Let’s be serious

The psychology of reality show politics

“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” — John Adams, 1777

---

One of the most tiresome aspects of the Trump era is the trolling nature of its politics. You’re supposed to be in on the joke — unless maybe it’s serious, in which case … I’m not sure, and neither are his loyalists.

A few examples:

• When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is asked about Trump wanting to annex Canada, she answers with a smile, almost laughing, but also affirming that Canada would be better off as the 51st state.

• The White House posted a meme of Trump dressed like a king. This was after his administration moved to stop congestion traffic pricing in New York City. Was it a joke? New York Governor Kathy Hochul didn’t think it was funny, saying: “New York hasn’t labored under a king in over 250 years. We sure as hell are not going to start now.”

• Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wrote on social media after Trump’s speech to Congress earlier this month: “Inspiring, funny, compelling and the Democrats’ worst nightmare. Trump 2028!”

Graham was just kidding. You can tell it was a joke because he mocks people who are seriously worried about the Constitutional guardrails holding over these next four years. Where is your sense of humor?

I don’t think Lindsey Graham thinks too much about it. I think he looks around at the all the shitposting, and he wants to fit in with the MAGA crowd.

The whole situation is like a big psychology experiment.

---

Solomon Asch conducted his famous “line test” study in the 1950s showing the power of social conformity.

In the experiment, he gave participants a test of their perception, using cards like this:

Which line on the right is the same length as the line on the left?

When taking this test alone, participants answered correctly every time. The line test was designed to be obvious.

But then the participants were told to join a group and say the answer out loud when it was their turn. The other group members were paid actors working with the psychologist. After a couple of rounds, the undercover actors would start to coordinate in saying the same wrong answer.

Would the participant answer according to his own perception, or would he affirm the conclusion of the group?

Under these conditions, participants said the wrong answer about 35% of the time. Well over half of the participants said the wrong answer at least once during the experiment.

Asch’s conclusion was that even the most well-meaning people are sometimes willing to say up is down to fit in with a group. Such is the power of social pressure, even in a low stakes experiment with strangers.

---

The Founders of the United States understood the power of social conformity, which is why they repeatedly warned of the dangers of “factions” in their writings.

They knew that top-down governance was the norm of human history. Tyrants were ordinary. The democracies of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were special by comparison.

The Founders knew they had a unique opportunity, if they could pull it off, to overthrow the power of a monarch and establish a durable republic. This success might lead to a bright future for humanity, where people could govern themselves in a rational way, rather than being controlled by a brutish tyrant.

The last sentence of the Declaration of Independence highlights the risks involved in this effort:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The earnest nature of the Declaration feels foreign to our culture today.

---

Is there room for humor in politics? Of course.

The New York Times reported on Barry Goldwater’s humor in 1964:

Senator Barry Goldwater may be a political conservative but he is something of an innovator in campaign humor.

The cheerful, extroverted Westerner isn't afraid to bet that his audiences will like, not disapprove, some mild irreverence.

The other day in Minnesota the Arizona Republican said he envied the state's many lakes. He added:

“Out where I come from we have so little water that the trees chase the dogs.”

Humor has long been a staple of political rhetoric. You can find humor everywhere in the letters and newspapers of the Revolutionary Era.

Levity has its place.

Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest political leaders of all time, was a masterful storyteller and joke teller. He had a wonderful sense of humor.

But Lincoln, like the Founders, understood the serious nature of history. He knew the significance of the time in which he lived, and he did everything in his power to save the union and abolish slavery.

Ronald Reagan was an affable figure. He was an actor by trade. He told funny jokes.

But Reagan was not kidding when he said these famous words:

Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

Republican politicians of yesteryear enjoyed a good laugh, but they took the word “republican” seriously.

---

In one of the variations of Solomon Asch’s experiment, he discovered an important nuance: If just one other member in the group modeled dissent, the participant was significantly more likely to answer according to his own perception.

It’s important for people to say what they really think. This is true for people on the right as well as the left. I would argue that left-wing groupthink is what caused Democrats to lose to MAGA in the first place.

The more people are willing to speak frankly, the better our collective perception will be.

Here is the difference between consensus and conformity, according to Asch:

Life in society requires consensus as an indispensable condition. But consensus, to be productive, requires that each individual contribute independently out of his experience and insight. When consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social process is polluted and the individual at the same time surrenders the powers on which his functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends.

This is why free speech is important.

This is the cornerstone of the republic.

I hope we don’t clown around and lose it.