe. And what I'm saying here is that another part is the lack of charity for Trump supporters.

Thanks for your thoughts and for the exchange.

beltrami
8/14/2017 04:46:49 pm

Last thing regarding the foreign policy discussion, I just thought I'd share this Trump quote from his foreign policy speech during the campaign, which is what cemented my vote for him:

“I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread universal values that not everybody shares or wants, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions.”

bellewether link
8/11/2017 04:45:18 pm

I think a piece you're missing here is that Trump isn't acting on his own.

He's saber-rattling with NK, but there have been no leaks out of Pentagon or State Department revealing that everyone is freaking out. Quite the contrary, Mattis and company are backing up their boss's play. In fact, seeing that Trump didn't have much to say about NK during the campaign, it seems his military leaders are the one's pulling the strings and Trump is trusting them.

So, if you want to be critical, go after the military brass.

Also, Trump's opening offer is never his final offer. Everyone seems to be constantly forgetting this.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2020
    January 2019
    October 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016

    Categories

    All
    Blog Post
    David
    FTSOA Chat
    Russell

    RSS Feed

To stay up to date, follow us on Facebook and Twitter

  • Blog
  • About