Tag Archive for: Politics

Congratulations America, You Just …

/4 Comments/by

Congratulations America, you just elected the most disliked, distrusted person to ever enter the oval office. I knew I was going to write this headline leading up to the election but I honestly thought I’d be writing it about Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. I, along with just about everyone else, was wrong when it came to predicting the outcome of the election, but the headline is still accurate.

We just witnessed the most contemptuous campaign in modern times and no matter who won history was going to be made. History could have been made by electing the first woman president or it could have been made by electing the first person with zero political experience. My focus however, was that we made history because our nation elected the most disliked, distrusted person ever.

Make no mistake, each side can rationalize why their candidate was the better choice and each can make the case why the other was the potentially the end of our existence. Intellectually honest people will realize virtually everything that was thrown up as a reason to not vote for the other candidate applied to their own candidate as well.

  • It’s hard to dispute that Hillary Clinton has a perceived history of dishonesty and deception. Donald Trump was also viewed as dishonest because of things like Trump University and stiffing workers.
  • Hillary was talked about as a criminal for various reasons although defenders say she was never convicted of anything. Donald was considered a criminal by many people who pointed to all the lawsuits against him. However, his defenders argue those were civil, not criminal, and lawsuits are to be expected in business.
  • Donald was painted a racist for many things he said. Hillary was considered racist having called black teens “super predators” in the 1990s and Bill Clinton was responsible for mass incarceration of blacks.
  • Donald is sexists and perhaps worse. Bill Clinton was every bit as bad and Hillary defended him knowing he’s been unfaithful.

The list could go on and on with each side calling the other hypocritical. Sad truth is both candidates were so flawed many Americans found themselves voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate.

How did either side justify voting for their candidate? Confirmation bias. It’s human nature to look for evidence that confirms what we believe and discount information that is contrary to our beliefs. We all do this to one degree or another.

So how did Donald Trump win? There are lots of theories on that. Detractors say he appealed to the worst part of people. That oversimplifies the problem because there are many good people who voted for Trump just as many good people voted for Hillary.

Trump and Hillary both used scare tactics because politicians and their handlers know fear works. I wrote about this in The Politics of Fear: They’re Trying to Scarcity the Hell Out of You.

Both candidates resorted to manipulation by telling outright lies, half-truths and using lies of omission. Each side will contend the other was worse but no doubt each side used manipulation in an attempt to win over voters.

When it comes to voting people tend to focus on a few issues and those become their rationale for choosing a candidate. To find out more about that line of thinking take a look at Values, Voting and Other Decisions. With so many negatives about each candidate people held their nose and made choices based on the few issues that were most important to themselves.

What is shocking about Trump’s victory are the following:

  1. He was his own worst enemy, saying and doing things much worse than others who’ve seen their political careers end over such things.
  2. The media was against him. With the exception of Fox News all major media was clearly favoring Hillary.
  3. The polls all said he would lose which could have caused people to stay home rather than wasting their time voting.
  4. He didn’t have the backing of his own party, let alone a prior president, the current president, or major celebrities.
  5. His spending was significantly less than Hillary’s.
  6. He had no political experience to help him be seen as an authority.

So how did he overcome such long odds? He was certainly a more passionate, motivating and persuasive candidate. But he also benefitted from timing. If his Entertainment Tonight sex talk video had come out days before the election rather than the FBI disclosure he probably would have lost. I say that because we have short memories and even shorter news cycles. What’s most prevalent in our minds tends to cause us to act in the moment and Trump was darn lucky about the timing of his revelations versus Hillary’s.

I have to admit, when I saw Hillary lost I was happy. But, when I realized Trump won I was sad. I didn’t vote for Trump in the Ohio primary and I didn’t vote for him in the general election. People say my Gary Johnson vote was wasted. Some accuse me of helping Trump while others said I would be helping get Hillary elected. Each line of reasoning is crap! In good conscience I couldn’t vote for either so I didn’t. If our country is to get out of this false choice – the belief that we can only have a republican or democrat become president – it has to start somewhere.

People are saying our nation has never been more divided but that’s not true. Ever hear of The Civil War? I think we were a tad more divided when we went to war against our brethren. We’re not at that point right now and hopefully we never get to that point again.

