Tag Archives: politics

This Is Your Brain On Politics

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

As a nation and as a society, we tend to focus on our differences rather than our similarities. Over time, I’ve accumulated stories and discussions regarding the differences between progressives and conservatives when it comes to just general mindset, rather than specific ideology, and gained fascinating insight. I’ve already shared my beliefs of libertarianism in my posts Libertarian Smoke (and Mirrors), as well as The Undermining of America, but now I’d like to start with a more general, top-down approach to the issues, starting with the very foundations of the human mind.

In late 2010, a British neuroscientist named Dr. Rees scanned the brains of college students and two Members of Parliament to see if there were any significant differences between conservatives and liberals in terms of brain structure. He did so mostly as a joke after an interview with Radio 4’s Today Programme. In his experiment, he discovered that conservatives had larger amygdalae, whereas liberals had larger anterior cingulated cortexes. The amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for primitive emotions such as anger and fear, which Dr. Rees believes can help explain why conservatives have more aggressive, simplistic policies and ideologies. The anterior cingulated cortex, however, is the part of the brain responsible for rational cognition, decision making, empathy, and other more complex emotions. Naturally, this would lead liberals to having more complex, nuanced, logic-driven ideologies and policies, whereas conservatives are much more emotion driven. This could also lead conservatives to be more susceptible to propaganda, and fear or war mongering. Think about it; spreading xenophobia against Muslims is all about making people afraid of them – so afraid of them they don’t use logic and adhere only to their emotions, acting irrationally. The same is true for war mongering; make people fearful of Iran’s stockpile of ballistic missiles, coupled with creating fear of their Islamic culture and promotion of the idea that they are going to attack us when there’s absolute no evidence of that, riles up conservatives into an aggressive fury, and once again, manipulates them into acting irrationally and wanting to strike at Iran based on nothing more than appealing to their emotions.

While this study isn’t very reliable given its sample size, it did fit well into what we already see in conservative and progressive ideology. It was a good discovery worthy of further investigation, which I hope Dr. Rees did, but not too long ago another story came about that reminded me of his research. A study was published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin that found the more someone drinks, and the more intoxicated they become, the more conservative and right-wing their ideology shifts. Essentially this theory was based on the same principle; liberal positions are complex, detailed, and logical, which, while often the better choice in the long-run, is too hard for the uneducated or emotionally-driven to understand. Chris Mooney wrote this exact thing in Rolling Stone, saying:

“In other words, you could argue that liberals are really the outliers here. They’re the ones in the position of having to spin out complex, nuanced explanations for their views – explanations that, to much of the populace, feel like so much fancy-pants posturing. And while this may work for academia and wonkland, it can also get in the way of political effectiveness and leadership.”

When you’re drunk, you don’t care for facts or details. You’re all emotion, and significantly more careless and less capable of empathy with others (which we learned from the first study mentioned in this article). If you were to ask two people; one sober, one drunk, about what we should do with increasing tension with Iran, what do you believe their responses would be? The sober person would (hopefully) lean towards diplomacy or non-military action, or at least put more thought behind his or her answer. The drunk person, on the other hand, would be much more inclined to just say “I don’t know, bomb them.”

Now, what are generally considered the liberal and conservative positions on the issue of Iran, or any foreign nation with which we are having a dispute? Liberals favor diplomacy, usually by pressuring the government with economic sanctions to be more reasonable in negotiations, often appealing to the United Nations and NATO for further diplomatic support, and using minimal military action such as in Libya, where we used mostly naval power to enforce a no-fly zone, allowing us to leave there without a single lost American life. Now, the conservative position on foreign tension? In the words of my good friend George Carlin, “They have bigger dicks [than us]? BOMB THEM!”

I exaggerate, but nonetheless you get my point. More than that though, conservatives view this complex positioning of liberals as “weak” because they try as much as possible to avoid a physical altercation. Again, this feeds in perfectly to these two studies; conservatives are less likely to use logic, and telling someone that their idea is weak or stupid is somewhat cathartic because it feeds into a person’s emotional desire to be right. Whether consciously or unconsciously, conservatives may be more likely to not want to take the time to understand how they can be wrong because it’s emotionally displeasing to be wrong. So why would they go to the lengths of understanding your highly complex, detailed idea if that only means they will prove themselves wrong? This could be why conservatives dislike complexity entirely, and use it as an excuse to demean liberal ideas. In their instinctual mind (which some human beings don’t think much further beyond), complexity is nothing more than someone making up excuses because they don’t want to go to war, or get into a fight, and therefore, appear to conservatives as weak and cowardly.

