| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| More Thinking fast and Slow | |
| 2011-12-27 | |
Conservatives are usually at a disadvantage when confronting moral argument with rational analysis. Arthur Brooks, at the American Enterprise Institute (where, perhaps not coincidentally, Gingrich was until recently a senior fellow), has argued that the massive weight of economic evidence in favor of the free enterprise system fails to fully convince because countervailing left-leaning arguments carry greater psychological weight: Balanced budgets and higher GDP are no match for equality and social solidarity. To use cost-benefit reasoning against moral emotion is to bring a knife to a gunfight. Thus, very often if you make a moral argument -- that A is the right thing to do -- it trumps a practical argument that B might work out better. According to neuroscientists like Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia, the greater force of moral emotion is equally true of the brains of both conservatives and liberals, although the values they respond to differ somewhat. This explains Gingrich's recent rise: The former House speaker has adeptly, especially during debates, undercut the moral force of opposing arguments. Consider how his comment that Palestinians are an "invented" people created an immediate route to the conclusion nearly all Republicans share: that America needs to be on the side of Israel to a greater extent than reflected in current policy. Whether this is prudent diplomacy is certainly open to doubt. But Romney's reasonable questioning of whether this helps or harms Israel lacks the vividness of Gingrich's formulation. This approach, as cathartic as it might be, should not obscure the fact that a Gingrich candidacy might prove problematic. And, not insignificantly, Gingrich's chances in a general election contest against President Barack Obama seem slim. A recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows the former speaker trailing the current president by 11 percent in a hypothetical matchup. Polling by Reuters reveals a similar spread, while a Washington Post/ABC survey shows that 48% of the country view Gingrich unfavorably. Although Gingrich can give voice to the values of many conservatives, the rest of the country is unmoved or indeed, averse to his rhetoric. The polls, conversely, show Romney in a near dead heat with the president. Romney's long experience in the private sector, where data-driven analyses of the costs and benefits of every plan are expected and often legally required could arguably make him an effective president. But people don't make voting decisions the way corporate boards must; they're underwhelmed by justifications based largely on utilitarian interest. Thus, some focus groups have labeled the former Massachusetts governor "unexciting," "calculating," "distant." even "robotic." All of these perceptions (likely quite untrue on a personal level) are different labels for an undeveloped emotional connection to a segment of voting public. If Romney ultimately prevails in the primaries on the basis of his advantages in electability and executive experience, a stronger moral tone will almost certainly be necessary to win the election against Obama, who is a skilled expositor of left-of-center ideological formulations - and extraordinarily successful in persuading a nation of roughly 80% non-liberals to be swayed by them. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 extraordinarily successful in persuading a nation of roughly 80% non-liberals to be swayed by them. More like a nation of idiots! The dynamics of candidates is one thing, the dynamics of the electorate, quite something else. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-12-27 12:05 |
| #2 Title Sorted. Author unknown. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-12-27 11:20 |
| #1 Missing title, missing author |
| Posted by: gromky 2011-12-27 10:47 |