Narcissism of Minor Differences

I have repeated on several occasions that this blog was launched largely as an outlet for me to vent my displeasure with the atrocious administration of George W. Bush. As other authors climbed aboard and joined me in blogging, all of us were united in our disgust, disdain and disappointment with Bush-Cheney. The list of our differences with G.W.B.'s policies is long and our philosophical disagreements clear.

Now that the Democratic nomination process is under way, the six A.B. authors are no longer in perfect agreement. Some of us were not particularly excited with the initial slate of candidates.  Anna and I broke early for Obama. For Joe it was "Edwards or bust." Andrew too was an Edwards supporter. Sujatha agreed with Kucinich on most issues but knew he couldn't win. She is not particularly enthusiastic about the current choice of candidates but will vote Democratic in November no matter who the eventual nominee is. Dean hasn't shown his hand.

It is interesting that a small group of politically like minded people cannot agree on the nominee of our own party although ideologically the candidates differ from each other only on the minor details of their policies. The one area which sets Hillary Clinton clearly apart from Barack Obama was her vote on the Iraq war (later a similar vote on Iran) and her initial reluctance to commit to ending the occupation.

While discussing Clinton and Obama, each one of us brings to the table our own comfort (or discomfort) level about them. Although Sujatha and Joe found the greatest areas of agreement with Obama, as shown by the results of a simple test, for both of them Obama's message of hope and change falls flat and they tend to tune him out. Anna and I on the other hand, have found agreement with Obama on issues and are willing to take a chance on his doing the "right thing" if he does become the president. 

After I decided to cast the primary vote for Obama, I have paid more attention to his views - away from the rousing speeches at campaign rallies where he speaks like an inspirational speaker. In quiet Q & A sessions I have heard him speak at greater lengths about his plans for health care, education and Iraq and found them mostly satisfactory. (The same details are also available at his campaign website for anyone who wants to find out) But others who are not sold on Obama tend see a political light weight who is riding a wave of popularity based on his oratory and empty rhetoric. Because of this perception, they may not bother to investigate fully where he stands on issues.   

At this stage of the nomination process, it would be honest to say that our decisions are being driven as much by our emotional connection (or lack of it) to a candidate as they are with his / her policies. This is to be expected. When nothing very substantive like party allegiance or broad philosophy distinguishes candidates on a tangible, factual tally sheet, our choice very often comes down to intangibles - personality, the cadence of voice, whether the candidate looks sincere, honest and trustworthy, their life stories and background. Heck, sometimes it comes down to how a candidate eats a tamale!

When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins

Science shows that when we are deciding which candidate to support, anxiety, enthusiasm and whom we identify with count more than reason or logic.

It is a core tenet of political psychology that voters know nothing. Or next to nothing. Or next to nothing about what civics classes (forgive the anachronism) told us really matters. In 1992, the one fact that almost every voter knew about George H. W. Bush, besides that he was the incumbent president, was that he loathed broccoli. A close second was the name of the Bushes' springer spaniel, Millie, which 86 percent of likely voters said they knew. But when it came to the positions of Bush and his opponent, Bill Clinton, on important issues, voters were, shall we say, a tad underinformed. Just 15 percent, for instance, knew that both candidates supported the death penalty.

The fact that people have what is euphemistically called cognitive-processing limitations—most cannot or will not learn about and remember candidates' records or positions—means voters must substitute something else for that missing knowledge. What that something is has become a heated topic among scientists who study decision-making, and, of course, campaign strategists and pollsters. Some answers are clear, however. In general elections, a large fraction of voters use political party as that substitute, says psychologist Drew Westen of Emory University; some 60 percent typically choose a candidate solely or largely by party affiliation. The next criterion is candidates' positions on issues; single-issue voters in particular will never even consider a candidate they disagree with. In a primary, however, party affiliation is no help, since all of the choices belong to the same one. And parsing positions doesn't help much this year, especially in the Democratic race, where the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are minute. "When voting your party doesn't apply, and when the candidates don't differ much on the issues, you have to choose on some other basis," says political scientist Richard Lau of Rutgers University, coauthor of the 2006 book "How Voters Decide." "That's when you get people voting by heuristics [cognitive shortcuts] and going with their gut, with who they most identify with, or with how the candidates make them feel." What has emerged from the volatile and unpredictable primary season so far is that the candidates who can make voters feel enthusiasm and empathy—and, perhaps paradoxically, anxiety—are going to make it to November and maybe beyond.

