2004-08-01

Editorial

When Ignorance Begets Disaster

A number of people expressed amazement to me after reading the following paragraph from an article by Doug Ireland in the April 23rd edition of TomPaine.com."

...a Louis Harris survey released April 22, 2004 showed that 51 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction [WMD], while just 38 percent don’t. And 49 percent think evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link has been found (and only 36 percent don’t).

A typical remark: "Are half of us really so stupid that we stick with wrong information despite being told that it is wrong by the same people who gave us the wrong information in the first place?"

"Stupid?" I doubt it.

Let's examine some of the events that led up to that statistic.

In the run up to the war on Iraq, from 9/11 to the beginning of the war itself, WMD probably occupied more space in the media than any other topic. Focus by the Bush administration was on Hussein, the tyrant, an evil person who had WMD and who would use them. He was presented as an immediate danger to this country. A constant stream of misinformation and disinformation then issued from our government that predicted dire consequences for our country should Hussein not be "taken out." Possession of WMD by Hussein was sold as the main reason for invading Iraq. The sales pitch was effective; much of the public bought it.

If you think the above paragraph is SPIN on my part, consider the following:

(1) On August 26, 2002, Cheney said: ". . . there is no doubt that . . . Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. . . . What he wants is time . . . to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons."

(2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, George Bush said: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

(3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bush stated: "(Iraq)... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. Photos reveal that... (Iraq)... is rebuilding facilities that it had used to make chemical/biological weapons."

(4) On January 7, 2003, Rumsfeld, at a press briefing, stated: "There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons."

(5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson said: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there in Iraq."

(6) On March 16, 2003, on NBC's 'Meet The Press', Cheney stated: "We believe he (Hussein) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong."

(7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

    (8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."

    (9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on 'Face the Nation', Rumsfeld said: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, ... have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."

(10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of Defense stated: "We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

This was the period when the government's outspoken position was that it was unpatriotic to question government authority and actions. This position was echoed vehemently by those who had bought the government's spin and was such a powerful force that even Democrats in the House and Senate were intimidated, judging by their voting records.

This was also Bush's "macho" era, the period starting with 9/11 and his "you are either with us or with them," decree and ending with the carefully orchestrated televising of his landing in full combat gear on the deck of the aircraft carrier. Bush as Schwarzenegger solidified perhaps 75% of the people behind the president. Americans, unlike people in "old" Europe, for example, tend to admire macho and "sex appeal" over brains.

There were different degrees of response to the WMD spin, but the majority who accepted it appeared to me to be those who had unquestioning faith and trust in their government and its leadership and in their country, and who rarely question authority, any kind of authority. These are solid folks who are proud to be Americans and to whom symbols of patriotism, the Flag, the Anthem, are very important. These are not "stupid" people, if "stupid" refers to IQ; rather, they are the kind of people who do not seek information beyond that given to them by the front page of their daily newspaper and occasional TV and radio sound bites. They are not a questioning kind of people. They trust their leaders.

However, trusting one's leaders completely and relying on them to be trustworthy is perfectly reasonable only so long as the leaders are, indeed, trustworthy. Blind trust is, essentially, a matter of faith, not a matter of intellect. It is supporting a leader because you believe in him/her, rather than because you have made a rational analysis of that person's positions on issues. Blind trust in someone leaves you very vulnerable. Once your trust is vested in someone, you are easy prey if that someone is unethical enough to take advantage of your trust.

That is precisely what happened.

As time went by and UN teams of experts found no WMD and our own troops moving through Iraq found no WMD, it became increasingly obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq. Media coverage of WMD then came to an abrupt halt. The media became silent. The government's spin abruptly changed from U.S. going to war because of Hussein's WMD to U.S. going to war because Hussein was a horrible monster who had to be deposed. The main purpose of the war was changed from doing away with WMD to "establishing democracy in Iraq." Government spin toward the new goal started to brainwash the faithful again, and many of them went along.

By the time George Bush and other Republicans leaders belatedly admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, WMD was "old hat." That news was not carried as front page news by the media. If it was carried at all, it was relegated to obscure locations on inner pages and it was hardly mentioned, if at all, on the radio and TV media to which the "faithful" tune in.

Thus, large numbers of trusting, faithful Bush followers, who listen only to sound bites and read only the front pages of their newspapers, probably never read about or saw or heard their leader admit that Iraq had no WMDs. Their trust in their president and his representatives did not diminish. There was no reason for it to diminish. The faithful followers simply were not aware that they had been lied to.

So, are the people who still believe that there are WMDs in Iraq stupid? Or are they victims of their own blind trust in authority figures? You decide. Obviously, some will say that people who blindly trust others are stupid, but that ignores the psychological dynamics of the situation. Furthermore, the "stupid" description usually occurs after the fact, in this case after it was determined that there were no WMDs in Iraq. After the fact, it is easy to say that those who thought there were WMDs were stupid for believing the argument in the first place. Furthermore, accusing people of being stupid doesn't help matters in the least. It doesn't solve any problems. It is far more to the point to accuse the people in the WMD instance as being uninformed; too reliant on limited media and too trusting of people who already have dubious reputations as do a majority of the key individuals in the Bush administration.