Here’s what I believe Americans need to focus on. We live in the United States, the U.S. It’s about “US” as in we, me and you, all of us together. We need to begin focusing on what binds us together as opposed to what separates us. We always seem to be able to do that when tragedy strikes (WWI, WWII, 911, etc.) but we don’t have to wait for that to happen. We need to learn the art of comprise and quit depicting candidates as evil and the next Hitler because if we don’t we’re only heading for more division, difficulty and hatred.

If You Always Vote For The Same People…

/0 Comments/by

Next month more than half of Americans will go to the polls to vote on various issues including the President of the United States. The rhetoric has heated up to unprecedented levels so now is a good time to look at a contentious political issue – term limits – through the lens of influence.

When George Washington declined to run for a third term precedence was set with American presidents. Based on Washington’s actions no president ran for a third term until Franklin Roosevelt did so in 1944. The unusual circumstance of a world war in two major theatres was a big reason for FDR’s decision. However, not long afterwards the American people passed the 22 Amendment limiting the president to a maximum of two terms in office.

For some odd reason Americans have not pushed for term limits for congressman and senators. A few states enacted laws to limit the terms of their particular representatives in Washington in an effort to move away from “career politicians.” Unfortunately the Supreme Court overturned those laws saying states could not limit the term of national offices.

Like just about anything in life there are positives and negatives to each side of the argument when it comes to term limits. What should concern citizens is whether or not the best people get elected and whether or not we’re getting fresh political ideas simply because of how voters make decisions.

I remember my pastor saying, “People will remain the same until the pain of staying the same is greater than the perceived pain that comes with change.” That’s akin to, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Americans saw voter revolts in 1994 when republicans swept into power in the house and senate and again in 2010 because of our economic woes. Both times there was so much dissatisfaction with the status quo that people kicked out many incumbents.

My question is; why do we have to wait for things to get so bad before we act? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” sounds good until you consider Steve Jobs and his iPhone. We didn’t need the iPhone because nothing was broken but we’re better off for it. Perhaps we could have the same fresh ideas and change in Washington if we routinely had new people in office.

Politicians are famous for saying things like, “We have term limits because voters can always vote someone out of office if they want to,” and, “Why do we need to restrict voter freedom?” Of course both arguments could be used against term limits for the president and yet as a country we thought it was good to limit the terms for the highest office in the land. I suspect career politicians are thinking first and foremost about staying in power, not the good of the country.

But I digress and you’re wondering how influence ties into this. It will come as no surprise to readers when I state the obvious; nearly every sitting politician wins re-election the vast majority of the time. In fact, it’s staggering how often they win! Take a look at the charts below showing reelection rates for U.S. congressman and senators from the Center for Responsive Politics.

houseoreps

senate

Are incumbents winning so often because they’re the best candidates? Hardly. It’s simply a function the principle of liking due to familiarity. People go to the polls and tend to vote for the person they’re most familiar with and the farther you go down in terms of elected offices the worse it is because quite often people vote for the incumbent simply because they know nothing about the other person running. When you’ve seen or heard about your congressman for the past four years or your senator for the last six years that’s a lot of familiarity for a challenger to overcome.

On this subject, in his book Influence Science and Practice, Robert Cialdini wrote, “Often we don’t realize that our attitude toward something has been influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past.” And it’s not just how often we hear a name it’s how much we see the face. Sitting politicians are routinely seen in the news and that helps unless their face is connected to a scandal. I can tell you from firsthand experience that I get much better response to my emails when I include my picture at the bottom of the email because familiarity helps.

While there many other things that come into play during an election we can’t underestimate the importance of simply being more familiar with one candidate vs. another. It’s the way we’re wired.

To be sure we – the typical American voter – are partly to blame because we’re notoriously disengaged when it comes to knowing the candidates, their positions, and understanding the issues. If anyone didn’t need term limits it would be presidents because I’d venture to guess we know presidential candidates better and understand the presidential issues more because of how much they’re in the media vs. lower offices and more localized issues.

In a sense terms limits save us from how our decision-making sometimes works against our best self-interests. My boss likes to say, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” In other words, how can we expect anything different from Washington when we keep electing the same people for the most part? Yes, we can make a concerted effort to become more informed voters but with less than 60% of people of voting age voting in every presidential election since 1968 do we really think that will happen? I certainly don’t. Sometimes we need laws to protect ourselves from ourselves and term limits might be one such law.

“Fear has never created a single job or fed a single family.”

