Welcoming Political Diversity Within Religious Community

I couldn’t watch more than about fifteen minutes of the second Presidential debate. Unpleasant emotions flooded me as I watched the verbal jousting between Obama and Romney. Hearing Romney gratuitously praise Big Bird while promising to cut National Public Radio funding was bad enough in the first debate. When I heard Obama promising to go after every energy source and praising “clean coal” I’d had enough. Neither mentioned global warming as a primary concern. I read this week in Scientific American, global climate change will very likely be much worse than earlier predictions because of positive feedback loops. Every question during the debate was an opportunity to throw accusations and dirt at each other, selectively distorting the facts. Both candidates used statistics as weapons. Both candidates avoided being specific relying on emotionally provocative arguments.

Politicians and their handlers know, with greater and greater clarity, that neither political philosophy nor self-interest decide elections. How a candidate stands on issues often doesn’t persuade voters, particularly the critical swing voters. Manipulating voter’s feelings about the candidates, on the other hand, does win elections. They decide elections either by stimulating positive regard or, more often, instilling fear, dread and disgust. Slander and character assassination work, and work powerfully. And that makes me angry when I see it happening. It’s one of the reasons I find it very hard to listen to talk radio, one of the primary vectors for that emotional manipulation.
Read the rest here