Because voters are not computers, willing and able to remember and analyze candidates' every position, they rely on what political scientist Samuel Popkin of the University of California, San Diego, calls "gut rationality," which provides one of the most powerful of the heuristics Lau cites. In his now classic 1991 book "The Reasoning Voter," Popkin uses an example from the 1976 Republican primaries, which pitted President Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan. While campaigning in Texas, Ford ate, or tried to eat, a tamale without first removing its corn-husk wrapper. He nearly choked on it. Mexican-American voters inferred from this—reasonably, Popkin argues—that Ford didn't know much about them or their culture, and that it therefore made sense to pull the lever for Reagan. The Gipper carried Texas overwhelmingly, winning 96 delegates to Ford's zero, thanks in part to the Latino vote.

See Sharon Begley's full article in Newsweek.

 

Comments

[najeeb (for Obama)]

Your analysis is right. Anytime someone speaks with such eloquence, such emotion, people immediately conclude that it is all talk, no matter. I have tried hard to separate his rousing speaches from the content of it and i have pretty much come to the same conclusion you did that he truly has thought through the issues and has a clear vision for the future of America.

[Sujatha]

I'm as appreciative of a rousing speech as anybody else-it is a gift that comes only to a few people. My problem with speeches is, being a half-way decent orator myself, I have been able to give convincing speeches(usually in some competition or the other) where I have been able to convince listeners and judges of positions that I didn't really believe in myself, just recited from a memorized presentation.

Now, back to Obama: here's an interesting analysis from yesteryears(2006), well before the start of the presidential primary season, that sheds a fair amount of light and shade on th e junior senator from Illinois as a creature adapting to Washington.

A couple of questions raised from reading through Obama's manifesto on his website:

"Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence."

Would this be explicitly necessary? Should I be visualizing battered spouses taking off 6 weeks to deal with recovery from injuries being covered by the new and improved Family and Medical Leave Act? Wouldn't that be already covered under the provisions which state:
# or the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
# for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
# to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
# to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

Another example:
Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.

The problem here is the non-promise promise, again:
From the Wikipedia page on tax credits:
"Tax credits may be characterized as either refundable or non-refundable, or equivalently non-wastable or wastable. Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax.Examples of refundable tax credits include the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit in the U.S., and the working tax credits or child tax credits in the UK."

Why the promise to make a tax credit refundable that is already refundable?

Perhaps I'm being too skeptical, but rest assured, I'm going to go over HRC's manifesto with a similar louse comb. I'll be sure to report on any similar discrepancies that I find there too!

Politics, politics...Ah, don't we love it??

[Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery]

Krugman blasted Obama supporters in his NYT Op-Ed today. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion

[Ruchira]

Sujatha,

Campaign manifestos are mostly vague and full of fluff. They are promises after all. They don't tell us "exactly" what a candidate will do but what they wish to accomplish. Once elected, they are hemmed in by congress, lobbies and myriad other battling forces. We know not to expect crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" but a step or two forward in a direction we want the country to proceed. None of the candidates, including Kucinich with his "Department of Peace" is likely to deliver exactly what is promised.

Instead of the positive "to do" lists dangled before us, sometimes it is more educational to figure out what a candidate is "not" likely to do. Look at the list of debtors they will NOT have to pay off, the list of voters they are likely to NOT piss off, their likelihood of NOT betraying their supporters, the lies they will NOT tell to take credit, pander and save their own behinds. When you are not sure of the positives, the potential negatives often are a good way to hedge one's bet. This time around, missing a candidate like Gore whose positives I am aware of, I am going with a candidate whose "known" negatives are fewer on my checklist than Hillary and Bill's (yes, we should never forget HIM). I know I am taking a chance. But despite Bill Clinton's dark warning, I am "rolling the dice" for Obama.

Michael Blim, an author on 3QD and an ABC (Anyone But Clinton) feels like I do. He uses a sport analogy - he's throwing a Hail Mary pass for Obama.

[Sujatha]

Ruchira, since I promised- here's an example of fudging from the HRC manifesto:
Helping to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act to enable new parents to take time off without losing their jobs, and expanding it to make it available to more parents and to provide for longer leave.

This is a fudged claim. The FMLA act enacted into law in 1993 (when Hillary was First Lady, not legislator) :
# Subject to section 6383, an employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 administrative workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following:
# "(A) Because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.
Hillary did make an introductory statement in support of expanding FMLA to cover spouses, parents and children of soldiers injured in combat in 2007, but that isn't the same thing as the claim on her website that she helped pass the FMLA in its original form.

