Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Government

The Effect of Political Pathos

Generally speaking, a large number of Republican politicians don’t support the use of policy to address global warming. In fact, some Republican political candidates have openly questioned the science behind climate change, regarding environmental action as a waste of money. Others have ignored the issue altogether.

This explains why so many political ideologists found the results of this poll so surprising. Conducted by the New York Times, Stanford University and Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan environmental research group, the poll’s findings can be summarized as such: “Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change.”

…Come Again?

This inconsistency led New York Times op-ed contributor Robb Willer to examine the issue more closely. In his piece, “Is the Environment a Moral Cause?”, Willer depicts a gap in “moral engagement” regarding the environment.

“Conservatives were less likely than liberals to describe pro-environmental efforts in moral terms, or to pass moral judgment on someone who behaved in an environmentally unfriendly way, for example by not recycling,” said Willer.

In other words, liberals are more likely to view environmental issues as a matter of right and wrong than conservatives.

To explain this polarization, Willer analyzed the way environmental messages are portrayed in the media. He found that the issue of climate change was often likened to “protecting people and ecosystems from harm and destruction.” This idea of environmental and familial “protection” happened to be a strain of moral concern deeply felt by liberals specifically.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are morally engaged with ideas like patriotism, respect for authority and sanctity or purity; ethics rarely associated with pro-environment propaganda.

In an attempt to gauge the political power of morals, Willer and colleagues created an environmental campaign dressed in messages of “moral purity” and exposed it to traditional conservatives.

The purity message garnered “significantly greater support for pro-environmental legislation.” In fact, the conservatives were just as environmentally supportive as the survey group of liberals.

A Humanizing Find

Willer’s findings highlight a powerful psychological aspect of politics that many analysts tend to forget: pathos. Despite our best efforts to strip ourselves of all emotion at the voting booth, during political debate and when forming political opinions, we’re just human after all.

This raises an interesting question: could virtually any polarized political issue be ideologically reversed with the right “moral framing”? Given the measurable effect of “moral framing” on an issue as controversial as environmental action, the idea seems feasible.

Employed correctly, this tactic could potentially turn the political landscape on its head, mending tensions between liberals and conservatives or enabling staunchly left or right wing Americans to see the other side of hot button issues. Just imagine a world in which an ideologically divided and gridlocked government was a thing of the past.

Regardless of potential political effects, there are a few key takeaways specifically geared towards millennials.

Where We Fit In

It’s important for the stereotypically “naïve” and “emotionally-imbued” millennials to understand this idea when making political decisions.
Take the 2008 inaugural Obama campaign. Obama’s use of celebrity endorsement, pop culture and digital media aligned him with the “cool” ideas, individuals and technologies prized by younger voters. Come Election Day, 66 percent of voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama.

The impact of Obama’s youthful appeal was evident despite it having nothing to do with politics. I spoke to journalist and public policy analyst Carrie Sheffield, who expanded on the idea: “Culture and politics are in a feedback loop.

Political candidates with a developed online presence are at an advantage with impressionable, younger voters, who are digital natives and expect a digitally-savvy campaign message.

Factor in the influence of Hollywood and political television shows, and you’ve got an entire media universe laced with political ideologies strongly resonating with young people.”

What We Can Learn

As we move towards the 2016 election, it’s crucial to make political decisions independent of an artful use of Beyoncé, as difficult as that may be.

It’s just as crucial to examine the positions of each candidate beyond their scripted talking points. These are just two small steps in a series of many towards cultivating an informed, aware and morally sound voting demographic.

What do you think of “moral framing” within politics? Let us know in the comments below, or join in on the Facebook discussion.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: GenFKD | New GDP Data Sends Mixed Signals

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

economy

In the early 2000s, I remember watching a game show, and the grand prize was a million dollars. I thought to myself, “Wow, that’s...

economy

When starting college and choosing a major, it’s important to know which college degrees will make you the most money. Since last year’s quarantine,...

2016 president election

In a political climate dominated by a two-party system, Libertarians are constantly confused as off-brand Republicans. Although the two groups sometimes align on issues,...

Business

What is the gap between culture and technology? According to Damas, entertainers have passions that brands and companies may not be aware of, and...

Copyright © 2020-2021 GenBiz. GenBiz is owned and operated by owned by the Foundation for American Content and Entertainment, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.