I had an interesting conversation with a workman at our home last year. It stuck with me because I believed it said something about the collision between what we believe and what we see, and how we resolve the tension when the two are not in alignment. He was one of those talkative individuals who feels that sharing his social views should be part of casual conversation with a client, and typically in such situations I do not engage, not wanting to stir the pot. He was talking about some work done on his own house by a team that all appeared to be Spanish-speaking. He stated that “Boy, that really changed my mind on immigration. These guys all showed up early and worked hard. They did a great job.” I nodded agreement (I wanted to encourage him in this opinion) and let the conversation meander on.
From these comments I concluded that (a) he had at some point believed that immigrants were NOT hard workers who did good jobs, which implied that (b) he perhaps thought they came to the U.S. to freeload off our welfare system and have anchor babies. Which further led me to conclude (c) that he was probably a self-identified conservative who spent a lot of time listening to right-wing talking points. But — and this is important — he was willing to change his mind when directly confronted with evidence that contradicted the beliefs he was being told were correct. This is much rarer than it should be, and much to be valued.
There are many curious contradictions in the GOP stance on immigration, although the basic policy is clear: we need less of it. Why that should be is rather less clear, because the rationales put forth either collide with each other or reality (reality, n.; a collection of documented and verifiable observations about the world, possessing a liberal bias). Most notably, immigrants are either (a) stealing jobs from “real” Americans, or (b) taking advantage of American welfare benefits and freeloading off the system. Now, the GOP party line also holds that immigrants are dangerous criminals (drug runners, rapists, killers), and completely ignore the actual research and data that shows immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. At a deeper level, the “melting pot” ideology has long been part of the American mythos and tells us that immigrants come for freedom and economic opportunity. The Statue of Liberty says it best: huddled masses yearning to breathe free. But there has always been another, irreconcilable narrative at work as well: that immigrants are a sinister and alien force, coming to change American values with undesirable religious, social and political beliefs. This strain goes all the way back to the early United States (the vicious stereotyping of Irish immigrants as ignorant alcoholics, with the wrong religion) and even before (Benjamin Franklin’s lament about the ignorant, “swarthy,” unassimilable German immigrants). Things change over time (the Germans and Irish eventually became “white,” after all) and the targets change (Hispanics, Muslims) but the tune remains the same.
But, no worries! By and large conservatives have mastered the cognitive skill named by Orwell as doublethink, and as a result suffer no cognitive dissonance from this state of affairs.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. (Orwell, 1984)
“Cognitive dissonance,” a term coined by a psychologist named Leon Festinger, originally meant the mental discomfort a person feels when their behaviors are inconsistent with their stated beliefs and values. Festinger felt that because our behaviors are discrete, observable, and irrevocable, any apparent inconsistency with our self-perception is especially likely to cause dissonance, and there are only two ways to deal with it: (1) revise our self-image (change our internal beliefs or values), or (2) rationalize the behavior away. Over time, many have come to use the term more broadly as mental discomfort from holding any conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes.
However — and you may already be thinking this — people have contradictory behaviors, beliefs, and values all the time, and seem not in the least bothered by them. Some cognitive dissonance researchers came to argue that we experience dissonance only when forced to confront these contradictions in some way — for example, someone else points it out to us and asks us to explain it. We can express inconsistent beliefs and values as much as we like so long as no one calls us on it, without experiencing dissonance.
Safe in their opinion bubbles of like-minded people, I think the MAGAs have perfected the formula: (1) never be confronted by those willing to question your beliefs and values; (2) never expose yourself to information that challenges your beliefs and values; (3) if accidentally exposed to such information, dismiss it as “fake news.”
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. (Orwell, 1984)
And so, within the MAGA mind, Trump really did build a wall (didn’t I see pictures of that somewhere?); immigrants are disproportionately criminals (did you hear on that radio show about that illegal that raped a woman?); drugs are a problem caused by immigrant smugglers, not domestic consumers; illegals are stealing our Social Security benefits (what’s that? You say those undocumented workers are actually paying into Social Security but getting no benefits? Fake news!!). And occasionally, somewhere, a conservative sees a group of (presumably illegal!) Spanish-speaking guys hard at work on his roof, or his landscaping, and doing a great job, and maybe thinks “Huh. These guys are okay.”
I think we need a lot more critical self-reflection in this world, and a lot more cognitive dissonance.