Rhetoric & Cognitive Dissonance: Alive and Well

Language is a fascinating tool used to shape perception. Two sentences may initially seem to have the same meaning, but upon further inspection one can understand how, on a subconscious level, one sentence has influenced the audience in a completely different way than the other sentence.

After the Iran-Contra scandal had been formally exposed, Ronald Reagan famously said the following;

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

Reagan's rhetoric has the ability to shape one's perception of his involvement in the scandal. By framing his involvment within the context of his "heart and [his] best intentions," the listener is exposed to this notion of earnest dialogue and decision making.  His rhetoric begins to develop a separate truth - that while he did in-fact authorize the sale of weapons to Iran (against a trade embargo), he actually, to the best of his knowledge, did not.

The statement reminds me of Louis Armstrong singing "when you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are, anything your heart desires, will come to you." In other words, if something feels like the truth strongly enough, it will become the truth.

"Mistakes Were Made"

Perhaps my favorite rhetorical device is "mistakes were made." This line has a long history of use, but it was most recently used by AIG CEO Edward Liddy and J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in reference to the financial sector's fallout and the subsequent funding of bonuses by taxpayer dollars. The phrase is a way of absolving oneself of responsibility, essentially removing the target from the speaker's back, while simultaneously acknowledging the criticism's merit.

"Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right"

 I came across this interesting example of cognitive dissonance while reading about the trial of a man who killed an abortion doctor. Roeder, who is a proponent of pro-choice policies, walked into a church Dr. George Tiller attended and shot him in the head as an act that he perceived to be restoring justice to the world. While Roeder's perspective classifies Dr. George Tiller as a murderer, he also states something that is of equal interest to his ideology;

He said he did not believe abortion was justified in the case of rape.

"You are taking the life of the innocent. You're punishing the innocent life for the sin of the father. Two wrongs don't make a right."

I underline the most important passage in his statement. If two wrongs did not make a right in his mind, he would not have killed Dr. George Tiller, regardless of how abhorrent he found his abortion clinic. Without a critical reading of his statement, one might not recognize the hypocrisy of it.

What disturbs me the most about this phrase is that I find it to be a very valuable and ethically essential idea, but note that while many people will preach it, very few will follow it. The "two wrongs don't make a right" argument preys upon conventional wisdom in this case to prop up an argument, but it kind of falls flat when you realize that Roeder walked into a church and murdered another human being.

Rhetoric can be a powerful sword and shield in the public sphere, but it is unfortunate to see it used to skirt honest discourse.