Out of the Box: Misconception Vs. Reality

It is normal for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements on values, such as the role of the government or defense strategies. But in this election, Bush and Kerry voters have vastly different perceptions of reality.

Shortly after the war began, the Program on International Policy Attitudes began asking Americans on a regular basis about their perceptions regarding Iraq and WMD. Most striking is the idea that Bush supporters have held to their beliefs about Iraq, ones now been refuted by an abundance of evidence.

In recent months, the American public has been presented with reports—by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the heads of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay and Charles Duelfer (both selected by the president)—concluding that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor even any significant program for developing them before the war.

Nonetheless, in a poll of 968 Americans conducted immediately after the release of the Duelfer report, 72% of Bush supporters continued to hold to the view that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Asked specifically about the report, 57% of Bush supporters believed that Duelfer concluded this, too. Despite the 9/11 Commission report saying there was no evidence that Iraq provided significant support to al Qaeda, 75% believed Iraq was doing just that—and 63% said clear evidence of this support was found. Half (55%) assumed this was also the commission's conclusion.

This ignorance in light of information extends to perceptions of global public opinion, too. Despite an abundance of evidence indicating the world has opposed the decision to wage war on Iraq, only 31% of Bush supporters were aware of this, and only 9% realized that John Kerry is a more popular candidate abroad. They also frequently misperceive their candidate's position on foreign policy.

How can Bush supporters cling so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted? One possible explanation is that they will not waiver because these views are necessary to justify their support for the president's decision to go to war.

Accepting the idea that Bush took the country to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the lives lost. Apparently, Bush supporters have suppressed the awareness of unsettling information to avoid this cognitive dissonance.

While it is normal to show some resistance, the magnitude of denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of high-profile reports that have been blazoned across newspaper headlines and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonizing reflection. The fact that a large portion of Americans say they are unaware that the reasons that the U.S. took military action—and for which Americans continue to die daily—are not turning out to be valid, is probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news.

The roots of this resistance are ground in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and the leadership that Bush showed in its immediate wake. After the attack on U.S. soil, many believe he responded with a resolve that provided reassurance to an anxious public. Large numbers of Americans had a powerful bonding experience with the president, one that they may be loath to relinquish.

When the president turned his focus to Iraq, this robust public support began to waver. His beliefs about its WMD and support for al Qaeda touched a nerve, but Americans were not entirely convinced of the imperative to act right away. Most wanted Bush to get U.N. support and allied participation first, and were willing to stick with the inspection process for a while longer. They were wary of the U.S. getting itself into a Vietnam-type situation.

While the initial war was easier than the public anticipated, the aftermath was much more difficult, and has become a public relations nightmare for the president. The benefits of the war were eclipsed by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction or evidence of Iraq's alleged al Qaeda support. Gradually, public support and confidence in the president began to wither. The Bush supporters who have remained steadfast—about half the public—continue to conjure up images of the post-attack president as a capable protector. But to do this, many must constantly screen out an array of contrary information.

These misconceptions are aided by the fact that the administration continues to confirm erroneous—or at the very least, unproven—conclusions. Bush appears to believe his support is fragile. He refuses to say he made any mistakes. He admits he was surprised that WMD weren't found, but won't accept the most reasonable conclusion: that they were never there in the first place. And he continues to talk about "disarming" Iraq. He says he never said Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but implies that its alliances with al Qaeda were significant.

Bush may be right. Admitting his mistakes may shatter his idealized image in a way that some supporters may not forgive. But there are also risks in getting elected based on false beliefs. The number of people in the public who see through the illusion will likely continue to grow. Further, the cohesion of society can be damaged by a persisting and fundamental division in the perception of what is real, undermining pathways to consensus and mutual sacrifice, and making the country increasingly difficult to govern.



Steven Kull wrote the above analysis for The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters, a study conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Cranford, N.J.-based research firm Knowledge Networks. PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.