Post-reality politics
12/11/15 05:27
I am well aware that there are many different forms of intelligence. Not every person learns in the same way and there are those who possess genius in a particular aspect of life who are challenged by other areas. For example, a person can be a true musical genius and have difficulty learning mathematics. One can possess a nearly perfect spatial awareness and be able to navigate through complex paths without having musical skills. I know this in part because I have read books and articles written by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. Language is one of the best ways for me to learn. I would be labeled a verbal/linguistic learner by adherents to Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory. I love words. I like to read. I write. I speak. I have often thought that if I weren’t a preacher, I would be drawn to the lecture hall. I don’t know if I would be suited to university teaching, but the field attracts me. I believe deeply in developing critical thinking skills and using the power of language to enable others to grow and learn. I suspect that I would be challenged, however, by the rigors and struggles of a contemporary elementary classroom, where a teacher must be constantly employing a wide variety of different teaching techniques and styles to motivate children who learn in diverse ways.
I enjoy the give and take of formal debate, in which ideas are offered, challenged, reformed and used to persuade. Having said that, I am baffled by what is labeled debate in politics. Both in our legislative bodies and in the displays produced for television as part of political campaigns, there is virtually no listening as a part of contemporary political debate. The speeches that are made do not follow the topics of the questions asked, there is no attempt at persuasion, only attacking persons and ideas that seem threatening or simply are different than those of the candidate or legislator. I have often said that I think our state legislators ought to take at least one day each session when they listened as high school debaters presented rational arguments on the issues in front of the legislature. I suspect that our legislators lack both skills of listening and of forming cogent rational arguments. They could learn a thing or two from students who have been trained to argue both sides of an issue.
Without trying to influence your vote, I can’t resist making a comment about the current political climate in our country. I am worried that we seem to have entered a post-rational era in American politics. It is as if the truth no longer matters. Public attention, media exposure, sound bytes, and bravado are the qualities that the candidates seek. There seems to be a lack of balanced, reasonable, fact-based thinking.
Bear with me for a minute. While we do have primary elections in the United States and the popular vote is a factor in selecting candidates, the complete process is one of selecting delegates to a convention. In previous election cycles, candidates engage in a process of delegate mapping that keeps track of the number of votes that they will have at the convention. This means that a candidate needs to have an appeal in a wide variety of different locations with a wide variety of different issues. An intelligent campaign pays close attention to shifting demographics. As a result both of the major political parties’ candidates used to play to the middle. The system tended to lean towards political insiders, those with experience who have been previously known not just by the public but also by the process. The location of “the middle” shifts with the demographics of the country.
In a political mapping scenario, a Republican candidate would understand that while the most recent successful Republican candidate for the presidency, George W. Bush, was elected with 41% of the Hispanic Vote, the rapid growth of the percentage of voters who are Hispanic means the next successful candidate would need a higher percentage. With over 800,000 new Hispanic citizens coming of voting age each year, you can argue that it would take 47% of the Hispanic vote for a candidate to win in the 2016 election.
That argument seems to have no impact on the current leader in the polls. It would be hard to do more to alienate Hispanic voters than Donald Trump has already done. I am sure, however, that making this argument to him would have no impact on him at all. He appears to be far more interested in ratings and current poll numbers than in actual votes at the convention or in the electoral college. When John Katich pointed out the ludicrous nature of Trump’s so called “plan” to immediately export all undocumented aliens and build a wall to keep anyone without proper documents from entering the country, his argument was simply ignored at the debate. His poll numbers went down and those of Donald Trump went up. It is as if the truth no longer matters in the political argument.
It seems that evidence is for wimps, that objective truth just doesn’t matter, that reason need not be applied. Pipe dreams and fear are the dominant tools of the frontrunners at this point in the campaign. Trump’s signature television line, “you’re fired,” seems to be applied to all who disagree with him. If you don’t agree, you don’t matter.
Another frontrunner, Dr. Ben Carson appears to be running with a fictional personal history. The facts of his own personal past and the rhetoric of his speeches don’t line up, but so far that has not had a significant impact on his poll ratings.
