I have mentioned here frequently that one of two things I learned in college that have been most useful in my life and career is Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Scale. The concept illustrated by the scale is also one of the most useful tools for ethical analysis, often essential to answering the question, “What’s going on here?” the entry point to many perplexing situations. Check the tag: it just took me 15 minutes to scroll though the posts that got it. I was surprised to find that I didn’t use the tag until 2014, when the scale helped me conclude that the Tea Party, then in ascendancy, was “doomed by a powerful phenomenon it obviously doesn’t understand: Cognitive Dissonance.” Heard much about the Tea Party lately? See, I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everybody says… I wrote then,
As psychologist Leon Festinger showed a half a century ago, we form our likes, dislikes, opinions and beliefs to a great extent based on our subconscious reactions to who and what they are connected with and associated to. This is, to a considerable extent, why leaders and celebrities are such powerful influences on society. It explains why we tend to adopt the values of our parents, and it largely explains many marketing and advertising techniques that manipulate our desires and preferences. Simply put, if someone we admire adopts a position or endorses a product, person or idea, he or she will naturally raise it in our estimation. If however, that position, product, person or idea is already extremely low in our esteem, even though his endorsement might raise it, even substantially, his own status will suffer, and fall. He will slide down the admiration scale, even if that which he endorses rises. If what the individual endorses is sufficiently deplored, it might even wipe out his positive standing entirely.
The implications of this phenomenon are many and varied, and sometimes complex. If a popular and admired politician espouses a policy, many will assume the policy is wise simply because he supports it. If an unpopular fool then argues passionately for the same policy, Festinger’s theory tells us, it might..
1. Raise the fool’s popularity, if the policy is sufficiently popular.
2. Lower support for the policy, if he is sufficiently reviled, and even
3. Lower the popularity of the admired politician, who will suffer for being associated with an idea that had been embraced by a despised dolt.
This subconscious shifting, said Festinger, goes on constantly, effecting everything from what movies we like to the clothes we wear to how we vote.
Here, for the heaven-knows-how-many-th time, is the scale in simplified form…
During the Senate committee hearings on President Trump’s nominees, I was stunned, despite my already low expectations, by the unprofessional performance of the Democrats, virtually all of them. They were wildly unprofessional in their grilling of Pete Hegseth, but their treatment of Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel and especially Robert Kennedy Jr. was no better. I’m old enough to remember when the “democratic norm” in Senate confirmation hearings was to be respectful and unemotional regardless of the nominee or the party affiliation of the questioner. That made the sessions dry and often boring; it also showed American a functioning system in which holding the public trust topped all other considerations. (When did this obviously sound tradition start rotting away? Was it the Bork hearings?)
Now, it is clear that the Senators, knowing they are being televised, view the hearings as an opportunity to virtue-signal to what they see as their most extreme ideological base. The goal isn’t to seriously examine the qualifications and ability of the nominees, but for the Senators to demonstrate how much they detest and revile their political opponents and what they stand for. This has resulted in one exhibition of spittle-flected shouting, contorted features and theatrical rage after another.
Morons. Such unprofessional, emotional conduct tends to alienate anyone who isn’t already biased, and almost without exception, Trump’s nominees ended up looking superior to their attackers by being restrained and not responding in kind. Professionalism and fairness are high in the positive range of Dr. Festinger’s scale; fury, rudeness, personal abuse and lack of control is low. The Democrats’ performances, as pleasing as they may have been for those who rate “raging at Trump Nazis” high on their scale, undermined their legitimate objectives.
Nowhere was the party’s ignorance of the importance of heeding the power of cognitive dissonance more in evidence than in the RFK Jr. hearings. From Lifezette:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appears increasingly likely after his Senate Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, where Democrats missed key opportunities to derail his nomination.
Rather than focusing on areas where they might have found common ground, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) instead engaged in attacks on Kennedy’s past positions, a move that Republican strategist Brad Todd described as a “big mistake” during a discussion on CNN This Morning… Todd explained that instead of effectively challenging Kennedy’s nomination, Democrats pushed him closer to Senate Republicans by focusing on divisive issues.
“I think RFK Jr.’s hearing to me was the most entertaining, but it was a big mistake by Democrats,” Todd said.
“Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders made him more confirmable. There’s nobody who Republicans dislike more than Elizabeth Warren, and it’s for all the right reasons.”
He argued that Warren, in particular, could have approached the hearing differently by highlighting their shared views on certain policy issues.
“But she should have gone with RFK and said, ‘You know, look, I agree with you on abortion. I agree with you on affirmative action. I agree with you on guns. In fact, I like you more than any nominee [President] Donald Trump ever has,’” Todd continued. Instead, he noted that Warren and Sanders chose to use the hearing for political theater rather than strategic maneuvering.
“If she wanted to sink him, she should have hugged him. But she doesn’t get that. She wants to make sound bites for the left,” Todd said.
Bingo! If the objective was to defeat Kennedy, the Democrats embracing his past positions that are anathema to conservatives, Republicans and, sorry, sane people was the way to lose him GOP support.
I was certain that Kennedy would be the most likely of Trump’s nominees to be rejected once Hegseth was confirmed. I know I wouldn’t vote to confirm him: who believes his claim that he is now no longer an anti-vaxx fanatic and a climate change absolutist? I assumed that some Republicans on the committee would vote against him because he’s a Democrat, and the Democrats would vote against him because they view him as a traitor (and because Trump is so low on their cognitive dissonance scales that you couldn’t see him without an x-ray machine).
Now it looks like Bobby Jr. will slip by, through the miracle of cognitive dissonance, and the ignorance of Senate Democrats.
