Okay, we all now know that Donald Trump cannot keep his mouth shut, even when almost everyone knows he should. Is the series of events related to what I call "The Khan Incident" any different than his riffs against John McCain, entire nationalities and religions, or even Pope Francis? At first blush, probably not. But this one is different, and could spell the end of any serious chance for Trump to win the presidential election in November. Below I explain why I think this one is different.
But first, remember, this is not a prediction; it is simply an explanation of how political psychology might give us the opportunity to see things not noticed by others.
When I was in graduate school, the research of Samuel Popkin, of the University of Californiia-San Diego, was increasingly prominent in the sub-field of voting behavior. My adviser was not a fan of Popkin's work because it argued (with general success, it turned out) that voters need not be "rational" in the traditional sense of the word, which as the time required they thought ideologically, had specific issues about which they had adequate information to discern between party and/or candidate positions, or used party identification as a filter for making decisions. Rational voting was the realm of political scientists who felt that voters had to have at least a moderate level of knowledge, interest and/or sophistication.
Popkin, a political psychologist, introduced the concept of "low information" rationality. His book, The Reasoning Voter, argues that voters not need be deeply engaged in information in order to make good decisions, but instead can make such decisions on the basis of gut instinct (later, research at the Max Planck Institute in Germany described gut instinct as subconscious cognitive predictions based upon an instant calculation in the brain with the available information to predict the best possible outcome).
As cognitive misers (we try to make the best decision based upon minimally necessary scanning of information), this gut instinct can come from a series of impressions garnered from seemingly disconnected and sometimes even trivial information.
Examples of information "good enough," according to Popkin, are seemingly innocuous and unimportant campaign snafus like George McGovern ordering roast beef and milk at a kosher deli or Gerald Ford eating a tamale without shucking the husk. Later in 1992, I noticed that President George H.W. Bush wore a starched white dress shirt that made him stick out at a rally in Branson, Missouri, as he was surrounded by country music stars. It did not help that Bush kept his tie tight and couldn't keep the beat when trying.
When combined with other minor and sometimes trivial bits of information, Popkin argues that voters need not spend hours a day reading and watching campaigns in order to make good decisions, but instead can rely upon their impressions (their "gut" if you wish) and make pretty sound judgments about voting preference.
So, where does the Khan Incident come in? Seen as yet another example of Donald Trump's thin skin and aggressive response to anyone over anything, it probably won't have much of an impact. But this one is different. The magnitude of difference between Trump and any other politician's response (see Clinton's response to the mother of a slain security personnel staffer in Benghazi, or George W. Bush's response to Cindy Sheehen twelve years ago) is enormous, something that stands out as an important distinction between him and others (indeed, almost any other person). It is highly unlikely that anyone will forget Trump's behavior this past week.
Yes, what he said about Rosie O'Donnell was bad; about Megyn Kelly crude; about John McCain offensive, but the Khan family is not one that would usually be considered to be in the public eye like the others. And, the taboo of attacking family members of people killed in service to their country is one of the more universal barriers between reasonable and unreasonable behavior.
In other words, Trump's words and responses (and, at this writing, his continued inability to let it go) are of a nature that are so far out of the norm, that most people will remember this, and for those who are "low information voters," this will be one of the first things they recall when processing information in about 14 weeks. Even as the Khan Incident fades in the media and we are drawn to the inevitable momentary events yet to come, this event will be an important portion of the structure people will use when thinking about whether Trump is worth their vote.
Time will tell; there are just under 100 days for Trump to get our minds off of the Khan Affair. If he apologizes, it might hurt him (because it would acknowledge that he was wrong to do it, a first for him in my memory, and so the event becomes even more prominent in the minds of low information voters). And if he is clueless on why this is unwise (to be fair, I do not think he realized what the implications of suggesting Mrs, Khan was being prohibited from speaking on the podium at the DNC), who knows what the next gaffe will bring? My guess, only further reinforcement that this guy is not mentally suitable to be president.