/1 Comment/by

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada weighed in on our Presidential election when he recently addressed the United Nations. He told world leaders, “Fear has never created a single job or fed a single family.”

His quote sounds good, very statesman-like, but unfortunately it’s completely incorrect. If you pause for just a moment and consider what fear does you’d have to conclude it creates a tremendous number of jobs. Consider the following:

  • The military – It exists because of the threat of war.
  • Police – They exist to serve and protect. This arises because of fear and people who break the law.
  • Insurance – It gives peace of mind because it reduces the anxiety that comes with the fear of loss (home destroyed, car accident, theft, etc.).

I’ve spent my adult life in the insurance industry and I tell people we’re a noble industry because we do two things:

  1. We help people. When people have a loss they’re thankful when they have the right insurance to help them get back on their feet.
  2. We help the economy. When an insurance company guarantees payment in the event your home or auto is destroyed banks lend more freely. That means more homes and autos are sold which means more people are employed as each are made.

Trudeau’s statement that fear doesn’t create jobs is ludicrous. Here are just a few facts from 2015 on the U.S. insurance industry from the Insurance Information Institute:

  • People spent more than $1.2 trillion on insurance products.
  • There were 5,296 insurance companies.
  • The industry employed 2.5 million people.

In much the same way that marketing professionals want you to buy their product, Mr. Trudeau wants people to buy into the notion that Donald Trump is peddling fear in an effort to win the election. He is, but so is Hillary Clinton. As I wrote this summer in The Politics of Fear: They’re Trying to Scarcity the Hell Out of You, using fear to win votes is a very old strategy and is used equally on both sides of the aisle.

Whenever someone is using fear they’re tapping into the principle of scarcity. First know this; fear has served mankind well because it’s a survival instinct. From Robert Cialdini’s book Influence Science and Practice, according to social psychologists Haselton & Nettle, “One prominent theory accounts for the primacy of loss over gain in evolutionary terms. If one has enough to survive, an increase in resources will be helpful but a decrease in those same resources could be fatal. Consequently, it would be adaptive to be especially sensitive to the possibility of loss.”

Second, quite often fear of loss moves us to take actions that ultimately serve us well. If scarcity led to more bad choices than good we’d stop responding to it.

Having shared those two thoughts remember this – there are times when scarcity is legitimate and there are times when it’s manipulative. Manipulators realize the power of this principle and will use it to their advantage.

So the real question becomes; is the fear (scarcity) legitimate? If it is then you should pay heed and take appropriate action. When it’s not legitimate then reframe it as someone’s attempt to manipulate you.

And what about the November election? It’s my personal opinion that both Republicans and Democrats are trying to manipulate all of us. They all tell half-truths, outright lie and manipulate statistics in their favor in an effort to grab power. Each side tells us every election that it’s the most important election ever, that our country and way of life is at stake. It’s all BS!

I started with Mr. Trudeau so I guess I should end with him. Canadians seem to love him. He’s young, good looking and charismatic so he’s gaining notoriety on the world stage. I don’t know a lot about him but I know this, his quote about fear not producing jobs or feeding people is laughable. As you should do with any politician, you would do well to look beyond the veneer and critically think about what he says next time he speaks.

The Politics of Fear: They’re Trying to Scarcity the Hell Out of You

/0 Comments/by

You’ve probably heard people say something like this many times in recently, “I wish candidates would just tell us what they stand for and their plans instead of bashing other candidates.” Those sentiments have probably never been as strong as they are right now with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton going after each other like fighting pit bulls.

Candidates are engaging in is what’s known as “The Politics of Fear.” Many accused Donald Trump of that immediately after his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Some pundits called the speech dark and foreboding. Others said it distorted reality as he invoked images of terrorist attacks and police killings. Trump painted a bleak picture and projected himself as the only answer.

But don’t be fooled because Hillary is engaged in the politics of fear, too. She wants her supporters and undecided voters to be scared as hell of a Trump presidency. Her fear messaging wants you to believe he’s a tyrant and will rule like a dictator. One MSNBC commentator went so far to say, diplomatically, Trump would be like a mushroom cloud (i.e., nuclear) when it comes to international relations. Scary!

If we’re all so sick of the negativity, candidate bashing and fear mongering then why do politicians continue to do it? Because fear moves people more than almost anything else.