There is a magician appearing at the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center tomorrow night. I won’t be making the show, but I’ve read a bit about the illusionist Jay Owenhouse, who travels with two tigers. He performs escapes, slight of hand, and has a highly produced show where things appear to be different than they are. People go to his shows to be entertained. He claims that what makes his shows unique is that instead of “fooling people for two hours” he seeks to “inspire people to see the illusions as a metaphor.”
That got me to thinking. Maybe the candidates aren’t just trying to fool all of the people in America. Maybe their post-rational arguments are some kind of metaphor.
If so, I don’t get it yet.
I enjoy the give and take of formal debate, in which ideas are offered, challenged, reformed and used to persuade. Having said that, I am baffled by what is labeled debate in politics. Both in our legislative bodies and in the displays produced for television as part of political campaigns, there is virtually no listening as a part of contemporary political debate. The speeches that are made do not follow the topics of the questions asked, there is no attempt at persuasion, only attacking persons and ideas that seem threatening or simply are different than those of the candidate or legislator. I have often said that I think our state legislators ought to take at least one day each session when they listened as high school debaters presented rational arguments on the issues in front of the legislature. I suspect that our legislators lack both skills of listening and of forming cogent rational arguments. They could learn a thing or two from students who have been trained to argue both sides of an issue.
Without trying to influence your vote, I can’t resist making a comment about the current political climate in our country. I am worried that we seem to have entered a post-rational era in American politics. It is as if the truth no longer matters. Public attention, media exposure, sound bytes, and bravado are the qualities that the candidates seek. There seems to be a lack of balanced, reasonable, fact-based thinking.
Bear with me for a minute. While we do have primary elections in the United States and the popular vote is a factor in selecting candidates, the complete process is one of selecting delegates to a convention. In previous election cycles, candidates engage in a process of delegate mapping that keeps track of the number of votes that they will have at the convention. This means that a candidate needs to have an appeal in a wide variety of different locations with a wide variety of different issues. An intelligent campaign pays close attention to shifting demographics. As a result both of the major political parties’ candidates used to play to the middle. The system tended to lean towards political insiders, those with experience who have been previously known not just by the public but also by the process. The location of “the middle” shifts with the demographics of the country.
In a political mapping scenario, a Republican candidate would understand that while the most recent successful Republican candidate for the presidency, George W. Bush, was elected with 41% of the Hispanic Vote, the rapid growth of the percentage of voters who are Hispanic means the next successful candidate would need a higher percentage. With over 800,000 new Hispanic citizens coming of voting age each year, you can argue that it would take 47% of the Hispanic vote for a candidate to win in the 2016 election.
That argument seems to have no impact on the current leader in the polls. It would be hard to do more to alienate Hispanic voters than Donald Trump has already done. I am sure, however, that making this argument to him would have no impact on him at all. He appears to be far more interested in ratings and current poll numbers than in actual votes at the convention or in the electoral college. When John Katich pointed out the ludicrous nature of Trump’s so called “plan” to immediately export all undocumented aliens and build a wall to keep anyone without proper documents from entering the country, his argument was simply ignored at the debate. His poll numbers went down and those of Donald Trump went up. It is as if the truth no longer matters in the political argument.
It seems that evidence is for wimps, that objective truth just doesn’t matter, that reason need not be applied. Pipe dreams and fear are the dominant tools of the frontrunners at this point in the campaign. Trump’s signature television line, “you’re fired,” seems to be applied to all who disagree with him. If you don’t agree, you don’t matter.
Another frontrunner, Dr. Ben Carson appears to be running with a fictional personal history. The facts of his own personal past and the rhetoric of his speeches don’t line up, but so far that has not had a significant impact on his poll ratings.
There is a magician appearing at the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center tomorrow night. I won’t be making the show, but I’ve read a bit about the illusionist Jay Owenhouse, who travels with two tigers. He performs escapes, slight of hand, and has a highly produced show where things appear to be different than they are. People go to his shows to be entertained. He claims that what makes his shows unique is that instead of “fooling people for two hours” he seeks to “inspire people to see the illusions as a metaphor.”
That got me to thinking. Maybe the candidates aren’t just trying to fool all of the people in America. Maybe their post-rational arguments are some kind of metaphor.
If so, I don’t get it yet.