We'll see. But think of Popkin's concept of low-information rationality as you continue to watch Trump. I think the snowball effect is about to run him over.
But first, remember, this is not a prediction; it is simply an explanation of how political psychology might give us the opportunity to see things not noticed by others.
When I was in graduate school, the research of Samuel Popkin, of the University of Californiia-San Diego, was increasingly prominent in the sub-field of voting behavior. My adviser was not a fan of Popkin's work because it argued (with general success, it turned out) that voters need not be "rational" in the traditional sense of the word, which as the time required they thought ideologically, had specific issues about which they had adequate information to discern between party and/or candidate positions, or used party identification as a filter for making decisions. Rational voting was the realm of political scientists who felt that voters had to have at least a moderate level of knowledge, interest and/or sophistication.
Popkin, a political psychologist, introduced the concept of "low information" rationality. His book, The Reasoning Voter, argues that voters not need be deeply engaged in information in order to make good decisions, but instead can make such decisions on the basis of gut instinct (later, research at the Max Planck Institute in Germany described gut instinct as subconscious cognitive predictions based upon an instant calculation in the brain with the available information to predict the best possible outcome).
As cognitive misers (we try to make the best decision based upon minimally necessary scanning of information), this gut instinct can come from a series of impressions garnered from seemingly disconnected and sometimes even trivial information.
Examples of information "good enough," according to Popkin, are seemingly innocuous and unimportant campaign snafus like George McGovern ordering roast beef and milk at a kosher deli or Gerald Ford eating a tamale without shucking the husk. Later in 1992, I noticed that President George H.W. Bush wore a starched white dress shirt that made him stick out at a rally in Branson, Missouri, as he was surrounded by country music stars. It did not help that Bush kept his tie tight and couldn't keep the beat when trying.
When combined with other minor and sometimes trivial bits of information, Popkin argues that voters need not spend hours a day reading and watching campaigns in order to make good decisions, but instead can rely upon their impressions (their "gut" if you wish) and make pretty sound judgments about voting preference.
So, where does the Khan Incident come in? Seen as yet another example of Donald Trump's thin skin and aggressive response to anyone over anything, it probably won't have much of an impact. But this one is different. The magnitude of difference between Trump and any other politician's response (see Clinton's response to the mother of a slain security personnel staffer in Benghazi, or George W. Bush's response to Cindy Sheehen twelve years ago) is enormous, something that stands out as an important distinction between him and others (indeed, almost any other person). It is highly unlikely that anyone will forget Trump's behavior this past week.
Yes, what he said about Rosie O'Donnell was bad; about Megyn Kelly crude; about John McCain offensive, but the Khan family is not one that would usually be considered to be in the public eye like the others. And, the taboo of attacking family members of people killed in service to their country is one of the more universal barriers between reasonable and unreasonable behavior.
In other words, Trump's words and responses (and, at this writing, his continued inability to let it go) are of a nature that are so far out of the norm, that most people will remember this, and for those who are "low information voters," this will be one of the first things they recall when processing information in about 14 weeks. Even as the Khan Incident fades in the media and we are drawn to the inevitable momentary events yet to come, this event will be an important portion of the structure people will use when thinking about whether Trump is worth their vote.
Time will tell; there are just under 100 days for Trump to get our minds off of the Khan Affair. If he apologizes, it might hurt him (because it would acknowledge that he was wrong to do it, a first for him in my memory, and so the event becomes even more prominent in the minds of low information voters). And if he is clueless on why this is unwise (to be fair, I do not think he realized what the implications of suggesting Mrs, Khan was being prohibited from speaking on the podium at the DNC), who knows what the next gaffe will bring? My guess, only further reinforcement that this guy is not mentally suitable to be president.
We'll see. But think of Popkin's concept of low-information rationality as you continue to watch Trump. I think the snowball effect is about to run him over.
No comments:
Post a Comment