Friday, June 29, 2012

On cognitive dissonance

Interviewer:  Senator Rand Paul, thank you for joining us.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): Thank you, and good evening.

I: This business about the Affordable Care Act...

P: You mean Obamacare? This unconscionable overtaking of health care in the country by the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch.

I: That's one way to put it.

P: What other way would you put it?

I: Democracy and judicial review in action...

P: Steady on here, let's not get too partisan.

I: Partisan?

P: Exactly! That's the kind of rhetoric that drives wedges between people.

I: Wedges?

P: Yes, wedges! Rifts, chasms, divergences.

I: But Senator, isn't that one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy?

P: What is?

I: That there are a wide range of views that are able to be included in the public debate?

P: Not at all. I mean, we worked long and hard at the GOP to ensure that those wide range of views could be excluded from public debate.

I: Excluded?

P: Too right! Citizens United could only have occurred because we stacked the Supreme Court with conservative justices who would decide our way.

I: You mean, the very same "couple of people on the Supreme Court" that decided that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional and ruined the notion of democracy were different than the people who decided that corporations have the right to free speech?

P: Precisely.

I: Senator, do you know the meaning of the word "dissonance"?

P: Is it a good word?

I: No. Senator, thank you for your time tonight....

P: Could you use it in a sentence?

I: Senator, thank you for your time.

P: Could I call my Dad?