Tomorrow’s Dutch election is shaping up to be a contest between two parties, the incumbent right-wing, elitist-loving conservative party and the white-skinned anger goblins of the alt-right party.
That’s not entirely fair to the 28 other parties we don’t hear about running for seats in the election. These aren’t the crackpot fringe parties of Canadian elections either – the Marijuana Party of Canada really should’ve named itself the Pot Party – seventeen of them have seats in the Dutch House of Representatives.
There are socialist, liberal, and conservative parties. There’s an animal rights’ party. The 50+ Party for seniors. There are parties for Christians and Calvinists. A party based on astrology, called the Party for Human and Spirit. There’s an anti-racist party, which has no seats yet. There is a Pirate Party too.
They all have a shot at winning or keeping seats with Holland’s system of proportional representation. Think of it! All those voices. All those politicians with different platforms, ideas, policies, and agendas working together.
So why is it that the only politician we hear about is the leader of the alt-right anger goblin party? Why is the only election issue we hear of is about staying in the European Union or addressing some imagined Muslim problem?
Forcing the non-issues
The Netherlands is wrestling with an ageing population, a falling birthrate, and a corporate tax system that invites fraud – just to name a few election issues. Now I’m only getting a taste of the election coverage as an English-speaker, I hope Dutch news coverage is more comprehensive.
If every lead international news story is some racist politician somewhere saying something racist, over time the only narrative for the election in voters' minds is about that politician. Then two choices emerge in the voter’s mind: the ruling party, which is news because it dictates policy and the most grabbing attention opposition politicians.
There are two principles in advertising at work here. One is that familiarity with a brand potentially leads to loyalty to a brand. So when you’re about to buy deodorant you gravitate towards the deodorant you’ve heard about – hearing enough about something implies legitimacy.
The other is people post-rationalize their emotional decisions. You hear this in clothing stores where people offer sensible reasons for the thing they impulsive bought. You say you need that really cool sweater that's on sale because it’s cold outside sometimes, glossing over the fact you already own 12 sweaters.
Put those two principles together and you have a situation where voters gravitate towards politicians they are more familiar with – through the nightly news, newspapers, or social media – and they rationalize those politicians’ emotional appeals into something, well, less irrational.
Reflect before you elect
That’s how an idea as farcical as Brexit became a part of the UK’s political conversation, and how half the voters turned the emotional message of political sovereignty into an irrational idea of economic prosperity.
There’s very little we can do about the media, it covers the outrageous no matter what. As voters, we need to see we’re being manipulated. We must understand we’re emotional beings – not as smart as we think we are, but definitely smarter than the populists give us credit for.
We need to look a little harder at our own political thoughts and actions. Where do they come from? Why do I like what that politician is saying? How are my problems being addressed? We need to be a little more rational about ourselves.
Otherwise the anger goblins of the world might end up running things.
No comments:
Post a Comment