The studies I shared in this piece are very informal and arguably unreliable, but given how well it fits the molds of conservative and liberal it wouldn’t shock me if there is some truth behind them. Despite this, reading over them and analyzing them has brought me to the interesting realization about why conservatives don’t like complexity. If you think about it, a great deal of conservative ideology is very simple-minded, even for the more complex issues. The primary one that comes to mind is the income tax. Many Republicans and Libertarians oppose the income tax altogether, and one of their primary arguments as to why it should be done away with is because it’s too complicated; figuring your annual income, total asset worth, factoring in deductions, how much in what account warrants reporting to the IRS, and if you’re off by one penny you risk an audit from the federal government which is exceedingly more complicated. This is part of (but not entirely) the reason why many conservatives, particularly the uneducated, favor a sales tax or a flat tax rate. Flat tax rates could allow someone to figure out how much they owe the federal government on a single piece of paper and a few punches of a calculator, and a sales tax takes all calculation responsibility off taxpayers entirely and leaves it in the hands of businesses. Many conservatives (again, especially among the uneducated) would actually prefer these systems despite the fact that doing so would dramatically raise taxes on the lower and middle classes by forcing them to sacrifice significantly more of their annual income than the wealthy, expect the poorest citizens to contribute equally the same amount as those that are more than capable of giving more and still having a huge chunk leftover for themselves (not to mention eliminate or greatly reduce the number of deductions for taxpayers).

This is perhaps the fundamental flaw with how conservatives think. They do everything they can to avoid complexity, and keep issues black and white. The obvious problem with that way of thinking is that nothing in this world is black or white, and increasing complexity is inevitable. As humans become more accepting and inclusive of people, cultures, and lifestyles, we grow more complicated as individuals as we find out who we are and where we belong. Families are constantly growing more complicated as homosexual couples, or single parents, raising children increase, or as families expand to include more and more people, each one helping one another to accommodate for the rising cost of living and stagnating wages of the middle class. Governments must keep up with an ever changing society growing ever more complex to better protect and provide equal opportunity for all citizens. Conservatives don’t want things to change. They want them to stay the same, at their relatively simple levels, or even revert them to ages past where things were even more simplistic; white Christians good, everything else bad. Women weak, men strong. Homosexuality bad, heterosexuality good, but only for procreation. Having sex for any other reason might actually complicate society a little bit (what is considered decent, children born out of wedlock, re-defining the family, etc.), so ultra right-wing conservatives are against it.

Even when conservatives try to be simplistic, due to the complicated nature of man and society, it sometimes ends up in a train wreck of complexity that doesn’t even solve the problem, unlike liberal complexity. Consider Herman Cain’s tax plan when he was still running for President; he summed up his entire plan by saying “999.” It was short for 9% income tax, 9% flat tax, and 9% sales tax. It was short, sweet, had a nice emotional ring to it that appealed to conservatives, but in reality the entire plan didn’t even work. Economists literally didn’t understand how the plan would work to solve the horrible deficit problem in America, while at the same time it kept in place the complexities of the income tax and established two other new forms of taxation alongside it. Why? To this day I don’t understand Cain’s logic behind the plan, and can’t answer that question. All I know for a fact is that it sounded emotionally appealing because it sounded so simple, appealing to conservatives, when in reality it was anything but.

Complexity is inevitable. Progressives know this, and using logic and other forms of rational cognition they do their best to think of the big, long-term picture. They are better capable of empathy, making them more capable of defending the old adage “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” At the same time though, Mooney was also right on the political drawbacks of this way of thinking. People don’t care for specificity, long-winded logic, and long-term solutions. They want quick fixes, and respond to emotional appeals, at which conservatives are significantly better, reaping more political victories for them, even if not ideological or policy ones. Again, let’s just look at taxes. Conservatives are always calling for more tax cuts, claiming that it puts more money in the pockets of individual citizens and businesses; an immediate gratification, but what about the long term implications? Tax cuts mean less revenue for the government. Less revenue for the government means an unbalanced budget and the creation of deficits. Deficits lead to spending cuts. Spending cuts lead to fewer programs to assist the lower and middle class. Fewer of these programs mean a higher cost of living for people of these classes. Higher cost of living is a long-term issue for the working class that suddenly makes the short-term benefit of the tax cuts you got years prior not so worth it, and ultimately sticks you with a net loss. Worse yet, because there are sometimes years between the tax cuts and the spending cuts, people don’t even connect those two dots.

