Although I am offended that he uses the term "political terrorist" to describe the liars in the Republican camp, Steven Pearlstein has a very good commentary in today's Washington Post on how inaccurate the broad claims of government-run health care, trillion dollar costs, and (my favorite) how Obama is going to make real the fictional Soylent Green (for a comic distraction go here for the original) approach to dealing with seniors.
The good news is that my impression is that the Republican tactic of stalling until after the summer recess was a mistake on their part. This tactic is based in part on Gresham's Law of Information: bad information crowds out good information. I need to divert into academic matters to explain why Republicans chose the tactic and why it is going to backfire.
In political science, scholars like Samuel Popkin have argued that people cope with too much information and too little time or interest to pay close attention through the use of "cues," like whether seemingly minor behaviors of presidential candidates can tell people a lot about them (whether they eat ethnic food properly, can hit bowling pins with a ball, whether they are willing to do shots with the guys in a bar, or whether they wear a crisp white dress shirt on the stage of a country music festival).
In addition, decision making theory speaks to the issue as well. Most political consultants and practitioner tend to assume Herbert Simon's theories of decision making. Simon argued that truly rational decision making requires a three step process of gathering information on alternatives, analyzing all potential consequences of actions, and being able to make clear and systematic comparisons. Simon argued that this is not possible. Instead people and organizations tend to make incremental decisions that are "good enough."
So, how do these theories relate to Republican tactics on health care? Okay...the first assumption they are making is that people will latch on to the frames they create through the sophisticated use of language. Frank Luntz, a political scientist by training, is their main guru on using language (he claims a role in the Contract for America and in redefining inheritance taxes as death taxes). So, you hear the terms "run," "takeover," and other frightening words connected to "government." You also hear comparisons of the Obama public option to the Postal Service and the DMV (two decentralized entities that everyone hates, even though they do a pretty good job of dealing with the mess of interacting with everyone in our country). These are attempts to frame the issue in a way to give people who are minimally interested and attentive a quick reference that will lead to position taking that helps the Republicans.
The second assumption is based on information overload. If we throw garbage into the discussion and repeat it over and over, that information will crowd out thoughtful, rational information that may actually inform people. This messy, loud and confusing screaming match will create an information overload, leading to people deciding to maintain the status quo. It will also turn people off to politics, since most of us want harmony, not conflict.
So, why are the Republicans wrong? First, Popkin's theory of "good enough" information only works when everyone is hearing the same message. If people listen to different messages they get different cues. The result is that counter-framing is likely to provide for a competition in the minds of those who use shortcuts. What we are witnessing right now is the Democratic counter-framing response, and the congressional break is giving them time to make it work.
The second reason the break is a mistake for Republicans is that I personally do not think that Gresham's Law of Information works quite the same way as in the past. The theory is based upon a natural flow if information from interested parties. What we see now is a synthetic flow of information that is not organic, and so it messes up the natural process of perception that leads to bad information crowding out good. I personally think that the opposite is beginning to happen.
So, I think that had Obama stuck to his original deadline, he would have lost. Now, his chances are better. I know this is counter intuitive, but I am confident that the better information will sway the swayables, increase the polling numbers a bit, and help the Democrats pass a plan (which will be less than progressives want and more than what the Blue Dogs want).
No comments:
Post a Comment