The principle of scarcity tells us people are moved to action far more by the fear of loss than they are by the thought of gain. Daniel Kahneman, a Noble Prize winner in the field of economics, studied this phenomenon with the late Amos Tversky. Together they proved people are motivated 2.0-2.5 times more to take action by the thought of losing something as opposed to gaining the same thing. Think of it this way; most people will work a lot harder to not lose $100 they already have versus how hard they’ll work to earn an extra $100.

For as long has humans have been around we have instinctively known this and it has not escaped the notice of politicians either. Perhaps the most famous use of fear mongering was President Lyndon Johnson’s television ad when he ran against Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964. The ad shows a little girl in a field with flowers then suddenly there was a nuclear explosion. The ad ended with a deep voice saying, “Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.” This particular message may not resonate as much today but in the early 1960s there was a real fear of a nuclear confrontation with Russia. The message was clear; nuclear war was a possibility if you voted for Goldwater. Click here to see the iconic commercial.

As the rhetoric ramps up on the march to the November election, don’t expect either candidate to go positive. Governor John Kasich did his best to stay positive in the Republican primaries and it got him nowhere.

As one slings mud, the other will respond. If a candidate doesn’t respond to a negative attack they are seen as weak. Just ask John Kerry about the “swift boat” allegations in 2004.

As much as we say we don’t like it, we will get nothing but doom and gloom combined with personal attacks like we’ve never seen before. But take heart, in all likelihood this will be dull compared to what we’ll experience in 2020 and beyond.

Can We Please Stop the Memes and Labels?

/2 Comments/by

Can we please stop with all the memes and labels? I don’t know about you but I’m tired of all the attempts to be cute, dumb down issues and label people with a silly picture or cynical text. With the political season in the U.S. right now, it seems to be at an all-time high.

There are a lot of complex issues facing our nation and many people want to reduce them to a meme on Facebook or 140 characters on Twitter.

News Flash – Nobody changes their mind or position on an issue when you post a picture of Gene Wilder in his Willy Wonka outfit pointing out some inconsistency in their position. The truth is, we’re all hypocritical to some degree. Our actions may contradict our beliefs sometimes but it happens to all of us because nobody is perfectly consistent all the time and quite often our own beliefs collide.

People also like to use Leonardo DiCaprio’s picture with a glass of champagne in his hand to smugly pointing out how they (the person posting the picture) are smarter or better than a whole class of other people who don’t share their view.

Even worse than all the memes are the labels people use. For example:

  • If you vote for Donald Trump you’re racist.
  • If you vote for Hillary Clinton you have no regard for the law.
  • If you voted for Brexit you’re dumb.
  • If you voted against Brexit you’re not patriotic.
  • If you’re for immigration reform you’re racist.
  • If you’re for immigration you’re a real American.
  • If you think abortion is simply a choice you’re a baby killer.
  • If you think abortion is wrong you hate women and their rights.

The list could go on and on. Have you paused for just a moment to consider these are complicated issues that good people can view very differently because of their life experiences?

I know people who will vote for Donald Trump for one reason – they’re sick of the establishment. They feel he can’t be any worse than the establishment and might just be better. That doesn’t make them racist.

I know people who will vote for Hillary Clinton because they sincerely believe she’s the most qualified person to run for president and it’s time for a woman to be president. That doesn’t mean they’re anti-law.

From what I’ve seen and read, many British people who voted for Brexit (for Britain to leave the European Union) want more say in the affairs that impact their country than the European Union might allow.

Many British people who voted against Brexit because they wanted to remain part of the European Union, did so because they felt it positively impacts Britain’s viability on trade and world affairs.

I know people who want a wall built between Mexico and the U.S. because they see more than 11 million people who came into America illegally, not because they are racist. They simply want to know that everyone goes through the same process and follows the laws of the land.

I’ve known people who’ve had abortions and regretted it. Some have always wondered, “What if?” I also know women who’ve had abortions and felt it was okay because it was their choice and right for them in their particular situation.

There are many good people out there who share different views from you and me. In the absence of knowing whom they might vote for in the presidential election, their stance on abortion, their feelings about immigration or many other issues, you’d probably enjoy their friendship.

And here’s a truth – the society we live in claims to be more concerned about fairness, equality and anti-discrimination and yet we practice discrimination every time we label an entire group of people just because of who they vote for, what they stand for or what they believe. That’s wrong!

