Blog Challenge: How do you change someone’s mind in politics?

by Alex Patton | Dec 2, 2022 | Political Research

This one is basically asking me to distill a seemingly lifetime of work into a blog post.    Let’s say upfront that I am going to speaking in sweeping generalities.  Human behavior is complicated, nuanced, messy, and at times unpredictable. 

Attitudes or Behavior

I find it important to mention there is a difference between changing someone’s mind and changing someone’s behavior. When talking persuasion, it is incredible how often they are conflated.   Often in the short-term transactional power politics, changing behavior is the goal; coercion is often the means. 

But for this blog challenge, we will assume we are talking about opinions. 

In most cases, I believe – and this may be blasphemy for most in the political world – we can’t change minds.   Only the target can change their own mind; as political practitioners we are trying to influence the process.   

Zone of Acceptance

It matters where someone starts on any topic, belief or attitude or how strongly held their opinion is.

If a person starts off with strongly held opinions, you’re going to have a hard time changing their opinion.  Franky, it may be impossible.   With strongly held opinions, it requires a trusting and personal relationship, and to have a trusting and personal relationship requires time and effort.  Without that, true opinion change is rare.    There is some interesting work (ignore that one scandal though) being done in the field of deep canvassing, and again that takes a lot of time and effort.

If a person has a weakly held opinions about a subject, they often acquiesce to the leaders of the group’s signals.  This is why the school of fish metaphor works.   If the opinion is not of great importance to the person, the groups we identify with and the cues from trusted leaders matter – a lot.

If a person has no opinion on the matter, they will pay attention to recency and somewhat still to trusted leaders.  If it is a new subject preferably get there first with a trusted leader.  But with no opinions, trust is likely less of a factor than frequency and recency.  Propaganda works.

Direct Assaults

One way not to persuade people is to challenge them directly.  This often leads to a boomerang effect that when the subject is directly challenged, they spend more time coming up with better arguments to refute. 

Same with calling people “idiots, knuckle-draggers, racists, dummies, etc.”  We are all guilty of it, and it is really counter-productive to persuasion. 

More often, rather than a direct, full frontal assault, we are better off trying to increase motivation and shaping the path / environment.

Trust

 As you read, you notice the importance of trust – especially in partisan politics. 

Without trust, there is no persuasion.  How many times has a news story been believed or discredited solely on the trust of the source?    

We observe it all the time in polling. We believe the polls we ‘trust’ and discount the polls that are ‘partisan hacks.’ 

Our agency has been conducting on going research into how energy policies are received by conservatives. It is clear that source plays a huge deal. If the policies are advocated by the “Global Green Commies”, it won’t get far. In fact, it won’t get heard at all.

Conclusion

Almost everything about this subject can be taught by parents of teen-agers. 

First, the difference between changing minds or behavior.  Does a parent care if a kid has a deeply held belief in the importance of a clean room or does that parent just want the damn room cleaned – even if it is under the threat of massive grounding? 

If the teenager, for whatever reasons, has deeply held beliefs that his room is his space and keeping a clean room is stupid, calling him a troglodyte leading to slammed doors is unlikely to change his mind or his behavior. In fact, this little ingrate will likely sit in his room and write a list of the top 10 reasons why a clean room is leading to the deterioration of America. In this case, you may want to enlist the person he is crushing on to share with him that a clean room is super attractive and indicates a responsible person.  If that doesn’t work, threaten to take away the car keys or turn off the wifi until the room is clean.    

If the teenager, for whatever reason, has loosely held beliefs about a clean room, enlist the help of their friends, coaches, YouTube influencers, etc.   Best to make a clean room the norm and have those cues received from multiple sources, only to see it all reversed when he walks into his friends’ messy rooms. He will likely flip flip back and forth depending on the accumulation of cues seen most recently.

But the absolute best way to convince a teenager the importance of a clean room is to get there before they become teenagers. Early, repeated, consistent signals that a clean room is normal, important, and that the behavior is expected.   Spend time with them, associate a clean room with other positive experiences.    Develop a relationship around a clean room.

But even then, with all these strategies, it still maybe freaking impossible to get a hard-headed teenager to change their opinions or behavior.     

Once the opinion / behavior is set and coercion is no longer available because they moved out and pay for their own car & wifi, the teenager/young adult will have to change their own mind when they decide the time is right, if ever. 

Blog Challenge: Religion in America

by Alex Patton | Nov 30, 2022 | Political Research

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I am basking in the USMNT win and advancement, and leave it to my brother to dive right in with the following question / comment: I’d like for you to explore how we went from a country founded on the specific separation of church and state to a country where one party is openly trying to force the entire country to be Christian and made it front and center of their platform.

What we CaNt StArT WiTh An EaSiEr ToPiC LiKe RaCiSm?

The short answer: The rise of Christian nationalism.

This ideology has a lot in common with the evangelical movement, but they are different. Christian Nationalist believe that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation and they should be working to “restore” or “take back” our nation through government action, if needed.

The rise of Christian Nationalism across the world seems to have taken off with the COVID pandemic, the rise of self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist Marjorie Taylor Green, and assorted alt-right wing talk show hosts like the Nick Fuentes. Pew Research has conducted some polling on the topic asking people to describe Christian Nationalists. Here are some examples:

“Fanatics distorting Christian values for self-serving opportunities to further their perceived righteousness.”

Born-again/evangelical Protestant, age 50-64

“Excessive pride in White Christian identity, often trying to impose their own religious beliefs on the rest of the nation and attempting to transform the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.”

Jewish, age 18-29

“Christian nationalism means to me applying the principles of Christianity into American society without being compelled to believe in Jesus as the savior of the world.”