After reading more details at both Obama's and Clinton's respective positions, the one thing that is evident is that Clinton is either a bit more of a micromanaging policy wonkette than Obama, or they have staffers who convey that impression of their candidates. Not a huge difference in most policy positions, barring the technicalities of the health care proposals.

So, in the final analysis, I'm left with judging on the 'fluff' of public perceptions, which is currently swinging the Obama way, but could change on a dime tomorrow, if the media decides to excoriate Obama and beatify Hillary instead of vice-versa.

What did you think of the Hillary camp handling of the Shuster flap? My sense was that others such as Chris Mathews haven't been treated to such vitriol, for even more personal attacks than Shuster's comment on Chelsea. Maybe Shuster's initial refusal to apologize and the apology under pressure from the higher-ups painted a bright bull's eye on him for the Hillary campaign.

[Ruchira]

Oh, Hillary is a wonkette alright! Except one has to take your "louse comb" to figure out how much of the wonkettry is true, half true or outright lies. She is running as her own woman but keeps conflating her achievements with her husband's. Rather than my wading through the thick smoke and mirror, please see again Michael Blim's comment on the same post at 3QD I linked to earlier. Also see Frank Rich in the New York Times.

Just today I heard Hillary tell an audience that she brings to the table actual policy plans and not just uplifting words to "whoop" up the crowd. She also said that one has to see what states the two candidates are winning. She has won important states like CA, MA, NY, AZ, NM, MI and FL and not inconsequential ones like Idaho and N. Dakota. She forgot to include GA, IL and WA. She didn't mention that CA, MA and NY will probably vote Democratic no matter who the candidate is but in states like GA, ID, N.D., NE and CO only Obama stands a fighting chance. Also, note how brilliantly she slipped in NM, MI and FL. This is what I fear with the Clintons. Even when they are giving you "facts," you have to figure out what the meaning of "is" is.

As for the MSNBC windbags, I don't care if all of them are fired starting with the insufferable Chris Matthews. Let them just retain Keith Olbermann.

[Joe]

Ruchira: Why does Obama stand a fighting chance against John McCain in states like Idaho and North Dakota? I'll concede, arguendo, that Hillary does not. But the only justification I've seen for this popular theory is one that strikes me as silly, namely, that he did well in Democratic primaries in those states. (Which is kind of like saying that McCain can compete in New York because he can beat Huckabee there in a Republican contest.)

Incidentally, I may have mentioned this to in an email to Ruchira, but as long as we're discussing political allegiances or attachment to candidates, I may as well share my new one on the blog: I think I'm likely to vote Nader, if my state is not a swing state.

[Ruchira]

Joe:

Only because there are also Republicans (specially younger ones) who are sick of the war. McCain has promised them 100 years more of warfare.

Aside from Idaho or N. Dakota, Obama is as likely win MA, CA and NY as Hillary. So Hillary's argument doesn't stand scrutiny.

You should do what you feel is the right decision. My arguments here are not meant to convert anyone - just the explanation for why I cannot bring myself to feel comfortable with the specter of a third Clinton administration. The dynastic trend doesn't sit well with me either.

I am not an Obama cheerleader. My real choice was Al Gore. Just as you explained to me in your email about your lack of enthusiasm for Obama, in my case, Obama grates on me less than Hillary does.

I too will vote Nader (the last I heard, he will only run if Hillary is the Democratic candidate) or not vote at all if the party insiders nominate Hillary with the help of super delegates and neutralize popular votes in the event that Obama ends up winning more primaries and caucuses.

[Joe]

I agree, Hillary's argument -- that she's winning in the important states -- doesn't stand scrutiny. My opinion is that Democratic primary and caucus results tell us nothing about potential electability. But if you're right about a growing anti-war (or anti-this-war) sentiment among right-leaning voters, then it's certainly plausible that Obama could compete in rural areas (or at least rural areas in the mountains and midwest, where apartheid was not until recently a way of life).

For what it's worth, I expect that it will come down to the same swing states it always comes down to: Florida, Ohio, and the like. But if it doesn't, that would be exciting.

[Judith Shapiro]

What a worthy reason for starting a blog! I'm counting down the days, hours, minutes until W is gone. As for me, I'm going to be happy to vote for Obama or Hillary in the general election. And as the states start piling up in his favor, it's looking more like Obama every day.