I wrote in a post years ago – Why Facebook Doesn’t Change Anyone’s Opinion – and I believe the same rationale could be applied to the memes and labels people try to use to shame people or make them feel stupid. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, the people posting all those memes and using labels are actually the ones who aren’t so smart? After all, Einstein did say the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

We would all do well to spend more time focusing on what we have in common versus what makes us different. We’d get along better and get more accomplished.

What Do You Think About Donald Trump?

/0 Comments/by

“What do you think about Donald Trump?” That’s a question I hear more and more these days. People are curious about how he is in position to possibly win the presidency of the United States.

From the beginning the experts have been wrong about his chances and so was I. Remember when Trump announced his candidacy and proceeded to make remarks about Mexicans being criminals and rapists? Along with most of the political pundits I thought he was done before he even got started. We were wrong.

Remember when he said Senator John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he was captured? Political analysts thought he was done and so did I. But he wasn’t. Any number of things he’s said could have resulted in his demise. Consider this short list:

  • Carly Fiorina’s looks
  • Megan Kelly’s blood
  • Possibly punishing women who would get an abortion if abortion were illegal
  • The name calling with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio

Despite these things his following only got stronger. Why? As I wrote months ago (Have We Changed or Are We Just Politically Correct), perhaps he is saying what many Americans actually think and feel but wouldn’t say in the politically correct environment in which we live. Now those people have a voice in Donald Trump.

Violence

Early on, Trump followers were denounced because of their strong-arm tactics at some of his rallies. They would shout down the opposition and sometimes get physical with Trump’s approval. People accused him of inciting violence.

Now the tables have turned. In Arizona we witnessed Trump protestors blocking roads to prevent his supporters from attending a rally. In several cities in California Trump protestors went much further than Trump’s followers ever had. Young people assaulted Trump supporters – male and female – without provocation. All the while the media showed Mexican flags waving in the background.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is playing a big role in favor of Trump. This psychological concept shows people aren’t always open to new information and possible change. No, most people look for information that confirms what they already believe. In the case of Trump, young Latinos shown harassing Trump supporters on the nightly news only confirms for many people that he has been right all along about immigration.

On the subject of confirmation bias, most anti-Trump people don’t realize they’re falling into his trap the more they try to bash him. His supporters simply see their actions as attacks on him and double down in their belief in him.

The Media

And then there’s the media. They don’t know how to deal with Trump either. Case in point, CNN’s Jake Tapper interviewed Donald about his comments regarding a Mexican-American judge presiding over a case dealing with Trump University. When Tapper tried to get Trump to admit his comment was racist, Trump didn’t yield an inch and didn’t come across as someone back-peddling. He continued to assert his point about why he said what he said. Tapper looked like he didn’t know what to do. Trump has taken considerable heat for the comment, especially from the Republican Party, but Trump supporters see this as proof that all along the establishment has been out to stop him. Their view isn’t that the party is doing this for America but rather for their own power that’s at stake.

Authenticity

With Trump, people feel like they know what they get. He speaks his mind and doesn’t come across as a polished, Teflon-fake, career politician. Does he flip on some issues? Yes but it doesn’t come across as someone who puts up their finger to see which way the wind is blowing. Right or wrong, like him or dislike him, Trump says what he believes, or more rightly, feels in the moment, and people are responding to that. For more on this read Donald Trump’s mASS Appeal.

Hillary and Bernie

It certainly helps Trump that he’s running against Hillary Clinton. Were it not for Trump being in the race, polls show Hillary would be the most disliked candidate to ever run for president. Her years in politics and numerous scandals (and Bill’s) have many people saying they would never under any circumstances vote for her. Her email scandal only reinforces for many people that she’s not trustworthy and is a “typical politician.”

To make matters worse, she’s in danger of losing many Bernie Sanders’ supporters who feel they cannot vote for her in a system they believe is rigged. They would rather send a message to the Democratic Party, even if it means losing the election, because when Bernie loses they will say it’s because of the rigged system. Why would they want to vote for Hillary, whom they see as part of the problem, after losing what they perceive to be an unfair election?

So there’s a confluence of things that are making Donald Trump’s improbable run a reality. Divorced from emotion, if someone would have told you years ago some of the things Trump would say and do I highly doubt you’d think there was any possibility he’d be in the position he’s in now. But we cannot divorce ourselves from emotion.

