If that is what they are. It is possible to impartially weigh the evidence and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I was pretty certain that the outcome would be what it was for a number of reasons, all based on observation and conversation. I have lived mostly in Philadelphia most of my life. It has been a strictly Democratic enclave since 1951, when I turned 10. I have worked the polls in this city at various times. This was the only time I ever saw the Democratic Party leaving stickers on doors reminding residents of when Election Day was and where to vote, etc. There were also two or three canvassers a day, delivering the same message. Since I have contacts upstate, one of whom was a key Trump operative, I knew that those people were quite optimistic about turnout. Their counterparts in Philly were obviously less sanguine. Conversations with legal immigrants from all kinds of places — India, Bangladesh, Mali, Nigeria, etc. — indicated that they were not terribly sympathetic toward illegals. I met lots of people who were leaning Trump, but were not ideological about it, or thrilled about it. Most anti-Trumpers I talked with had a remarkably similar mindset and practically identical talking points, including some — Trump getting $100 million from his father to get his start in business — that I knew were incorrect (it was a $1 million loan at interest — nothing to sneeze at, of course, nothing I would ever have had a chance at, but …)
Frank, I think we may be talking at odds here. It's very possible that I've misunderstood the Adams piece, so let me explain what I mean by cognitive dissonance in this context.
People like to believe -- need to believe -- that they are making rational decisions. However, very often -- and this on both anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sides -- they are in fact making emotional ones (reacting, for example, to powerful slogans). In some sense they recognise this, so they seek to reconcile their inner disharmony by demonising the other -- in this case, the 'enemy' candidate.
I think that is often the case, Lee, unfortunately. As Will Durant said, "The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds."
Adams is not wrong about cognitive dissonance and the realities we live in. But it applies just as equally to anti-Trumpers and anti-Clintonites.
ReplyDeleteIf that is what they are. It is possible to impartially weigh the evidence and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I was pretty certain that the outcome would be what it was for a number of reasons, all based on observation and conversation. I have lived mostly in Philadelphia most of my life. It has been a strictly Democratic enclave since 1951, when I turned 10. I have worked the polls in this city at various times. This was the only time I ever saw the Democratic Party leaving stickers on doors reminding residents of when Election Day was and where to vote, etc. There were also two or three canvassers a day, delivering the same message. Since I have contacts upstate, one of whom was a key Trump operative, I knew that those people were quite optimistic about turnout. Their counterparts in Philly were obviously less sanguine. Conversations with legal immigrants from all kinds of places — India, Bangladesh, Mali, Nigeria, etc. — indicated that they were not terribly sympathetic toward illegals. I met lots of people who were leaning Trump, but were not ideological about it, or thrilled about it. Most anti-Trumpers I talked with had a remarkably similar mindset and practically identical talking points, including some — Trump getting $100 million from his father to get his start in business — that I knew were incorrect (it was a $1 million loan at interest — nothing to sneeze at, of course, nothing I would ever have had a chance at, but …)
ReplyDeleteFrank, I think we may be talking at odds here. It's very possible that I've misunderstood the Adams piece, so let me explain what I mean by cognitive dissonance in this context.
ReplyDeletePeople like to believe -- need to believe -- that they are making rational decisions. However, very often -- and this on both anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sides -- they are in fact making emotional ones (reacting, for example, to powerful slogans). In some sense they recognise this, so they seek to reconcile their inner disharmony by demonising the other -- in this case, the 'enemy' candidate.
I think that is often the case, Lee, unfortunately. As Will Durant said, "The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds."
ReplyDelete