Healthy Influence Blog

Consider this observation from Charlie Cook, a noted political observer and commentator.  He’s analyzing the Obama Administration’s struggles.

. . . And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.

The interesting question here is to understand why Presidents make grave miscalculations that smart observers can see, but they cannot, then exacerbate their problems with a double down bet on the miscalculation.  We could frame this problem in other terms:  When people suffer for their choices, they tend to love that for which they suffer.  Dissonance, in other words.

Now, quickly and of course, this tentative hypothesis is not restricted to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Remember Mr. Bush’s miscalculation with that War of Choice in Iraq?  And, Mr. Bush certainly  suffered from that miscalculation, then went double down on the Surge.  That was, dissonance, too, right?

As outside observers, we can see the Suffering of Presidents for their Miscalculations and when we are correct, dissonance and the pursuit of its reduction are likely strong explanations.  Why do Presidents persist in their miscalculations?  The suffering caused by the miscalculation causes dissonance, an unpleasant psychological state, and is removed by loving the source of the suffering even more which then motivates doubling down.

Of course, the analysis depends not on what the Presidents are doing or thinking, but rather upon the accuracy of our assessment of Miscalculation, Suffering, and Doubling Down.  Only the most impervious zealot argues today that Mr. Bush’s bet on the Surge failed.  Most see the Surge as the success that made following success more likely.  So, was Mr. Bush in the throes of dissonance when he doubled down and is supremely lucky that the Surge worked?  That’s what a dissonance analysis would support.  Or, did he simply see the problem in a different light and make the Surge as a rational solution that might actually succeed?  That’s just smart decision-making.

We should think the same way about understanding President Obama right now.  If we’re right – he Miscalculated, Suffered, and is now Doubling Down to more failure – then maybe dissonance is at work here.

But, can’t he just be rational rather than dissonant or even foolish?  He thinks his policies are Good Things and is trying to make Them happen.  Maybe his analysis of Goodness is flawed, maybe his political skills are weak, maybe his opponents are stronger, and maybe he’s like Terry the boxer in On The Waterfront, and tonight is just not his night (at 3:50 in).

All this turns on another persuasion concept, Attribution, stated in a nice turn of phrase:  Where you stand depends on where you sit.  Like Charlie Cook, we are not sitting in the President’s chair looking at the problem.  We are sitting around at our computers, perhaps in our underwear, looking at the guy in the President’s chair.  We conclude that Obama is an idiot, doubling down on a miscalculation when, if we were wearing a suit and sitting in that chair, we’d probably be doing the same damn thing, realizing that it’s always going to be a Close Run Thing that cannot be avoided.