Mueller Speaks, But Changes No Minds

Watching the Mueller testimony to Congress, I kept thinking of Fiddler on the Roof. Especially the song “Do You Love Me?” The husband is asking his wife if she loves him, and she doesn’t want to say. She offers details—I clean your house, I cook your food, I gave you children—but won’t say what he wants to hear. “I’m your wife,” she says, “what more do you need to know?”

Well, Tevye wants to know if Golde loves him, and Democrats in Congress want to know if the President obstructed justice. Unlike Mueller, Golde eventually admits that she loves him. Tevye concludes that “After 25 years, it's nice to know.” In Mueller’s case, after two and a half years he still won’t say.

The reason this is psychologically problematic is that when facts are uncertain, individuals will project their preferred values onto their perceived facts. The greater the uncertainty, the greater the propensity to simply see what we prefer to see.

And Mueller’s approach of legalese and the repetition of standards that are difficult for those without a law degree to comprehend leads directly to dueling fact perceptions.

This blog began with two posts on the relationship between the Mueller Report and dueling fact perceptions. If the written document encouraged dueling facts, his verbal testimony on July 24th was even worse.

The key line in Mueller’s opening statement is: “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.” The reasons for this refusal are unclear, which encourages personal judgments by ordinary Americans.

Representative Nadler’s testimony almost led to some clarity, but did not.

Nadler: “Did you actually totally exonerate the president?”

Mueller: “No”

Nadler: “Can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?”

Mueller: “Well, ah, the finding indicates that, ah, the president, ah, was not, ah, that the president was not exculpated, ah, exculpated for the acts he allegedly committed.” Translation: No, I cannot explain that in ways ordinary people will understand.

When members of Congress attempted to craft a conclusion for Mueller, he immediately corrected them that he was drawing no such conclusions.

Representative Jeffries: “Donald Trump 1) committed an obstructive act, 2) connected to an official proceeding, 3) did so with corrupt intent. Those are the elements of obstruction of justice. This is the United States of America. No one is above the law. No one. The President must be held accountable one way or the other.”

Mueller: “Let me just say if I might, I don’t subscribe necessarily to your, to the way you analyzed that. I’m not saying it is out of the ballpark, but I’m not supportive of that analytical charge.”

Jeffries: “Thank you.” Translation: I wish you hadn’t said that.

When the most qualified expert won’t state a conclusion, ordinary people will fall back on their own values and identities. Could Mueller’s hesitancy mean that he really thinks the evidence indicates that Trump obstructed justice? Yes. Could it mean he truly thinks that the evidence indicates that Trump did not? Yes. The Report and the hearings have proven to be fundamentally unhelpful to ordinary people, and even worse, to encourage divided perceptions.

As Golde phrases it in Fiddler on the Roof, “For 25 years my bed is his, if that’s not love what is?” There are other answers. Just as there are other answers to the question of what Mueller is really saying. Left to their own psychological impulses, Americans will provide their own answer.