The Most Important Reason

This leads me to the final and perhaps most important reason Trump is succeeding – he’s a classic salesman. Good salespeople know people buy based on emotion and justify with logic after the fact. Trump drives home the message that America isn’t great right now and supports it by saying:

  • We negotiate bad deals
  • We overpay our share to defend the world
  • We have problems with illegal immigration
  • We have a problem with terrorism at home and abroad

It’s hard to dispute those things but Trump isn’t giving details on what he’ll do to make us great again. Instead he makes grand promises:

  • He will negotiate great deals
  • He will Cut defense funding to NATO, Japan, South Korea and other countries
  • He will build a wall…that Mexico will pay for
  • He will ban Muslims from coming to America for a period of time

In short, he “promises” to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump is tapping into emotions most other politicians can’t get to with their bland style of politics and old rhetoric. You may not agree with Donald’s methods, or like them, but there’s no denying he’s doing what almost nobody expected.

What’s to Come

There’s no guarantee he will win in November but there is one thing I think we can all agree on – this will be unlike any presidential campaign we’ve ever witnessed. Everyone should pay close attention to what is said by both parties to try to win our votes because the stakes are high.

Have We Changed or Are We Just Politically Correct?

/1 Comment/by

I’ve never been as fascinated by the political process as I am right now. My fascination has more to do with how the process has been flipped upside down by people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

In August I wrote a post on Donald Trump’s mASS Appeal where I shared some insight into why so many people might be attracted to The Donald. My basic premise was that he was more “real” than traditional political candidates. If you want to find out more about fake candidates read The Adjustment Bureau of Politics and Persuasion.

As the primary races continue, I’m amazed Trump continues to have such mass appeal. Quite frankly, his rhetoric scares many people and some have equated his rise to Hitler’s in Germany because he says things that have been labeled as bigoted, racist and intolerant. Many politicians have said more benign things and seen their careers go down the toilet but Trump is unapologetic and only seems to increase his support.

How does he do it? Trump’s support is not as big as you might think. While his support seems to be greater than any other candidate at this point consider the following:

  • Roughly half of the citizens vote Republican in presidential elections. If there were 100 possible voters that means about 50 would identify as Republican and maybe vote in the Republican primaries.
  • Good voter turnout would be about 60%, so of those 50 possible Republican voters only 30 would actually vote in the primaries.
  • Up to this point Trump has been getting about 1/3 of the Republican vote in a large field of candidates leaving the others to fight for the remaining 2/3. If one-third of 30 people voting go to Trump that means he get support from 10 people.
  • Now consider this – on the whole Trump is appealing to about 1 in 10 people. That’s not a big number but it’s enough at this point to make a big difference in the process.

Why is Trump’s message resonating? We get more and more “politically correct” but that doesn’t mean people believe in the things espoused or like them. What do I mean? Everyone has views on polarizing issues like faith, gay marriage, guns, race, immigration, terrorism, and wealth distribution to name just a few. While we all have views many people stay silent because they don’t want to go against the perceived majority.

You may or may not like what Trump says but when he speaks his mind he doesn’t care what people think. His frankness gives voice to many people who’ve felt silenced by political correctness. In other words, Trump is only saying what many people already think and feel.

In the end I think Trump’s success, whether or not it leads to the presidency, says as much about us as Americans as it does about candidate Trump. We may want to believe there’s no place for a person like Trump in American politics but obviously there is a place because we’re witnessing it.

While America is more tolerant than ever before maybe in the end Trump’s rise shows we’ve not come as far as we believed. And perhaps this is a wake up call to keep the dialogue open so we can learn and grow instead of smiling and nodding but disagreeing on the inside. As Samuel Butler wrote, “He who complies against his will is of his own opinion still.”

The Adjustment Bureau of Politics and Persuasion

/0 Comments/by

Matt Damon starred in the 2011 movie, The Adjustment Bureau, in which he played the youngest politician to be elected to Congress. In the opening scene he has to address supporters after having lost an election bid for the Senate he clearly should have won.

During his consolation speech he begins to reveal the truth about himself and his campaign. He tells the audience everyone assumed his meteoric rise as a young congressman was due to his authenticity. He proceeds to tell people he’s not been authentic at all and starts by telling them a phrase he had just mentioned about his old neighborhood was made up and used only because it polled well with voters. He goes on to say his tie was chosen from 56 others because of what it signified. Then he tells people his campaign paid $7,300 to find out how to perfectly scuff his shoes to appeal to the widest array of voters. Ironically he was viewed more positively the day after the speech because he’d finally been truly authentic.

