I think some of us do. The ones who voted for djt and MAGA Republicans, and the ones who didn't vote for Harris arguably deserve what they are getting. But what about the rest of us?
Things like lying, slandering (or insulting), distorting information, hiding information, irrational emotional manipulation and asserting flawed reasoning shifts power from deceived people to the deceivers. It takes from deceived and manipulated voters their power to use their vote to get who and what they want. That shields politicians from accountability.
In theory, the federal government could ban gerrymandering because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. But that's not going to happen. We need to get rid of the electoral college, but that's also a pipe dream. Also impossible, are (i) imposing ethics laws with real teeth on the Supreme Court, (ii) disincentivizing (taxing?) lies and crackpottery in mass and social media, (iii) relying on some sort of morality check to independently rank political candidates on the basis of pro-morality traits like honesty, reliance on sound reasoning, and sufficient relevant experience needed for competence in the job (inexperienced = unqualified or at least underqualified = a possible indicator of bad moral character for trying to get the job).
Upping the messaging game
What a mess. There are lots of deceived and manipulated Americans. Many of them, probably a large majority, cannot be coaxed into reality by fact and sound reasoning alone. That seems to be more a fact than an opinion. Since major reform efforts are doomed for the foreseeable future, all that's left that is non-violent appears to be better messaging against the rising tide of MAGA demagoguery, authoritarianism and corruption.
What's a better messaging strategy that does not veer into dark free speech such as demagoguery, lies slanders, etc.? The only thing that is available seems to strong appeals to emotion packaged with just enough fact and sound reasoning to shift the message from one that is mostly an appeal to evidence and rationality to one that mostly appeals to emotional.
What's a better messaging strategy that does not veer into dark free speech such as demagoguery, lies slanders, etc.? The only thing that is available seems to strong appeals to emotion packaged with just enough fact and sound reasoning to shift the message from one that is mostly an appeal to evidence and rationality to one that mostly appeals to emotional.
Unless I already do mostly appeal to emotion, I will try to consciously shift my content from appeals to evidence and reason to mostly appeals to emotion.
Yabut whadabout logic fallacy?
According to Wikipedia, appealing to emotion, or argumentum ad passiones, is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, or spite, and wishful thinking. .... It is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. .... The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion. .... Disagreeing with Seneca the Younger that emotion destroys reason, the 18th century Scottish philosopher George Campbell argued, instead, that emotions were allies of reason, and that they aid in the assimilation of knowledge. However, Campbell warned of the malleability of emotion and the consequent risk in terms of suggestibility:[Emotions] are not supplanters of reason, or even rivals in her sway; they are her handmaids, by whose ministry she is enabled to usher truth into the heart, and procure it to favorable reception. As handmaids, they are liable to be seduced by sophistry in the garb of reason, and sometimes are made ignorantly to lend their aid in the introduction of falsehood.
Qs: 1) Under current political, social, religious and commercial circumstances, is appealing to emotion necessarily a logic fallacy, or can emotional appeals be mostly honest and mostly moral because they are strongly or completely aligned with facts, true truths and sound reasoning, i.e., not unreasonably distracting from rational consideration. 2) Are current political, social, religious and commercial circumstances relevant here to honesty and morality? 3) Do I already mostly appeal to emotion?
But what if that child really is starving?
Footnote:
1. Pxy:
Q: In view of the human condition, including human cognitive biology and social behavior, and current political circumstances, how true is the following assertion?: “we get the politicians (or government) we deserve." Take into account the relative persuasive power of honest speech (facts, truths and sound reasoning) compared to dishonest speech (demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpot conspiracies, etc.) under modern circumstances, e.g., social media, giant corporations with vast power, political radicalization, etc.A: .... long analysis ....Cognitive constraints
Confirmation Bias and Political Reasoning
Almost every political actor, from ordinary citizens to syndicated pundits, regularly falls victim to confirmation bias—the tendency to seek information that confirms existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. This cognitive shortcut allows people to maintain confidence in their political positions despite opposing views, creating echo chambers that reinforce polarization.The Focusing Illusion in Political Attention
Daniel Kahneman's "focusing illusion" demonstrates that what we focus on becomes disproportionately important in our minds. As described by politicwise.org, "what you focus on becomes important to you. What is important to you becomes important to your politics." This explains why media coverage shapes political priorities, often elevating sensational issues over substantive policy matters.Conclusion
The statement "we get the politicians we deserve" contains an important kernel of truth about collective responsibility in democratic systems. Citizens do shape their political environment through their choices and non-choices. However, this perspective must be balanced against recognition of the systemic constraints and cognitive limitations that influence political outcomes.
True political agency requires not just moral virtue from citizens but also information environments that enable meaningful deliberation. Without addressing the structural advantages that dishonest speech currently enjoys in our media ecosystem, we will continue to see a disconnect between the government we deserve and the government we actually get.
