When the Blue Team Wins Again
Letters to America: hope for those disappointed by the latest Presidential election
“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” - Winston Churchill
Dear Blue Team USA,
After the recent Presidential Election, many of you have struggled to comprehend what happened. How could so many people vote for someone that your preferred news services told you is the epitome of evil...? Of course, my very choice of words renders this into a joke, but it’s far from coincidental that polling recently ranked the news the least trusted institution in the United States of America. My purpose in writing to you here is not to ask you to reassess your interpretations of the facts (although you will need to face this at some point), but rather to offer some hope for the future rooted in my memories of the past.
My first experiences of the people of the United States of America came in the late nineties and the early 2000s. Nearly all the folks I met were blue team supporters. I met diversity advocates in California, pagans in Georgia, polyamorists in Texas, Christians in Tennessee, and PhD candidates growing magic mushrooms in their refrigerator in Colorado. Each was dedicated to ensuring everyone was free to walk their own path. I adored those I met and had wonderfully candid conversations with them, from which I formed an impression of the old left-right divide in the United States that has stuck with me.
The old left, being led by its heart, has an uncanny sense for cultural problems. However, they are absolutely terrible at coming up with solutions, in part because they became erroneously convinced that they are the only intelligent and well-educated faction in US politics and that therefore they must devise their strategies against their political opponents. To some extent this is correct: the old right, being bound by its traditions, are resistant to change and have to be forced into it. But it is also wrong-headed, because citizen democracy cannot be a seesaw between two different visions of how to live, and must instead be an endless negotiation of how to live together. Despite all the compassion I encountered, I met nobody on the blue team who could even imagine working with Christians on anything!
At the time, I had fallen far from the Christianity of my childhood, but unbeknownst to me I was about to turn a corner. The ‘New Atheists’ were going to take this tacit hatred of Christianity and magnify it towards all religions. This had precisely the opposite effect upon me and others like me. I began to realise that the problems in the US (which given the influence of its global empire were problems for our planet) were rooted in part upon an absence of dialogue between Christians and atheists. For many years I ran a blog that was a sort of philosophical encounter group between the two, to modest success - at least until Twitter vacuumed up all the discourse from the internet.
This year’s Republican National Convention astounded me. It was opened with a Sikh prayer. Muslims were in significant attendance. The announced Vice Presidential pick for the red team was a Catholic Christian married to a practising Hindu. It was blue team supporters who first recognised that a lack of openness to ethnic diversity was a problem in US society, but this year it was the red team who discovered how to embrace that diversity. In this way, the heart of the old left did eventually transform their political opponents - admittedly in part through the flight of moderates from one side of the political divide to the other.
Winston Churchill once defended his switching between British political parties by explaining that he had held onto his principles, and was therefore forced to switch parties. An enormous number of people in the United States have now also had that experience, and it was this - not ‘disinformation’ - that swung the election towards the red team. When the blue team wins again, it will be because it has resolutely abandoned campaigning on fear and hate and resumed standing for something worthwhile. The red team requires their political counterweight, and vice versa. But to recover the blue team, a new generation will have to rediscover the blue team’s principles. I warmly look forward to that day.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Older folk who've fallen into the cognitive trap of certainty, in many cases, have done so only recently.... since the lockdowns. These were people who beforehand showed some curiosity.
Always interesting to hear a generalization from a statistic of one about a large diverse population. In any case you wrote well about your personal life experiences.
The characterization of the US polity as a Red-Blue divide misses how dynamic are these coalitions and how they both change dramatically over time. A major driving force in US voter choices is Fear which often overwhelms self interest, whether Red or Blue. Of similar magnitude is Anger over something.
As long as the population is able to vote freely, there will always be hope.
From ChatGPT
"Fear and anger significantly influence voter behavior in the United States, often shaping political attitudes, decision-making, and turnout. Here's how these emotions can overwhelm voter behavior:
1. Heightened Partisanship
Fear: Fear of societal changes, economic downturns, or perceived threats (e.g., crime, immigration) can lead voters to align more strongly with political parties that promise protection or stability.
Anger: Anger towards opposing parties, political figures, or perceived injustices can drive voters to adopt more rigid partisan positions, reducing willingness to compromise or consider alternative viewpoints.
2. Increased Voter Turnout
Fear and anger both serve as powerful motivators. Fear can compel people to vote defensively, while anger can energize voters to participate in elections to express dissatisfaction. For example, voter turnout surged in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections, driven in part by polarized issues and strong emotional responses to political leadership.
3. Influence on Issue Salience
Fear: When political campaigns emphasize fear, such as concerns over national security or economic instability, voters tend to prioritize those issues over others.
Anger: Campaigns that invoke anger about corruption, inequality, or social injustice can shift focus toward reform-oriented policies and candidates.
4. Susceptibility to Political Messaging
Negative Campaigning: Fear and anger are often exploited through negative ads and rhetoric, reinforcing distrust of opponents and amplifying emotional responses. Research shows that negative ads tend to be more memorable and impactful than positive ones.
Echo Chambers: Social media and partisan news outlets can amplify fear and anger by reinforcing preexisting beliefs, leading voters to perceive opposing views as existential threats.
5. Polarization and Division
These emotions contribute to a more divided electorate, reducing common ground between different political ideologies. Fear of the "other side" winning often motivates defensive voting, where voters choose a candidate not out of support, but to prevent the opposing side from gaining power.
6. Cognitive Bias and Decision-Making
Fear: Can lead to risk-averse decision-making, causing voters to favor conservative or status quo policies.
Anger: Can lead to more impulsive decisions, with voters favoring candidates who promise bold, immediate change.
In summary, fear and anger can overwhelm rational decision-making processes, driving voters to react emotionally rather than critically, thereby influencing the overall direction of elections and political discourse."