Progressives, on the other hand, believe that taxes should actually be raised. Yes, in the short term, it will hurt and cost money to everyday Americans, but in the long-term, the government will have more money, allowing it to balance its budget, provide more living assistance programs to the working class to lower their cost of living, which would then in turn give even the poorest citizens equality of opportunity (without giving them equality of wealth). On top of that, higher taxes could incentive business owners to re-invest in their company, rather than horde excess revenue as profits, to avoid that money being taxed, which then causes private industry to expand quite rapidly. So years down the line after tax increases, through the complexities of economics and government, citizens would actually have a net gain, making the increased taxes an investment, and not a burden (though I am aware there’s the question of how government spends our money, but that’s another issue entirely that I’ll save for another day). Despite this, how many politicians do you hear these days openly admitting they want to raise taxes? None. Why? It’s bad politics. Americans have been dumbed-down to the point where a significant majority (at least significant enough to influence elections) are incapable of thinking long-term, or with this level of complexity.

So the next time you’re thinking about how to vote, don’t just think about the implications of your vote tomorrow, next month, or even next year. Don’t just think about yourself and your bank account. Think about your neighbor, your parents, your children, and your friends. Think about the janitor at your child’s school, the small business owner across the street, the soldier soon to be deployed to the next war in the Middle East or the veteran disabled from the last. Think about the implications of your vote years and years down the line; will it be to the benefit of all people then? Will it still protect freedom, and create equality of opportunity far in the future?

Think about it, and think about it long and hard. Consider all angles, all variables, and all possibilities. Even if conservatives are hardwired one way, and liberals another, that’s still no excuse to not do your civic duty and vote in the best interest of your fellow American, and not just yourself.

How to Write a Politician

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

Okay, the trial-by-fire week at work has finally ended, and I can get back to business. Still, instead of diving in head-first, I needed a topic that was a little easier on my brain pan with which to start this week off. That said, I felt it a perfect opportunity to finally write somewhat of a walkthrough guide on contacting your representatives in federal and state governments. It’s been on my to-do list for a long time, and as of late I’ve been more and more shocked at just how many people on the internet don’t know how to write formally at all. I don’t mean that as a euphemism for “they don’t write well” either, I literally mean some people do not know how to write formally at all. So, here’s a few tips and pointers to keep in mind when writing your representatives.

Tip #1 Only address one issue at a time

Let’s start at the beginning of the process; just what are you writing about? If you feel the need to write your representative about an issue, it’s clearly something important to you. Conciseness is a staple virtue in writing political correspondence due to the mass amount of letters and information that go in and out of a representative’s office daily, so keeping your letters on a single topic is the first important key to ensuring your letter is received well, and more importantly, gets an equally appropriate, organized response.

Tip #2 Only write a politician when the topic you’re discussing is currently in the public spotlight

When you write your representative is also a key component to keep in mind. I would advise against randomly trying to strike up discussion over an issue with a politician, as their responses will likely be stilted and vague. Choosing a recent topic, such as matters that concern recent legislation or comments made or supported by a certain politician, will make their answers more specific, recent, and relevant to public discourse.

Tip #3 Only write one politician at a time, and almost always only write your own representatives

Always know who you’re writing, and make it specific. This will show you invested the minimum amount of energy to determine who your own representative is, showing some degree of care in current political issues. Addressing large groups of people in a letter makes it very difficult for them to respond, and seems deeply impersonal. Never write something like “To whom it may concern” for these same reasons. Furthermore, it’s best to only write your own representatives. Each of us have one state representative, one state senator, one federal representative, two federal senators, and the various members of the executive branches (Governor, Lt. Governor, President, Vice President, and various secretaries, commissioners, and other administrative officials) that represent us. Picking your representative will greatly narrow the field in which your letter must compete to be read and noticed, and thus, greatly increase the odds of receiving a prompt, adequate response. There are, however, a few exceptions to this rule, such as with party leadership, primarily Majority and Minority Leaders, or the Speaker of the House. For example, I once wrote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a more party politics related matter than party policy, or one single issue. I did not, however, expect a response, nor did I get one, given the vast group of people he represents.

Tip #4 Online communication is almost always faster, and always use the official contact page of a politician’s website whenever possible

Politicians have contact pages for a reason. Usually, these pages will have a text box with a character limit (though a significantly large character limit in most cases) in which to paste your comments. Writing them this way makes it much easier for the politician in question to filter through e-mails and respond to them, further helping you get a prompt response. At the same time, these contact pages, in the rare instances when online contact is either unavailable or insufficient, also have other means of contacting the politician such as addresses and phone numbers. These pages are your key resources in figuring out where to send mail, be it electronic or print.

With the who, what, when, and where of writing politicians addressed, let’s take a look at the most complex question to ask yourself when contacting a policy maker; how? There are three key virtues to keep in mind when writing any politician, be they in-office or candidates, opposition or supporters of your personal ideology.

