The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters

October 29 2004
Counterbias.com
Marc Krug

What you may have long suspected is indeed true: Bush and Kerry supporters inhabit separate realities. And what you may also have long suspected is likewise true: the Bush “reality” is marred by greater illusion, inaccuracy, and incorrectness.

But this belief in the faults of the Bush reality did not originate in the minds of devious, malicious Democrats — all of them ardent partisans giving free rein to theories unfettered by the rigors of scientific testing.

Quite the contrary. This belief was reached by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) who, during September and October 2004, questioned 2,726 people. Helping PIPA was Knowledge Networks, a California-based company that specializes in such surveys.

This particular survey achieved substantial significance for one reason: it demonstrates that in this election, unlike most that preceded it, Republicans and Democrats are differing not only over matters of opinion. They are also differing over matters of fact.

In addition to disagreeing on values, principles, and perspectives — all matters of opinion — the two parties are also disagreeing on whether or not certain historical events occurred, what opinions other countries might have of America’s war in Iraq, and what George Bush’s positions are concerning foreign policy. All of these items are matters of fact; consequently all of them can be empirically verified as either true or false.

The first key finding of the PIPA survey dealt with whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Among Bush supporters, 72% still believed that Iraq either had WMDs (47%) or had a major program for developing them (25%). Only 26% of Kerry supporters shared both parts of the WMD belief.

Keep in mind that all who answered this question already had the opportunity to hear David Kay’s statement that, with respect to what induced us to go to war, “we were all wrong.” These respondents also had the additional benefit of Charles Duelfer’s more comprehensive and convincing report. Both of these reports unequivocally stated that the Iraqis had neither WMDs nor a significant program for developing them.

The second key finding in the PIPA report concerned the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Approximately 20% of the Bush proponents (versus 7% of Kerry supporters) still believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. But concerning the lesser claim that Iraq “gave substantial support” to al-Qaeda, 55% of the Bush supporters (versus 22% of Kerry supporters) said “yes.”

One would think that both George Bush and Richard Cheney openly disavowing any specific connection between Saddam and September 11 would be enough for even the most ardent Republican to be convinced that no such connection existed. But apparently these disavowals don’t suffice.

Considering the countless times that both Bush and Cheney spoke of al-Qaeda and Saddam in the same sentence, however, makes it not hard to understand how some in their party might have been “persuaded” to support the lesser claim of substantial support. Even so, this claim was unequivocally denied by the 9/11 Commission Report and anyone remotely familiar with that document should have known better.

As to why these disparities between actual fact and the beliefs of Bush supporters exist, the PIPA report cites “cognitive dissonance,” a rather fancy term for a conflict in deeply held beliefs. Ardent Bush advocates would be likely candidates for this sort of conflict. From the very beginning, most of them uncritically accepted the many and various justifications the President gave for the Iraqi war.  

These justifications had already taken deep root when the Kay and Duelfer reports surfaced — not to mention the remarks of Colin Powell and George Tenet — making it highly unlikely that Bush supporters could easily jettison their old beliefs and replace them with new ones that matched up with the new, conflicting evidence. In addition, no one finds it easy to admit they may have been systematically misled and then act on that admission.

But for those who viewed Bush’s actions with a skeptical eye, perhaps from the very beginning, the matter is much simpler. For them, cognitive dissonance hardly arises. They can more easily dispense with the many justifications for going to war — since they probably never uncritically believed them in the first place. (These Bush skeptics would later become Kerry supporters, once the Democratic candidate had been nominated.)

The PIPA report also touches on the legitimacy of going to war. According to the report, if the Bush administration had known that the two primary justifications were not true — namely no WMDs and no Iraqi support for al-Qaeda — 61% of Bush supporters expressed confidence the President would not have gone to war. In these same circumstances, 92% of Kerry supporters believe the U.S. should not have gone to war.

This disparity speaks volumes. It would appear that Bush supporters felt that there existed greater justification for deposing Saddam than just WMDs and an al-Qaeda connection. It could very well be that many of these supporters had much in common with the Neo-conservatives, most of whom were convinced that war with Iraq was advisable even before Bush occupied the White House.

Like the Neo-conservatives, many Bush supporters probably could not resist the prospect of a democratic, pro-West Iraq where we would be welcomed as liberators, be able to build airbases,  and be amply compensated for our efforts since Iraq sat on what is reputedly the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Furthermore, by being democratic and friendly to America — not to mention being a possible base for American aircraft and oil exploration — Iraq, by mere example, would pressure the surrounding Arab nations to follow suit. At least, such was the prevailing belief among Neoconservatives.

Another interesting finding of the PIPA report was that only 31% of Bush supporters (versus 74% of Kerry supporters) thought that the world opposed the Iraqi war. As it turns out, it seems that at least 80% of those countries polled opposed the war. Even in many coalition countries who have soldiers fighting next to ours, the majority of the population does not support the war.

One possible explanation why Bush supporters believe that much of the world supported their war was an attempt to alleviate the tension of conflicting beliefs. If, as a Bush supporter, you are experiencing  misgivings about the war — particularly in light of recent evidence that contradicts all the justifications given for starting it — you will feel less tense if you can convince yourself that you are part of a large, similarly-minded crowd who still believes the war is legitimate.

The last major finding in the PIPA report concerns the “majorities of Bush supporters who misperceive his positions on a range of foreign policy issues.” In short, 51% of Bush supporters erroneously believe he supports the Kyoto accords; 69% are under the misapprehension that he supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and 72% are mistakenly convinced that he supports the ban on the use of land mines.

Perhaps the best explanation for this constellation of misbeliefs is that most Americans support these measures. Thus, it would obviously suit their interests if their President did also. 

By avoiding direct commitment and unequivocal statements, Bush quite effectively hides from public view what he does and does not support. Consequently, no one is ever quite sure. In addition, Bush’s prowess at verbal slight of hand makes it possible for many of his advocates to mistakenly believe that he supports what they do.

The systematic deception that propels the illusions that together constitute “Bush reality” comes at a price: an electorate that is expertly and repeatedly deceived. Admittedly, some in Bush reality have begun to have their doubts, but few will act on them.

Instead, they will simply vote for Bush. It’s easier than admitting they have been duped.