We’re knee deep in the political process in the U.S., so I thought it was time to share a little about persuasion in the political process. Damon’s revelation about his campaign is more real than you might imagine.

Over the years I’ve participated in many “marketing studies” and quite a few have centered on politics. During these political studies people are literally gathered together for the sole purpose of finding out which phrases resonate best with voters. Mind you, during the selection process participants are paired down so the pollsters understand if the phrases will work best with white, middle aged, conservative males making a certain amount of money or minority voters having a certain educational background, or soccer moms.

By a show of hands or in written format those conducting the marketing ask participants which sentence in each pair appeals the most. Examples might include:

A. A strong national defense
B. A strong U.S. military

A. Family values
B. American ideals

Let’s assume most people like A in both pairs.
Before you know it you will hear politicians talking about how “a strong national defense” is important and how the other party doesn’t care about “family values.”

I hope you’re seeing the picture that’s being painted. Very little of what you hear from people running for Congress, the Senate or president comes from their own words. What you’re getting is a republican or democratic made up persona designed to appeal to the most voters.

Part of the reason republican outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have gotten so much attention from the masses and media is because they’re not run of the mill puppet-like politicians who’ve been airbrushed to appeal to voters. For the most part – love ‘em or hate ‘em – they are presenting their real selves. To a lesser degree (only because he’s been in politics a long time) Bernie Sanders has a similar appeal for many democratic voters.

Most career politicians spout the “same old same old.” You only have to watch a few debates to hear the same politically correct jargon and talking points intended to appeal to the base.

For example, it always sounds as if every governor led the greatest comeback his or her state had ever seen. The skeptic in me always thought things were so bad with the economy in 2008 if you couldn’t boast about lower unemployment, increased spending on schools, new programs, etc., in your state then you would have been a terrible governor! Blah, blah, blah. The rising tide of an economic recovery helped every state look much better when compared to six or seven years ago.

So what are we to do? Pay attention to what’s said and see if you can confirm key facts. It’s amazing how politicians will tell us things that are not true or are a twisted version of the truth to support their points.

No candidate is perfect and none will hold your opinions or values on everything. In all likelihood there will be two or three core issues for each voter that will determine who they vote for. It may be healthcare reform, the economy, immigration, ISIS, foreign affairs, etc. No matter who you vote for there may be inconsistencies with their positions on other issues but then again each of us are inconsistent to one degree or another. Just make sure whoever you vote for is the person they present themselves to be and not some campaign consultant, poll-generated image designed to appeal to vote getting. Vote for a real person…if one happens to be running.

Donald Trump’s mASS appeal

/0 Comments/by

Donald Trump has struck a nerve with the Republican Party, the media, and many Americans. You might say he has mASS appeal. He’s brash, offensive and unapologetic. The Republican Party knows he holds the key to their possible victory or defeat in the 2016 election should he choose to run as a third party candidate. The media cannot try any harder to discredit him and his poll numbers only rise. Many Americans find him offensive but because he resonates with so many, he has to be take seriously as seen by his #1 standing going into and after the first primary debate.

I must confess, when Trump announced his candidacy and made the remarks he did about illegal Mexican immigrants being rapists and murders, I was shocked. I posted on Facebook that Fox News and anyone else who took him seriously after those comments would lose all credibility. I was wrong.

Love him or hate him there’s no denying he’s having an impact on the Republican primary and might do the same in the general election if he remains a strong presence but doesn’t win over the establishment as the nominee.

So why is “The Donald” commanding so much attention? I have a theory. In recent years there have been many television shows which have captivated American audiences such as Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, and Mad Men to name just a few. If you’ve seen these shows then you know you find yourself rooting for the bad guy.

In Breaking Bad, the lead character is Walter White, an unassuming high school chemistry teacher who begins to churn out crystal meth after he gets lung cancer. He does so to provide for his family and despite his downward spiral you root for him.

Jax Teller is the lead in Sons of Anarchy. He wants to follow his late father’s ideas to get his motorcycle gang out of drugs and guns. As he manipulates and kills, you still find yourself pulling for him because his ultimate desire is good.

