The conservative website, TownHall.com, had this post today:
Here's how I responded to Ms. Kieffer:
"The RINO’s “horn” is compromise and Americans are tired of compromises like Obamacare. Americans want politicians who will just say “no” to socialism." So, let me get this straight:
a) You hate socialism.
b) Obamacare is socialism.
c) Obamacare is patterned exactly on Romney-care (designed by Heritage foundation).
d) Republicans elected Romney as their candidate for president.
e) Therefore, republicans elected a candidate who supports socialism, which they hate.
That seems inherently contradictory. Oh. Wait. No, it *is* inherently contradictory. It's called "cognitive dissonance," and you folks on the right have that in spades.
Snarky reply? Yes. Accurate? Oh, hells yeah. So, this basic logic problem--that even my freshman daughter in high school clearly understood--is completely lost on and ignored by the entire republican party. That's right, folks: the right believes in "gut" and angry bullet points, but not simple, basic logic. This is but one example, but there are so many, that there aren't enough hours in the day--and that's just to address with the specious reasoning perpetuated by the right on any given day.
|Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.|
Mittney verbiage: Washington Post
Cognitive Dissonance Defined. Cognitive dissonance is when two conflicting or contradictory ideas inhabit the same brain at the same time. The definition of cognitive dissonance from Wikipedia:
In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.That last bit is key: reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements. So, when there's a conflict with, say, hating Obama for his "socialistic" healthcare scheme which conflicts with support for a candidate whose healthcare scheme is exactly the same, the former is simply ignored as inconvenient.
When you call them out on it, the right simply either a) doesn't respond, or b) comes up with some sort of chuckling nonsensical dodge (see above). There's also this: c) facts don't matter as much as how one feels. Let me explain: One time, when I explained how contradictory his position was on a subject, my dad, a staunch conservative simply replied, "Well, I can't argue with you because you know a lot more than I do, obviously, but they're my beliefs and you can't do anything to change it. I own them." And that, in a nutshell, is what this is all about: beliefs vs. facts. I love my dad and respect him a great deal, but he summed up, quite clearly, the difference between the left and right. One side has "gut feelings" and "belief in fluffy ideas" whereas the other side tends to use facts and logic. Not always; not in all cases. But generally speaking.
Take a look at how Colbert brilliantly summed up the whole "gut feeling thing" a couple of years ago.
The Only Hope? There are still a lot of people who are centrist and/or "old school" republicans capable of basic reasoning. Heck, it's the only possible explanation for the fact that we have a black man in the white house--regardless of party. So, let's hope that basic logic and polemic can get through to these folks.