Nothing More Than Feelings

One of the greatest mistakes that we make about political movements is discounting the extent to which feelings play a role. Yet, as anyone who’s ever argued with someone who’s become entrenched in their beliefs, we all know how impossible it is for logic to break through. This is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

It’s foolish to try to hide the fact that I’m very liberal minded. In fact, I’d consider myself to the left of most mainstream politicians. I call this out so that you all know where I’m coming from, and that I don’t appear duplicitious should you discover this fact later. Also, I’m a computer scientist by trade, and wanted at one point to be a lawyer, if that gives you any indication of where I am on the logic-versus-feelings spectrum. As such, I used to spend a ton of time trying to draw rational, reasonable arguments against the most inane of accusations—before I realized that nothing I said would work to convince any of the complete strangers I’d stumbled across online.

Where I’ve had more success, is in those people who are closer to me, either by blood or relationships. And often, I misattributed that to the strength of my arguments (because I am good at tying arguments together and making a compelling logical case). But when I look back at where I’ve had the most success, it’s in convincing people who already have an emotional investment or attachment to me. People who already care about me are consistently more willing to listen and have their minds changed, in my experience. And this is true even in the middle of a heated debate.

So when I hear accusations about lack of policy with regards to one candidate over the other, I raise an eyebrow. This is because I don’t think that most people make their choices of candidate based on policy, but ideology. Policy is rooted in causes and outcome, and is very (or should be) reasonable as it should adhere to the fundamental concept that if it drives a good outcome, then it’s a good policy. But as we’ve seen, that’s not the case. It’s particularly bad on the right atm, but also happens on the left quite a bit: people interpret policy according to their emotions.

In fact, both candidates can pitch the exact same plan (i.e. in Arizona, both candidates have suggested lowering or removing taxes on tips), and depending on who is hearing the message, it can be interpreted in multiple ways, negative and positive. In fact, with the same message, often I’ve seen people see and argue the downside, against people they don’t like or respect, and the upside when talking about someone they already like/don’t like. The right answer is, as a policy, reducing taxes on tips is a double-edged sword: there are good and bad outcomes to that move.

But it’s not just the middle where the problem lies. Trickle-down economics, which has been proven time and time again not to be a boon for middle and lower classes, is yet again being pitched, under different names, but one party. The problem with this one is it seems to make sense. If more money is available at the top, then there will be more money available to distribute down below. Technically, it’s true that more money becomes available for the corporation to do with what it will. Where this falls flat is that the reasonable-seeming idea of trickle-down doesn’t actually work in practice, because corporations don’t spend money that way. Now, if a community member were to base their support on how reasonable the message sounds, then they’d likely be all in. Heck, sounds great to me too. But when there’s evidence, and the empirical truth is that corporations don’t spend money that way, then this puts what feels good against what logic dictates. Who wins?

Usually, feelings. Why do I say that? Because it takes time and effort and a willingness to say “I don’t know” in order to make space for the reasonable and deliberate evaluation of the outcome. And, often, it takes a trust that someone other than you or your tribe might hold the answer. This is particularly difficult the more divided we are.

If I have a point, it’s only this: don’t get mired in the logical arguments. Show your excitement, show your enthusiasm, show your feelings, because in a lot of very real scenarios, feelings edge out logic, even when it comes to performing our most sacrosanct of duties: voting for the next government to lead the free world. Breath.

Now vote.