" I feel and believe, therefore I am. I am a conservative."

The Rise of Donald Trump - Right Wing Feeling vs. Left Wing Thinking ?

The rise of Trump in the United States has many shaking their heads in disbelief. Yet really, this phenomenon is nothing new. History has shown time and time again that people will tend to avoid viewpoints they do not like, even if on some level they know this contradicts reality. Due to confirmation bias, people tend to seek out evidence that confirms their already existing prejudices ,and will cherry pick the evidence that does support them, whilst simultaneously avoiding evidence that tends to contradict their views. Hence, Trump tends to blatantly lie and yet somehow the lies are believed because they seem to have emotional resonance with so many people, particularly that section of the population who have suffered a relative drop in status. As Hitler said ( paraphrased ) :
" the bigger the lie, the more people believe it".

The popularity of right wing politicians such as Trump would seem to confirm the viewpoint that conservative voters tend to be lesser educated, more religious, and generally less in touch with facts and reality. (1) . Even when conservatives  seem highly educated in one sphere, they seem to lack even basic knowledge  of other areas. Ben Carson, a brain surgeon who doesn't believe in evolution, case in point. In particular, conservatives tend to suffer from drawing simplistic conclusions about causation ( e.g more immigrants cause more terrorism, rather than vice-versa ) and seem less able to think critically about the dangers of extrapolating from their own individual experiences to make judgements about society ( hence higher rates of racism and other prejudice ; over-generalising from some isolated incidents  ). There is also increasing evidence that right wing voters tend to differ emotionally from left wing voters, such as with a tendency to be more fearful and less trusting : (2). This would seem to explain the rise of the right in times that feature particularly threatening  instability, economic depression and possible war ( or even more of it ). In the nineteenth century, conservatives were often called reactionaries ( those who sought to turn back the French Revolution ), a term that became synonymous with those who resisted change, and the drive for liberty and equality against the privilege of the elites. Perhaps reactionaries is a term that should be revived for conservatives ; they tend to react rather than think and analyse.  George W. Bush, a President who insisted on keeping briefings to one page so as to suit his reading preferences, famously bragged that he was a 'gut player'. Not necessarily a problem in all circumstances, unless you happen to be full of crap. A brain seems to be a reasonable organ to fall back on if you're not sure your guts are always right.

So, what can be done about countering the tendency of right wing voters to ignore evidence and reality ?  Or at the very least their tendency to ignore the crucial context and scale of a problem ? Since Conservatives tend to be religious, they already have a natural tendency to believe myths and ignore evidence. Yet a more consistent narrative that seeks to actively counter the mythical history of conservative politicians might be a start. Two policy areas that conservatives tend to win with many voters are fiscal responsibility and law and order. Yet, again the track record of many conservative governments is worse than liberal governments on both counts ; 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, whilst Obama's government finally nailed Bin Laden. Reagan and Thatcher's 'voodoo economics' saw national debts balloon to finance tax cuts for the rich. Many who read around politics and economics will be aware of these issues, yet the general public not so much ?  Why ?

Education and political bias aside, one reason might be the long term effects of right wing  policies such as 'voodoo economics'  are not felt till long after, yet at the time people generally seem to benefit from the short term effects.

Thatcher and the squandering of North Sea Oil and Gas in 1980's Britain

 Thatcher's misuse of North Sea Oil and Gas is a case in point, and one Brits would do well to be more aware of. North Sea Oil and Gas could have been a national resource that could have been managed like the Norwegians have managed their oil. Norway created a huge Sovereign Wealth Fund from the proceeds of some of the oil revenue that to this day is financing crucial public services and investment. The conservatives in 1980's Britain used their own oil find to finance tax cuts that promoted short term growth. Yet if even if a fraction of the money had been invested in long term projects rather than year to year spending, the effects would have been significant. It is estimated that :" if just 10 per cent of UK tax receipts from the North Sea had been put into an oil fund starting in 1980 and continuing until 2008, and if the nominal return had been 3 per cent, the value of the fund would be £24bn per annum. Twenty per cent of oil revenues on a return of 5 per cent would have created a pot of £66bn per annum." ( New Statesman, April 2013 ) . Yet because at the time this bonanza fueled a boom , Thatcher largely has a reputation as being fiscally responsible ! Clearly the media have to do a better job of reminding the public of long term effects of policies.

 

Problems with general problems understanding economic jargon - Stephen Harper's "Surplus" in Canada, 2015 

 

In the build up to the Canadian General Election of 2015, Harper's government, after running deficits for ten years and building up the National Debt, cynically cooked the books for their final year by creating a surplus for one year by, amongst other means, withholding veterans benefits and  unemployment insurance whilst  selling off the government's shares in GM for a temporary windfall. Hence the myth was created among conservatives that Trudeau's Liberal government had  inherited  a surplus which they are now squandering with reckless left wing spending ( on, by the way, infrastructure ; one of the pillars of a successful economy ! ) The myth persists because of a common misunderstanding among the general public about the difference between a yearly budget deficit and the National Debt. Imagine you take a snapshot of your current account right after pay-day, and present this as a general indication of the state of your finances. Meanwhile, you have a huge mortgage, car payments, and credit card debt. Clearly,  the state of your finances is not good ( assuming your monthly pay is not incredible ! ) Your current account is like the governments Deficit, whilst your mortgage and other obligations are like the National Debt. Basically, Harper's conservatives took a snapshot after payday, selling off assets and holding back some spending, and presented this as an indication of their general management of the economy. Meanwhile they had treated the Athabsaca tar sands ( it is tar, not oil, until refined ) much like Thatcher had treated North Sea Oil and Gas. Short termism was the order of the day, as opposed to long term investment. The price of oil crashed, and Alberta wallows in depression now. Simple enough really, yet how often does the media take the time to explain such crucial distinctions ? 

 

Most Victims of ISIS are other Muslims 

   

Not much to say on this one  ; given a moment's thought and five minutes of reading on Middle Eastern affairs and this should be obvious. Islam is rent by sectarian divisions and Shia muslims in particular suffer horribly at the hands of ISIS. Most Muslim immigrants fleeing ISIS  hate them even more than westerners.  Yet again how often does media stress this fact ? A detailed look at most recent 'lone wolves'  reveals them to be late converts to Islam, sexually confused petty criminals who sought redemption and clarity with ISIS's extreme interpretation of the faith (3). How widely shown and shared are such sentiments ? Judging by the reaction of conservatives to ISIS, not very ! Perhaps even if they were, conservatives would discredit the source as biased media. But that is a post for another day perhaps, the 'myth of the liberal media' . For those interested in this next particular topic, I direct you to Media Lens :http://www.medialens.org/

-Keep Calm, and Carry On Thinking, not just Reacting.