There is no doubt in my mind that many Americans are not only uninformed, but that they have been betrayed by those they trusted and, of greater importance, they are unaware of either their lack of information or of the betrayal.

Other psychological factors are involved as well. A second reason for a significant portion of the population still believing that Iraq has WMDs may be that when some people hear or read information the first time, they give it a quick examination and, if they find it consistent with their beliefs, they store it in their minds and then tune out any information that contradicts it. Thus, they store "good" information and tune out the "bad" or threatening information that is not supportive of their beliefs.

Let's examine that further and on a more personal level. Remember, many of us are trusting people. We trust not only authority figures like our President who, we have pointed out, can take advantage of that trust and fill us with lies, but we also trust ourselves; we trust our own judgments. Furthermore, we have faith in our trust of ourselves. That may be hard to understand, but think of it as believing that what we think, our opinions and our attitudes, are not only true, but are the "right" way of thinking and doing. We are committed to viewpoints. Most of us are unwavering once we decide on what is right or wrong, good or bad. We tend to see things in black and white, with few shades of gray. Thus, we mimic our president. "You are either with us or with them." Once we establish these basic viewpoints, our minds become set to screen information so that we end up receiving only that information that agrees with our mindset and rejecting information that disagrees with it. This is not a conscious thing. It just "happens" without us being aware of it.

Psychologists refer to this as "selective perception." It's worth repeating. Many of us tend to see only what we want to see and tend to hear what we want to hear. But think of the "want" part of it as not being present in your mind when the process is happening. You are not conscious of it.

In selectively perceiving, one can seriously distort reality. Some people do it more often than others and some to a greater degree than others So if, for example, having read or heard your President, whom you trust, say that Saddam has WMDs, and having accepted that as a fact because you trust the President, you may be one of those people who reject any information that says that there are no WMDs in Iraq. In addition, because of this "selective" perception, even if you read that "Bush agrees that there are no WMDs in Iraq," you may interpret that statement in such a way that it does not contradict what is already in your mind. It simply will not register as a statement by the President that he no longer thinks Iraq has WMDs. So strong is your trust in the President, that, in reality, when you read that statement it may even have registered in your mind as the President saying that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Sound impossible?

It might very well sound impossible, especially if you are a person who still believes that there are WMDs in Iraq. For you to think otherwise may be threatening to you. You may be the kind of person who cannot bear to be wrong. Or, you may be the kind of person who cannot live with the possibility that you have been "had" or taken advantage of. You may be the kind of person who cannot accept psychologically that you have trusted someone who has lied to you.

Well, if that describes you, that's o.k. You are a human being and humans have all sorts of problems maintaining a reasonably clear, healthy picture of themselves. Being human is, to a larger extent than realized, being often filled with doubt and self-delusion.

So, let's say that your picture of yourself has been challenged. The reality show that is the world about you suddenly has challenged it. You've been made aware that no WMDs have been found in Iraq. Apparently, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America. You have been deceived, probably deliberately, by those you trusted. How can you live with that? No one likes to be conned.

Well, you can adjust. Adjusting one's perception of one's self in the face of evidence that oneself has been conned, spun, lied to, by someone one trusted, isn't easy, but it can often be done, even relatively painlessly. You have to be aware of your "defense mechanisms." I should say that you first have to be aware that you have such things as "defense mechanisms." Being aware that you have them and that they are working all of the time enables you to start to take control of them. Once you can admit that such things as defense mechanisms operate within in you, you can begin to reorganize yourself so that you can minimize their operation.

Many of you probably know people who seem to have what are called "closed minds." They seem to hear or see only that which is consistent with their own opinions and attitudes. When you talk with them and try to bring in a new or different idea that contradicts their own point of view, it's like "talking to a wall." Often they don't seem to even be aware of what you are saying. It's not just that they are ignoring you; it's more than that. They literally don't hear the details of what you are saying because they can't stand the possibility of being shown to be wrong. Listening carefully to your viewpoints is dangerous to them because, unconsciously, they may perceive that you might be right and they cannot handle being wrong. They cannot easily handle events or information that contradicts their own deeply felt positions. They have developed "defense mechanisms" that prevent them from taking contradictory evidence into their awareness although that contradictory evidence may still be lodged in their brain somewhere where it can continue to gnaw at the defenses that are keeping it submerged from awareness.

Above, I mentioned that such people "hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see," but now we can reinterpret that phrase and say that such people hear what they need to hear and see what they need to see" in order to be able to live with themselves. In other words, your defense mechanisms work hand in hand with your need to be able to live with yourself and prevent you from being in a world of constant contradictions.

So, we are talking about needs, now, not wants and we are getting a little more psychological and, in doing so, we are starting to see just how deep some of this stuff is; how important to our well-being it is.

