Idol/Idle(?) Political Worship

The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy did this wonderful study on how little US middle-class citizens know about current US public policy. Apparently, 72% of them couldn't name a bill that was passed within the last two years that benefited them. I can't imagine the picture to be all that different in Canada given my experience discussing politics with middle-class Canadians. This might not be surprising but what strikes me is not the severity of the disconnect between public awareness and public policy, it's the conviction people still have about whom they will or will not vote for regardless of such. If more than 50% of the population turn out to vote during the next US federal election I'll be surprised. And I'll be surprised of how many citizens feel comfortable voting even without much awareness of what bills either presidential candidates (or the members of their respective parties) have voted to pass or what actual policies they will push to implement if elected.

This brings me to a hunch I want to prove: that people are just too arrogant or presumptuous about what they believe in general.

I just read about a study conducted at UWO which suggests something I've suspected for a long time. According to the study, apparently people who consciously believe themselves to be undecided about something (say who they'll vote for in the upcoming presidential election) will react almost determinately when forced to make a choice given the "automatic mental associations" they have or make. CTV reports:

The team tested the "automatic mental associations" of 129 residents of Vicenza, Italy, about a controversial expansion of an American military base in their community.

In a computer test, participants were asked to rapidly rate a series of words, interspersed with pictures of the base, as either positive or negative. One week later, when participants made a conscious choice to support or oppose the base expansion, researchers found that those choices invariably reflected the initial automatic associations.

Bertram Gawronski, Canadian research chair in social psychology at UWO and the study's senior author, said the test enabled researchers to accurately predict the choices of 70 per cent of participants who initially said they were undecided.

Just one study, but one that effectively shows a conscious disconnect that neurologists and psychologists alike have demonstrated in other studies for quite some time now. What we believe we may or may not do quite often differs from our actions. This is why I think polls can possibly generate as much public opinion as they intend to simply portray. We often simply make up our minds up in the most unconscious of ways, and at times we may never suspect.

Unconscious biases, not policy, dominate most people's political decisions. The appearance, the language, the charisma, the class, of a political candidate, without doubt, largely shapes how we will vote. And that's why political parties and nation-states have elected leaders. Special interest groups, be they corporate or political, need identifiable caricatures that will draw upon the "automatic mental associations" of enough people to gain support - or complacency - in a democratic society. And both Obama and Mcain have pockets lined with money from wallstreet. Whether or not either of them could be coerced by the true interests or needs of the general populace remains to be seen. Most all elected leaders around the world pander to the causes of special interest groups. Corporatism has hijacked democracy this way.

So leaders, like Obama or Mcain, are often heros or idols. The hero or idol is usually an individual who, at least in appearance, iconicises the cultural archetypes and biological similarities or perfections of a society. And people will often either click with them or not. Either you dig Obama or you don't. I can tell this by the discourse I have with people most generally about anything. People's minds rarely change after a rational conversation or debate, and they (mine included) seem to be made-up very quickly and prior to any sort of rationalizing process. I can talk incessently about the faults of any political candidate, or the harm caused by the industrial farming complex, and the end result will usually be the same. Even though they may not have given any thought to it they likely know who they'll support or what food product they'll consume - consciously or not. How do I know? By witnessing their actions.