The
second chapter about this book talks about an idea that is at first very counter-intuitive but seems to make more sense as the chapter progresses: the
notion of logic and a dispassionate state of mind. Or in this case, the
lack thereof. Try thinking about the chapter title, “Rational Minds, Irrational
Campaigns.”
Public
opinion is very important to consider. Walter Lippmann first used the term in
1922 to describe conflicting beliefs- “About what is happening in the economy, the
world, and laws/policy-making- held by a population that generally lacks the
firsthand experience and expertise to know what is truly happening.” Because of
public opinion, voters are more subjective to issues towards which they may
feel impartial. They may feel like they have a moral obligation to vote for a
particular candidate instead of making their own personal choice themselves. Therefore,
as explained in my first post on this book, it is more advantageous to run with
passion and empathy along with logic.
Author
Drew Westen describes the case of a voting coal miner. He logically compares
Bush’s stance on certain issues compared to John Kerry’s stance. He ranks their
stance on issues like terrorism, social security, jobs, the economy, etc. on a
scale from 1 to 5 (if +3 for one candidate, -3 for the other candidate). After
doing some multiplication and simple addition, he arrives at a score of 41 for
Kerry and -39 for Bush. With the 80 point difference, the choice should be
clear. However, Westen states that only those with a serious brain damage vote
like this. And he’s right. For the neuroscientists, damage to your frontal
lobes affects your emotional decision-making.
In
a debate with Gore and Bush, Gore makes a logical argument involving Medicare
and facts and figures. Logically and technically, Bush would have been
defeated. However, with some hand-waving and criticizing Gore for using numbers
like a “human calculator,” Bush won that point of the debate emotionally.
This
is why emotion wins over logic with respect to public opinion. It’s about how people
make their voters feel rather than imparting pure logic with a lack of emotion.
Leaders who act confidently and have excellent public speaking skills are probably
more ideal for holding office. Hopefully this book will go into more detail on
what other factors make a person more likable and favorable with respect to
public opinion.
For me, here's the problem with logic: when on the stump, candidates say all kinds of things about what they will do when they get into office. But once in office, situations change and you can't count on a candidate sticking to his/her original campaign promise (nor, I think, would I necessarily want them to do this). Ultimately, we're forced to vote for the person whom we trust will do the right thing when the time comes, and logic isn't always the best way to determine who will do the right thing. Emotion might work contrary to logic, but I'm not sure this means that it's an inappropriate basis for judgement in an election.
ReplyDelete