Born-again/evangelical Protestant, age 18-29

If you want a close look into this, look no further than Mike Flynn and the Hallow. Frontline took an in-depth look ““Michael Flynn’s Holy War.” If you have an hour and want to learn more, the video is below. It is eye-opening.

Like most things that start on the fringe and get traction, you can observe Rep politicians and right wing media picking up phrases, laundering it for mass consumption. Look no further than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ re-election campaign and the release of “God Made a Fighter.”

What is bringing all this about?

Religion in America

Pew Research is the main place I go when I look for quality research on Religion in America. They have been studying it for years.

There is not much worse than a loss of status of a once majority group. They do not go quietly. They fight back, often violently.

At some point I feel, some in religion saw their efforts in churches to persuade people begin to fail they turned to legislating and lobbying.

They recast history as American being ‘founded as a Christian nation’ rather than a nation founded by some Christians who made a point of establishing a government that could protect us against factions.

So, How did we get here?

1. Loss of Status of Religion and religious leaders.
2. Move to extremism assisted by the Internet.
3. Political “Leaders” sending signals and flirting that Christian Nationalism is “okay.”
4. Political organization.

Personally, I have always found that trying to live up to my own faith difficult and fraught with failure. I’d recommend more people worry about themselves and their walks and less with legislating. Being a good example is more persuasive than forcing people to do something, right?

I am not sure liberty, christian nationalism, and legislating can co-exist. But between you and me, often, the debate on “freedom” isn’t really about freedom rather it’s about who has the freedom to make the rules.

Political Behavior and Schools of Fish

by Alex Patton | Nov 28, 2022 | Political Research

I was on my walk today, and a decent metaphor explaining political behavior came to the surface: a school of fish.

I think I was imagining myself standing in a cold stream being mocked by trout, but that morphed into a school of fish. 

The underlying psychology of this is how influential others behavior is on our own.  We all remember peer pressure, but somehow when we become adults, we seem to believe we have outgrown the phenomenon. 

We have not.    

Whomever we define as “our peers” has profound effects on our behavior – especially our political behavior.   

People in our friend groups, our co-workers, our fellow parishioners – all provide constant cues that influence our behavior.  We implicitly understand that going against those cues will likely bring censure or exclusion.  Censure we are smacked across the face by a tail, exclusion we are ejected into the sea.

Simply, social influence or peer pressure is one of the significant drivers of our behavior. 

It is also why bots are effective at spreading bullshit, but that is a different post. 

Once we define our groups, the small, constant cues tell us which way the group(s) are going. 

There is safety in the group, and there is laziness in the group.  I’ll not stray from the school and just draft on the work of others.  Exactly like a school of fish. 

I did read years ago a dense book by Nobel Prize winner Thomas C. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior.  It explores in an academic, dense way how small meaningless decisions and actions by individuals (micro-behaviors) often lead to significant unintended consequences for a large group (macro-behaviors).  One example he uses is white flight from neighborhoods.  I won’t recommend the read because it is a slug, but here is a good summary.   It is a work that Malcolm Gladwell made accessible in Tipping Point. 

Elected Officials Behavior

I had an earlier question about the behavior of elected officials, but I want to state that they are not immune from peer pressure.  In fact, they may be even more attuned to it, but there is a catch:  their school is likely to have a lead fish. 

Many elected bodies are organized in a hierarchical top-down fashion.    The Speaker, Senate President, Mayor – often are “guiding” these schools with an iron fin (terrible pun!).  Step out of the wake, and a politician is often left to fend for themself.

BUT – that isn’t the ONLY fish in their schools that they are swimming in.  There are donors, activists, associations, lobbyists, voters, co-workers, media, social media followers, etc – all providing cues and constant feedback. 

Conclusion

If one wants to affect change in this fractured world where nothing is important – and yet everything is important, one must think of the macro-outcome – likely a policy outcome –  as a series of almost infinite multitudes of mini-interactions.    

Each little fish must emit a small cue towards the process. 

If everyone does that, and a “head fish” doesn’t pick up on those cues – well they can be the one out by themselves.  That is the nature of schools.

Why are politicians so afraid to vote for what’s best for our country as opposed to what their party wants?

by Alex Patton | Nov 26, 2022 | Political Research

I think some it is explained by sincere differences in policies.   “Best for the country” is up for true debate.  There are those that truly believe ‘an unregulated militia’ is ‘best for the country’.  Others believe a ban on war-like weapons is ‘best for the country’.    I am not sure those two sides can compromise. 

BUT, I think your question is best answered by political scientist David Mayhew. 

SideNote:  A lot of the early political scientists got the big concepts right explaining 80% – and the rest of us are just proving nuance. 

Mayhew wrote “Members of Congress are single-minded seekers of re-election….” And I think that is the answer to your question.    

Politicians’, parties’, donors’, consultants’, etc. actions are explained by that statement.  I mean it makes sense, one can’t affect policy, if one is not in office. 

And, this explains the often cowardliness of politicians. 

This explains the many, many conversations I have had behind closed doors with elected politicians and party officials that know that much of the current political climate is complete and utter bullshit then opens the door to spout that exact bullshit. 

Why?

Representatives have pretty cool jobs (if you don’t mind the death threats, constant travel, and pesky constituents), and the halls of power are marked with scalps of the Liz Cheneys of the world while Lauren Boebert retains the title of “Representative.”

Leadership, true leadership, is often at first seen as blasphemy – especially in tribal politics.   What often is ‘best for the country’ is telling your friends you disagree.  The price is often being shunned and ostracized – see – Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney or Adam Kitzinger. 

What to do?

So, if one wants to affect the behavior of politicians – one must affect their re-election odds.   

Want them to be more responsive to your opinions?  One must organize in numbers large enough to at least have them fear you at re-election time.  If not, one gets lip service, if not ignored completely.