Politicians love to make you angry at their opposition. Not only is it an effective way to get you to check their name in the voting booth, but anger is unique among negative emotions - it increases reliance on heuristics and stereotypes, and decreases reliance on issue concordance.[1]
One way politicians get you to feel angry is by convincing you that you are a victim (or potential victim) of the opposing candidate or his policies.[2] One example was on display in Monday night's presidential debate. Trump effectively pinned job outsourcing on Clinton, thereby telling displaced workers that they are victims of free trade agreements and the Clinton agenda. Though NAFTA, and free trade generally, are not cause for concern, expect Trump to continue this line of attack as he makes a play for Rust Belt swing states.
Hillary Clinton also wants you to think you have been victimized. In a speech given at Texas Southern University Clinton charged the GOP with "systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting." Specifically, Clinton referred to attempts by Republican governors to restrict early voting in their states as "a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other." Clinton wants non-white, poor, and young voters[3] to ignore the evidence that early voting policies actually decrease voter turnout, in order to convince them that Republicans want to take away their right to vote.[4][5]
Given that the best thing going for each candidate is that they are not their opposition[6] we should expect our victimhood will be preached from the housetops[7] by politicians and the political media. I encourage voters to be skeptical of such claims. Ask yourself, are you truly a victim? What harm has come to you? How direct is the connection between the offending politician and the harm? What was the politician's intent? With regards to being the potential victim of hypothetical, future policies, examine the policies carefully and consider the likelihood that they will be approved by congress. In many cases you may find that there's nothing to fear, in others you may have a legitimate claim to victimhood, but healthy skepticism yields the assurance that you aren't being duped.
[1] Likely because angry citizens spend less time researching candidates positions on the issues.
[2] Anger only works as a political mobilizer if a politician can effectively blame their opposition. Diffused blame, such as anger in the aftermath of the Great Recession, demobilizes low efficacy citizens. Additionally, higher efficacy citizens are more likely to vote for non-establishment political parties. See here.
[3] Is it coincidental Clinton highlights these demographics? Not a chance.
[4] She also would like us to ignore the Democratic Party's much more effective method of voter suppression - keeping local elections off cycle. Political hypocrisy knows no bounds.
[5] The Big Two don't have a duopoly on the victimization narrative. Libertarians and Greens attempt to convince citizens that Dems and the GOP collude to exclude the voices of voters better represented by third parties.
[6] Evidence that Madison Ave has perfected negative advertising?
[7] Gospel of Atwater 3:5
No comments:
Post a Comment