In the paragraph above, I've mentioned people with "closed minds" and how difficult it is to break through to them. I've discussed how "breaking through" may shake them up psychologically and be quite upsetting for them. We can now ask you, what if you are like that? What if you have a "closed" mind and the person you are attempting to communicate with also has a "closed" mind? What if each of you has so much at stake that you cannot accept the other person's viewpoint because you have so much of your own credibility, that is, your trust in your own ability to make true, factual judgments, at stake, that to be shown to be wrong can be psychologically devastating to you? You have a fear of being made to feel vulnerable? You have a fear of being made a fool of. In the case of Bush and WMD, you may still think that Iraq has WMD, but you can't admit that you don't know enough about the topic to debate about it. You realize that you don't know enough to convince anyone of your point of view. You lack information. It then may become apparent to you that your point of view may be an emotionally-based one, not a rationally derived one. In other words, you may begin to realize that you believe that there are WMDs in Iraq because G. W. Bush says there are and you really think a lot of G. W. Bush. It may become clear to you that your feelings for Bush, rather than objective information, are steering your arguments. If you think about this, you may begin to realize that you can't defend a position without adequate information, that defending your position based on your emotions is no defense at all. You may suddenly realize that your "defense mechanisms" may be based on emotions, not information. You may start to inquire about Iraq and WMD and find that most experts agree that there are not any there and that Bush himself has acknowledged that there aren't any in Iraq. You may start to wonder why, then, do I still believe WMDs are in Iraq? What is it about my relationship with Bush that makes me believe in what appears to be a lie? Is it simply an authority thing, that is, I believed him because he was the President and I believe that Presidents don't lie? Or was it because of his mannerisms or because of his appearance or his attempts at being "macho?"

At the same time, perhaps there's a little of your conscience working at you. Those facts that are buried deep in your brain are working away, usually suppressed below consciousness but occasionally working their way into your awareness, gnawing at you, making you realize that maybe you've been had. And your patriotism is in there trying to sort out where and how it belongs as does the realization there's so much at stake if you are wrong. Your personal sense of worth, for one thing, but also the future of your country. And, perhaps, you begin to wonder if you've been basing all of your self worth on feelings instead of information.

You are your own fortress, you know, and fortresses have to be examined periodically to determine how vulnerable they are. But the very defense mechanisms and selective perceptions that make your fortress "full of holes" in the first place, prevent you from objectively examining it and making it more effective..

There are no ready answers, no general solutions, to improving one's fortress self, but may I suggest that you can take your defense mechanisms apart slowly and examine them and you can examine some of your perceptions and see just how selective you have been by simply becoming less trusting of your sources, of where your eyes and ears have been pointed, and start examining new sources, getting new information, slowly fitting it in with and/or testing it against your existing information, and, perhaps, evolving new positions, beliefs, attitudes, trusts and awareness.

As you learn from people with different points of view and, perhaps, broader backgrounds than your own, you can see how they interpret events, how they amass facts and come to conclusions, perhaps more efficiently than you do. What you are doing is growing. You are becoming a more independent person. You are becoming more aware of when people are "spinning you." You are becoming less trusting of authorities that control your life. You are starting to know a lot of facts, pieces of information supported by many sources and you now can sense when people are trying to alter the facts to support their positions. Your own positions may or may not change, but at least they are now based on information, not someone's smile, macho swagger or wink. You are becoming informed. You may finally realize that there are no WMDs in Iraq, regardless of what you've been led to believe. You may start to realize that the foreign press often tells you things that the U.S. press doesn't. You may even wonder why that is and question why you are being deprived of essential news. You are becoming an independent thinker, capable of making up your own mind and not relying on the government or your daily paper or TV news bit jockey to do it for you. You are becoming your own person.

Fiatlux.info exists solely to help you with this process. Read us from one end to the other. Get informed about how we think. In my biography, I've leveled with you about my background. The material you read in Fiatlux.info is the material I read. But I also read stuff from the "other side." By background and training, I can analyze what the other side is saying and by comparing it with the information I have I can decide on the merits of an argument. Always remember, everything isn't always black and white. Most things are gray, complicated, frustrating to handle, difficult to totally understand. But at least you can understand enough to know when someone is trying to mislead you or deceive you for their own benefit.

Citizens owe it to themselves, their families and their country, to the very concept of democracy itself, to make a strong effort to become informed, questioning people.

Citizens owe it to themselves, their families and their country not to vote for leaders because they are handsome, pretty, witty, fatherly, macho, have good speaking voices, are "sexy" or have a winning smile.

Citizens also owe it to themselves to always remember that election to public office, regardless of political party, does not mean that the person elected is intelligent, honest or trustworthy.

Many, if not most, people vote based on their emotions; the Reagan smile, perhaps, or the Clinton look of sincerity. You can and must rise above that kind of thing. By applying yourself and reading and studying and thinking and seeing how others think and reason, you can rise above the kind of witless behavior that makes people follow a leader even though the leader hasn't provided them with any real information to follow. You can become a responsible, thinking American instead of a sheep following a lost shepherd.

I, for one, do not want to be recorded in history as a member of a lost generation that was responsible for losing the democratic experiment.

©2004-Bernard J. Fine.