This is going to be a rant. Now, there are many reasons the other side is in charge. Voter suppression. Cheating. Lies. Misogyny and Racism. Lack of enthusiasm. But before we get to any of those...
I am tired of people dismissing the other side as stupid. The assumption is that people are rational. Well, often people are not rational and until we understand that we will lose. It may be irrational to treat others as rational!
Now, I am not against reason and facts. Not at all! I think application of them is best for reaching good decisions. But we should realize that rational arguments are often not the best way to actually persuade people to do things. And for decades we have been losing the persuasion argument.
The Elephant and the Rider
The rational side can be likened to the rider of an elephant. It’s on top, supposedly making decisions on where it wants to go. However, the elephant is much, much larger.
Jonathan Haidt introduces the Elephant and the Rider metaphor. Dan and Chip write
“But to us, the duo’s tension is captured best by an analogy used by University of Virginia psychologist, Jonathan Haidt in his wonderful book The Happiness Hypothesis. Haidt says that our emotional side is the Elephant and our rational side is the rider. Perched atop the Elephant, the Rider holds the reins and seems to be the leader. But the Rider’s control is precarious because the Rider is so small relative to the Elephant. Anytime the six-ton Elephant and the Rider disagree about which direction to go, the Rider is going to lose. He’s completely overmatched.”
Often, in fact, the Rider, instead of trying to control the elephant, will simply create rationalizations to justify what that damned elephant is doing. (I love elephants, but I think it incredibly apropos that the elephant is the R mascot in this case.)
We are, even though we do not like to admit it, susceptible to persuasion. To button pushing. And until we learn to reach that elephant, we will keep on losing.
How do we reach that elephant? I don’t know. Turning off FOX News. Getting others to turn it off. And repeating, repeating, repeating our own message.
Which wins, hope or fear?
FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Obama ran on a platform of hope.
But do these work consistently? I’m not so sure. I think a lot of people vote their fears — especially their fear of “others”.
People are generally risk-averse rather than risk-seeking, meaning their fears dominate their hopes with respect to their behavior.
But framing makes a huge difference, too. An example at the link shows:
As you can see, framing the choice positively vs. negatively caused an almost perfect reversal in choices--saving (or is that 'not losing'?) lives! Clearly, framing can powerfully influence the way a problem is perceived, which in turn can lead to the favoring of radically different solutions.
This is just one of the many psychological techniques that we should be using.
Identity Politics?
Many people have been debating whether or not we should view the electorate as responding to identity manipulation. Certainly it played a big role. Racism, misogyny and resentment at elites (incumbents and the educated) are the big buttons that I can think of.
I do not know the answer to this. If there were an easy answer, it might have already been implemented. Part of me worries that these attitudes may be ingrained, even instinctual, hard-wired into our DNA. We may have a reason to prefer our own race, because the genetic component appears similar — or simply because the fear of the other used to be a pretty reasonable one for many millennia. Strangers might kill you. And as for relying on men, when physical strength was the main requirement for protecting the tribe — and when women were busy having kids and had no control over it — well, perhaps there’s some reason for expecting men to be in charge.
On the other hand, I believe at least a component is nurture and not nature. When I was little, it was strange to see an expert on TV be either female or not white. Now I find it odd when panels are composed of simply white males. So my expectations have changed. And recently I read the book Hidden Figures. How I wish, wish, that I had been aware of women mathematicians when I was a kid! And we know that other countries have had female leaders: Angela Merkel, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher. You don’t have to admire their politics to acknowledge the fact of their lengthy roles at the helm.
As I said, I do not know the answer.
What to Do?
I don’t have the answer. And although rationalism is OK, it is not enough. (Fortunately the lack of rationalism is currently hurting the Republican party.) Here are some ideas:
Get out our message. We have been doing that through rallies, phone calls, emails and even freeway blogging. We have to keep it up. Maybe you can’t do something every day, but you can try to do something a few times per week. Repetition and lots of talk is a big part of the resistance.
Be proud. We have no reason to apologize for being smart or having good ideas. One thing that hurt Hillary was the tendency to apologize for her.
Make some of the other feel included. We may have been helped by Trump talking pretty about “Chuck & Nancy” — those demons are no longer quite as devilish to the other side.
Do not dismiss the other side as stupid. If they were stupid and we were smart, why are we not in charge? Trump may be intellectually lazy, but he has been incredibly canny and determined about reaching his priorities.
Keep on fighting, and include your ideas below.
Thanks for reading!