So . . . I had a request from one of my regular readers (yes, they exist) that I provide a follow-up to the U.S. midterm elections earlier this month. I had done a pre-election post discussing the sad state of reductionism in politics. Today I'm going to write about the fallout from the Democrat's poor showing and the emergence of the tea party. And the news will be good, kind of. Also, I once again relate political decisions to buying a television, all after the jump.
We all know that politicians get elected by making promises. And we all know that we throw the bums out 2 or 4 (or many more) years later because they did not keep their promises. If this is the case, why do we still believe the promises when they are made? It's kind of like something I read a while ago: you can know (as many do) that if people are touching their face, specifically their nose, why saying something, the chances are higher that they are lying. Yet we do not apply that knowledge in practice; we tend not to notice when people are touching their face while talking. I'm touching my face right now while writing this, and you still believe me.
But it's not just lack of awareness of a lie that causes us to believe it. A couple of decades ago some marketing researchers investigated the effect of inflated reference prices on purchases. If we're buying a TV, and we see it is $175 but the regular price is $300, we may see that as a deal. What if the "regular price" is $1000? Ignoring for now the fact that there are laws around comparison prices, would there be a stronger impact of such an unbelievable price?
In fact, there is. While it was found that people were more distrustful of reference prices the higher they got, it was also found that people were more willing to buy the higher they got. In other words, an inflated comparison price was simultaneously less believable and more persuasive. Extrapolating that to politics, a candidate who makes more and more promises will find both more skepticism and more votes.
This is what worked for Obama in 2008. Obama made some concrete promises (e.g. health care), but mainly ran on a campaign of hope and change. This was inspiring and personally relevant to many people. But running on such a powerful message is a double-edged sword. If I believe Obama can effect change in my day-to-day life (whether that was intended as the message or not, it was certainly how it was perceived), I'm being set up for disappointment. Obama can't get me more money or happiness; he can (possibly) affect political change. He can't fulfill my hopes and dreams, no matter how many times he makes me hope and dream.
This message of change also worked well for the Tea Party this time around (though they are inspiring different aspirations of change). But two years from now, will people feel that things have changed? Will Sarah Palin be swept in to the White House on a sea of satisfied Tea Partiers?
(I certainly hope not. But perhaps if her TV show bombs she can be sweeping the White House . . . maybe not, she's probably a security risk.)
The Tea Party won three senate seats and a handful of spots in the house of representatives. This is not the base from which massive change occurs. Apart from rhetoric, they are going to be largely ineffectual and if they do not disappear by 2012 (well, apparently we are all going to disappear in 2012, thanks, Mayans) they won't last much longer. They'll be absorbed into the GOP or maintain their independence - either way, they will not create the change they promised.
But someone making lots of promises will be right there to replace them.
No comments:
Post a Comment