Dexter is the lead in the show by the same name. He’s a serial killer who has learned to confine his psychopathic nature to only killing bad people, the kind that most people feel deep in their heart deserve the death penalty for their heinous crimes. You not only pull for Dexter you actually come to like him.

Much less psychopathic and not a killer, Don Draper is the lead in Mad Men. The ad man is a womanizer and heavy drinker with a past he tries to hide because it could land him in jail. You see a good side of Don shine every now and then and consequently you pull for him despite his character flaws.

In each show we don’t root for the bad guys because we agree with their antics but something about each stands out – we know who they are. We know they’re bad but each really does want something better for himself, his family and friends. By contrast, so many “good” people they come in contact with aren’t actually good and viewers find themselves repelled by their false veneers. In real life think about Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong and many others who appeared to be good people until the truth was found out. It’s a classic case of the contrast phenomenon.

When it comes to politicians very few people truly believe any of them have our (Americans) best interest at heart. We’ve seen enough scandal (infidelity, drugs, bribes, etc.) that we see them all as having the false veneer covering a desire for power. We wonder when the next politician will fall because it’s only a matter of time.

With Donald what you see is what you get. When asked how he can disavow politicians who take large contributions after he’s made those political contributions, he’s candid when he says (my paraphrase) – “I know how the system works and paying money got me favors I would need down the road. But, I have so much money I can’t be bought.” That resonates with people because it’s truthful.

When the media attacks him and he corrects them for taking something out of context people love that because the media so often appears to look for ways to build up people then tear them down.

When Trump said McCain wasn’t a war hero because he was captured you’d have thought that would be the end. But it wasn’t and his numbers surged despite the media going after it from every angle.

In the end Donald Trump simply continues to be Donald Trump. Some people will love him and some will hate him but at least you know what you’re getting and I believe that’s his mASS appeal.

You’re Sure You’re Right? Really Sure?

/0 Comments/by

No doubt you’ve heard Donald Trump is running for president. It seems as if The Donald has said he might run each of the last four presidential races but he surprisingly took that step this time. The bigger news story came with his remarks about illegal aliens, especially people coming from the Mexican-American border, and the fallout with several organizations he did business with.

Trump’s remarks were incendiary and not worth repeating but now with the death of a San Francisco woman at the hands of an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times, Trump’s views have people talking even more. No doubt many people will take the killing as “proof” of Trump’s claims but is that viewpoint accurate?

There are two psychological concepts at work right now between Trump and this murder story: confirmation bias and the recency bias. Confirmation bias occurs when someone seeks information that only confirms what he or she already believes to be true. Recency effect bias occurs when our attention is drawn to something – like recent news stories – and we give more weight to that information than it deserves.

For example – the chance of being killed by a shark are incredibly small compared to the odds of dying in an automobile accident. However, with the recent shark attacks dominating the news (recency effect bias) many more people will stay away from the ocean than will stay away from cars. Each time another shark encounter is mentioned in the news people say, “I told you so” (confirmation bias).

The same phenomenon is taking place with Trump’s comments and illegal aliens. The comments are mentioned multiple times each day (recency effect bias) and the San Francisco killing is proof (confirmation bias) for many people that Trump is right. The danger is giving undeserved credibility to Trump’s racially insensitive remarks, which only perpetuates the problem of racial tension in our country.

We are all subject to the effects of confirmation bias and recency bias but unfortunately too often we’re unaware of it. He is another example – global warming / climate change. For the majority of people their experience dictates their view on the issue. A couple of very cold winters make many say, “Global warming is a farce. We’re experiencing record colds here!” On the other hand, people in parts of the country experiencing drought or unusually hot temperatures will take that as “proof” that global warming exists. In neither case can you prove or disprove the issue based on your limited experience. Each instance only confirms the bias many people already have on the issue.

So you’re thinking, “What does this have to do with me?” or “Why is this of any importance?”

If you happen to go before a jury wouldn’t you hope the people making a decision in your case would not be swayed by evidence solely because it confirmed what they already believed? Sure you would.

Would you want people making public policy decisions on something as important as global warming based on how hot their summer was or how cold their winter was? Of course not!

Making the best decisions possible entails understanding how our minds work. Sometimes the shortcuts we rely on don’t always lead to the right conclusions because more critical thinking is necessary. It’s hard work but when the stakes are high it’s a worthwhile investment of time and energy.