Ethics Alarms 
It’s funny. I have to admit I still don’t understand cognitive dissonance. It’s evidently over my head. I can certainly understand finding Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders a phony and a Commie, respectively, and awful human beings both.
How bizarre RFK, Jr. will become a cabinet member in a Republican administration. Strange bedfellows, I guess.
And isn’t it remarkable that Chuck Todd is evidently toast! Huzzah! But frankly, until there’s a change at MSNBC, I think the entrenched left will remain intact.
OB
Think of cognitive dissonance like this if Barak Obama stated tomorrow that we need to deport all illegal criminal aliens then those who conflate illegal criminal aliens with hard working immigrants will suddenly have an epiphany that it (deportation) should be done quickly. Any attribution to it being Trump’s policy will be dismissed as not the same thing.
“Now, it is clear that the Senators, knowing they are being televised, view the hearings as an opportunity to virtue-signal to what they see as their most extreme ideological base. The goal isn’t to seriously examine the qualifications and ability of the nominees, but for the Senators to demonstrate how much they detest and revile their political opponents and what they stand for.“
Concur. And the sad part is, it might actually be working – on that same ideological base.
As I’ve watched parts of these hearings, from usual suspects like Warren, Sanders and Hirono, I’ve asked myself repeatedly: “Do they have any idea just how ridiculous they look to much of the country?”
Certainly, those who voted for Trump – including the independents, young and ethnic voters that put him over the top – must be watching this and thinking “You dumb bastards. You still haven’t figured it out.” From my perspective, they’re correct.
But a glance at my social feeds shows that previously Trump-deranged individuals are just as much – perhaps even more – Trump-deranged now. They were quiet for a while. But they’re back and howling, egged on by Senate Democrats.
Ah, well. The good news is that they’re still outnumbered, and I shall distill their tears and use the salt on my steak. Schadenfreude is an ugly emotion, but it’s a fun indulgence from time to time.
Until the last few years, I’d always assume my Baby Boom peers had grown up to be mature, tax and mortgage paying, working, adult, physical and social conservatives. You know, the St. Paul thing about putting aside the things we believed when we were young. Boy, was I ever wrong. Old lefties. What a surprise.
Exactly. Their base will remain their base. I’m convinced Trump won because enough of the nation was fed up with status-quo bullshit. So what do Senate Dems dish up? Status quo bullshit.
As Cicero said, “Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.”
Some of the senators interrogating Robert Kennedy Jr have a conflict of interest in the hearings due to campaign contributions they received from big pharmaceutical companies. RFK called out Bernie Sanders on this very point.
And wasn’t it fascinating to hear Bernie blather that the campaign contributions Kennedy was referencing were not from the pharmaceutical companies, they were from the pharmaceutical companies’ employees. Yeah, sure Bernie. That’s the oldest campaign contribution scam in the books. The employees “make” contributions which are then reimbursed by the company. Last I knew, it’s also illegal. There should be an FEC investigation of the money Bernie “received” from the pharmaceutical companies’ “employees.” What a jerk he is.
What is good for General Motors is good for its employees – or something like that. Same is true for Pfizer and Merck.
Yes, the Trial Lawyers, one of the most valued of Democratic donor groups, carefully makes sure that the contributions come from its members rather than the association’s PAC. “Jerk” is not the word I would choose for Bernie….
I have had similar thoughts reading the coverage of the nominations.
If the Democrats actually wanted to try and derail one or two of the nominees, they would have gone after some of the issues that serious Republicans might have doubts about — say, Gabbard’s waffling and obfuscations on 702 surveillance. Or Hegseth’s lack of substantive experience with running big organizations.
Instead they’ve made a fuss about some of the same issues on which Democratic nominees have gotten a pass from their colleagues, and been defended for similar actions. After Clinton, how can anyone take Democrats seriously when they harp about sexual infidelities?
But if there was any actual calculations involved, I guess they assumed that 53 Republicans in the Senate would confirm any Trump nominee. Their faith in the unwavering sheepfulness of all Republicans is rather touching when it isn’t insulting. From what I’ve heard, Gabbard is still in jeopardy from Republicans on the intelligence committee. But it does sound like Kennedy is likely to have been seen safely home by his fellow Democrats and liberals.
“have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors…?”
Senator Hirono repeatedly asks this question of Trump’s nominees, yet I haven’t heard anyone comment on its absurdity as a gottcha.
According to modern social norms, permission must be granted before holding hands, kissing, embracing, or engaging in any other intimate activity. If a person asks for a kiss as is required, and the answer is ‘no thank you,’ Ms. Hirono implies that an infraction has incurred. Who among us hasn’t been turned down for a romantic interlude? (Well, maybe not Pete.) Are we all guilty of something sinister, of sexual harassment?
Frankly, I worry that the marriage and birth rates will fall to even lower levels given the risks involved in even asking for a date …
I’m not dumb like everybody days
Also not a proofreader, but neither am I, so no judgement there.
*****
Back in 2023, Bari Weiss interviewed RFK Jr. for her Honestly podcast. I listened to it at that time and haven’t relistened, so please forgive me if I misremember anything. Their discussion helped change my opinion of Kennedy. I had thought he was a crackpot and an absolute anti-vaxxer but this made his opinions on it seem more nuanced. He did talk a good bit about how some politicians were benefiting from donations by Big Pharma.
It was clear that he was anti-Trump at that time, but I got the feeling that this was a product of his environment (coastal elite liberals) and taking the news stories about Trump at face value. It also seemed that he was beginning to see some of the things that Trump was right about.
Thanks…that typo is fixed. The D IS right next to the S….
RFKJ is nothing if not flexible in his principled views: https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/08/16/profile-in-courage-rfk-jr-s-revealing-abortion-flip-flop/