Be formal

  1. Always write professionally. Do not write as you would speak in a conversation, do not use slang, do not use abbreviations, and most importantly, do not lose your temper or write offensively. No matter what you may think of the politician, always remember to at least respect the office, as the person holding it is surely to extend to you this same level of formality in their response, so reciprocating is not only just the right, adult thing to do, but it puts you on a level intellectual and moral playing ground.
  2. If you’re not a grammatical super genius, and you’re unsure of a rule or something just doesn’t look right, re-word it. There’s almost certainly another way to convey the same point for which you’re striving.
  3. Always, always, always proof-read. Even I have to proof-read all my stuff before submission.
  4. Always start and end simply, with “Dear <politician’s name>,” and “Sincerely, <your name>.” It’s short, it’s sweet, it’s formal; it’s everything you need.

Be concise

  1. Always introduce yourself in the opening sentence, but do not spend more than one or two sentences describing yourself. Your primary purpose of writing is to make a political argument or ask a political question, not to just share a personal story. For example, in my letter to Governor Fallin about the Personhood Act, my opening lines were; “My name is Jay Hansen. I am writing you today about Senate Bill 1433, otherwise known as the Personhood Act.” It was clear and concise, the reader knew who I was, and what this letter would be about. That’s the best kind of introduction there could be.
  2. Your arguments should be concise as well, but note that concise does not necessarily mean short or simple. Again, in my letter to Governor Fallin, I spent several pages trying to prove my arguments, but each one was straight to the point. I did not include endless examples or far-reaching interpretations of the legislation. I only dwelt on the most pressing, obvious flaws in it with the strongest example possible.
  3. Don’t overflow your reader with facts. Obviously, you need facts to win any argument, but it’s easy to over stimulate in the brevity of political correspondence. Besides, whenever possible you should cite your sources (though sometimes that’s not possible because of the limitations of a politician’s contact field), and using too many can make the overall appearance of your letter sloppy.
  4. Also don’t overflow them with personal commentary. Your individual story is important, but what’s more important is taking the effects of legislation or political policy on your personal life and translating them to explain how they could affect the lives of others, possibly even the life of the politician you are writing. Plus, while passion is important, and emotion can sway an argument if applied properly, remember that an argument without logic is not winnable at all in a real battle of ideas.
  5. This actually makes writing a politician very different from the essay writing you likely learned back in school. There, commentary greatly outweighed facts. Here, facts and commentary should at least be equal, and your commentary should primarily expound upon your facts to develop your argument. Many of your letters may even be just a single paragraph because of this structure, and that’s just fine.
  6. No matter what though, always end with a strong emotional punch. Putting your personal commentary nearer the end of the letter, or near the end of one particular argument within a longer letter, can help seal the logical argument you’ve made with a very personal experience or twist. Doing so helps put a real face on the consequences of certain legislation or policy. Explaining how the issue could affect you and your personal life specifically can help translate how the legislation or policy will actually affect citizens.

Be patient

  1. Once you submit your comment or letter, be patient. Many politicians’ offices have automated responses to confirm they’ve received your letter, and, as most contact pages say, only hit submit once!
  2. At this point, just remember that politicians get dozens, hundreds, possibly even thousands of letters a day. This is why making your letter as concise and to the point as possible is vital, especially if you want a response. Even if you dislike the politician or disagree with them in the letter, don’t take a delayed response personally. If e-mail turns out to be too slow, or you need immediate contact to a politician (such as if a piece of legislation is being considered that day or the next), it would be much, much more efficient to just call them with the information that should be provided on their contact page.

With all that said, that just leaves one question left; who, what, when, where, how… and why? For a representative democracy to work, representatives must hear from you! We may live in an age where corporations and special interest dominate discourse and hold far too much power over government and politics in this nation, but in the end of the day it is still the voters that choose who is in office, making you, at least partially, their boss, even in these dark times of deep political corruption. Public pressure can still very much shape policy, just as it did during the SOPA debate, the movement behind KONY 2012, and much more. Don’t just dismiss an issue because you think it’s unwinnable, feeling that someone else will do it, or worse, that your voice doesn’t matter. It still does. America isn’t that far gone from its founding principles. Will you always be heard? No. Will you always get your way? Certainly not, but there’s a chance you will be if you try. You can’t win at all if you don’t even fight, so by all means, be as passionate as you like. Don’t let what I’ve said hold back something you feel needs to be written to a politician; press on! The battle for democracy is no where near lost yet!

As a final note though, if you write an Oklahoma lawmaker or politician for whatever reason, I’d love to see what they have to say. If you receive a response from a politician from here in Oklahoma, send it and the letter you wrote them to me, and I’ll be happy to publish their letter along with yours (if it’s appropriate) to make the otherwise private correspondence between you and your representative a public record to help hold them accountable!