More on the election

I recently heard about an interesting theory called the ‘halo effect’, which basically holds that we judge things more in terms of good and bad then in categories. So, if we consider something (or someone) good (or bad) in one category, we presume that evaluation holds for other, unrelated categories. For example, Australian cricketers are very good at hitting cricket balls, yet people also consider them good judges of the best mobile phone, fast food chain etc. Of course, they have no real authority on such subjects, and when we look into it we generally find that their opinion strangely coincides with whoever is paying them money. Or someone that looks real pretty, it is often assumed, will also be a good actor or singer, even when the evidence so very often suggests otherwise.

I think the influence of the halo effect was also very apparent in the last presidential election with the focus on personal histories. John McCain, it was alleged, would be a good president because he was a good soldier, whereas Obama would be a bad president because he goes to a weird church, has skinny legs, and his dad was from Kenya (which is kinda near where all those terrorists are from, right?). But perhaps McCain would be a bad president cause he is kinda old, and Obama and his family are much better looking. How about the number of Clinton voters who were purportedly anti-Obama, even though the two had almost identical policies. The big differences between the two: skin color and gender.

Of course it is important to elect a president who shows wisdom and courage in their actions away from the political scene, perhaps it is also important that they have charisma and represent the people, but surely the emphasis should remain on what is actually significant to their role as president. I didn't feel this was the case in an election which so often seemed about getting the first African American president/female vice.

'Change'

So, that is why Obama's slogan drew such big crowds. Well, he did do particularly well in the states with high unemployment.

But he isn't the first to run a campaign with such a slogan. Which I find rather surprising. Okay, perhaps not so surprising this time, since the last president led the nation into two as yet unsuccessful wars, the worst financial crisis in a century and managed to turn basically the whole world against the US. But really, the slogan 'Change' says very little - only that we won't be like the other guys.

I think one reason that it is an effective message is because we tend to be very critical of our leaders largely due to the impact of the media which constantly reminds us of their falls and places the blame in the government's lap. Since our focus is on the negatives, our impression come election time will also be that there is need for change. As the old actor Will Rogers said, "The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

I may be reading too much into it, but I also see this as coming from a particular Western mindset. Our attitude towards the past is quite unique. We look back on our ancestors as barbaric and ignorant, we shuns tradition. Our culture is individualistic and entrepreneurial; we are encouraged to challenge existing structures and be elements of change. In the East, by contrast, ancestors are worshiped and tradition is held in esteem. Social structures are more stable and people are, perhaps, viewed more collectively in family or social groups. I think this prevents many positive developments like those experienced in the West, which is why many societies in the East are comparatively patriarchal and autocratic. But in some ways this can be better, certainly it is necessary to have this kind of stability in impoverished nations. Certainly those in the East see that their system has retained conceptions of 'honour' and family that are disappearing in the West.

But, for this election at least, I have no complaints about a campaign that promotes doing things very differently.

What Is Man?

The book I am reading at the moment features a intriguing (fictional) conversation between a Nazi officer and an American Jew sympathiser named Chris towards the end of WWII. Reflecting on the Holocaust the Nazi officer would ask himself, I quote:

‘How could we do this? The fine, cultured German people, after which I rattle off the names of musicians, poets, doctors, and list all our gifts to mankind. How could we do this? It will take the great philosophical and psychiatric brains a hundred years to find a standard of morals to explain this behaviour’
‘I’ll simplify it,’ Chris said. ‘You’re a pack of beasts.’
‘Oh no, Chris, we are not even to be classed with the beasts. Man is the only animal on the planet which destroys its own species. But how in the devil did I get involved in this? I’m no more guilty than you are. Less, perhaps. I’m trapped. But you, dear Chris, are all the moralists in the world who have condoned genocide by the conspiracy of silence.’
- Leon Uris, Mila 18

I agree that man’s desire to do evil to his own differentiates him from the beasts. But does not our value of altruism also do so? So which is more characteristically ‘human’, a tendency towards good or evil?*

Well, quite clearly, most people value good more than evil. Most people believe it is valuable to pursue good. We expect this of each other (but certainly not of animals). But at the same time I feel as though the practise of evil is more frequent than the application of good intentions. But maybe I only feel this way because I am reflecting on the Holocaust, which hardly enhances faith in the virtue of man.

I suppose Platonic and much religious thought would suppose that evil is more characteristic of humanity in their earthliness and deficiency. Really, I don’t know whether good or evil better describes us, but perhaps the capability of the choice between the two does. Animals are not accountable for their destructive acts, but nor are they worthy personal merit, for they act without consideration of the morality of acts.

Acknowledging this, to deny the ability to choose is to reject one’s humanity. Thus, the Nazi officer in Mila 18 does position himself with the beasts when he claims to be ‘trapped’. He denies that he has the choice between good and evil, denying what is in essence ‘human’. I think morally, therefore I am human.

Mark Twain argued that, "Man [is a] machine - man the impersonal engine. Whatever a man is, is due to his make, and to the influences brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by exterior influences - solely. He originates nothing, not even a thought." (What is Man?)
I don't deny that, to some extent, a person is conditioned by their surrounds, however, this is not the sole determinate of actions. To argue such is to deny what it is to be human, and inevitably leads to fatalism - 'I can do nothing other than that which my upbringing has already determined I will do, thus none of my actions are my choice or of moral significance'. You may also have noticed that by Twain's own logic, his view is merely the product of his make and influences, and not based on the actual rationality or truth of such a view.

Richard Dawkins naturalist arguments are in a similar vein:
“We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes...our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism {enlightened self-interest) at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense." (The Selfish Gene)
So, in Dawkins' view, man is in essence selfish. But there is nothing distinctive to man, except its concentration of certain biological characteristics also apparent in any animal. We are all a 'pack of beasts' - and this accounts for and justified any possible action. But, of course, such claims make no 'evolutionary sense' as they purely determined by Dawkins' own genetic formation. Transforming man into a pile of genes denies what is essentially human, and its attraction is not based on reason, but on avoidance of the implications of morality. Admit morality, and you admit culpability.


* By my definition, ‘good’ is love of God and love of others. Evil is the lack of love for God and others, manifested in selfishness and destructive actions.