Physics, Behavior, and Picking a President
Millions find it baffling that millions of others could support someone for US President who they see as eminently unqualified. Is it possible to understand how reasonable people can arrive at such divergent viewpoints?
A Framework for Thinking
I have a t-shirt that reads: “Everything happens for a reason and that reason is usually physics.”
I like it, but it hedges. It understates reality by inserting “usually.”
Think of elementary particles — such as neutrons, protons, and electrons — and things assembled from those particles — you and me and everything around us. Such things interact and move about based on applied forces. That is true whether we consider an atom in a molecule, a ball on a pool table, an electron in a nerve, or the hand at the end of your arm. It’s all physics.
The t-shirt words assert that everything happens for a reason. If we simply look at the motion of physical objects under the influence of an applied force, such as a cue ball struck by a cue stick, you probably don’t object. The term, “everything,” however, is much broader. It includes behavior.
Physics underlies chemistry, chemistry underlies biology, and biology underlies behavior. The behavior of living beings is, obviously, far too complex to analyze through physics. With behavior, rather than looking at motion under the influence of applied forces, we must look at decisions under the influence of supplied information. Those decisions also require an objective, for which I propose the following: “We strive for control of the world in which we live.” If you would, please set aside doubts you may have about that statement, and let’s see where it can take us.
Imagine you and a friend are outside tossing a baseball back and forth. Your game of catch is the focus of your attention and temporarily becomes the world in which you live. Wherever your friend throws the ball, you move your hands to catch it. If successful, you have control; if you miss it, not so much.
Playing catch, or any game, places us in a world with well defined objectives. Picking who we want to be the next US President is a little more complex.
When we decide who we vote for, we choose the person we think will implement policies, make decisions, and behave in a manner that will have the most favorable net impact on our control of the world in which we live. Perhaps we anticipate more disposable income through a promise of lower taxes; perhaps we want abortions eliminated; perhaps we would like to revert to a world where the LGBTQ population is pressured to hide; perhaps we think dealing with climate change is wasted effort; perhaps we think reducing the national debt is critical; perhaps we think undocumented immigrants pose a threat and should be deported; perhaps we are unhappy with the government and we want to shake things up; perhaps we like to piss-off those who think differently than we do; perhaps we prefer our leaders to be straight, white, Christian, and male.
Or, perhaps we feel otherwise.
All of the above and uncountable other factors figure into how we decide who gets our vote.
Whatever our preferences, we also need information. Within the “world in which we live,” we turn to our reliable sources. Unfortunately, “reliable” usually means information that reinforces our current thinking. Perhaps our sources focus on a few cases where immigrants committed crimes, rather than statistics that show undocumented immigrants pose less risk than citizens; or they focus on the timing of someone’s retirement from the National Guard rather than another person’s “bone spurs” that were used to avoid service altogether; or they focus on an incorrect statement years ago about carrying arms in war, but facilitate incessant whining and lying about a stolen election.
Regardless of who we listen to, we must remember that most information sources are businesses that work to generate profits. As such, they have a target audience and, be it right, left, or center, report reality from a viewpoint aligned with that audience.
Both information consumers and providers make decisions and take actions that they think will improve their control over “the world in which they live.” The striving for control proposal says that none of us can do otherwise.
So, are we making progress? Are we any closer to understanding why reasonable people can have such divergent views of the candidates? Yes. The “world in which we live” concept provides a framework for thinking that we can now apply.
Digging Into the Nitty-Gritty
Consider person #1, who prefers not to work with or be around strangers who differ in how they look, speak, love, or practice religion. Might a diverse environment make #1 uncomfortable because it threatens their sense of control? (Note: Non-discrimination rules are adopted with the intention of improving society, but they do limit the freedom (reduce control) of those who would discriminate.)
Consider person #2, who would like to reduce environmental restrictions and government coercion (such as vaccine and energy conservation mandates). Those things can impede work and interfere with #2’s personal life. (Note: Environmental rules and government mandates are adopted with the intention of improving society, but they do limit the freedom (reduce control) of those who would otherwise trash the environment or injure society.)
Consider person #3, who wants to shrink government and reduce public assistance. (Note: Government operations are implemented with the intention of benefiting society, but they do constrain individuals by claiming a portion of their income.)
Consider person #4, who is opposed to gun control. (Note: Gun control rules are adopted with the intention of benefiting society, but they do (or could) constrain #4’s freedom to buy a desired weapon.)
Consider person #5, who has a pro-life focus and believes that abortions are sinful. If one presidential candidate might be willing to sign a national anti-abortion bill and the other would not, achieving control of the issue dictates their choice. (Note: It’s telling that the main issue where Republicans favor increasing individual restrictions concerns something that applies only to women. While abortions are considered a sin by some, to deny a person autonomy over their body, essentially enslaving them, is also arguably sinful.)
Consider person #6, who is struggling financially because of the inflation that has wreaked havoc on their family budget. They feel they were better off four years ago than they are now and, for that reason, support Trump. (Note: Higher prices, which degrade one’s financial control, are a daily reminder of the inflation during the past four years. Covid, on the other hand, which was a life and death issue in 2020, is a fading memory. One can make arguments that blaming Democrats for inflation is not justified, but #6’s kitchen table assessment stands.)
The preceding individuals exemplify a fair portion of Trump supporters. With the first four, and to some extent the fifth, we are looking at people who operate in a constricted world (i.e., selfish). They want what enables their control while showing little concern for the broader population — people who are different, people who would suffer the consequences of additional pollution, people hurt by gun violence, people who would go hungry, or lose medical care, or get a poor education, or be left homeless after a natural disaster if the government were to step out of the picture.
Many Trump supporters, who are likely standard-issue Republicans, discount the significance of his lying and cheating by believing it doesn’t directly impact their lives. (They might want to ask themselves if the civility of political discussion has improved or not since Trump entered the political arena.) Some, however, either cheer the chaos he brings or quietly accept his lawlessness and disrespect of others. Perhaps they see a lack of scruples as an asset for someone who will do what they want done — deport millions, allow discrimination against those you don’t like, allow companies to trash the environment, ignore climate change, ignore public health, etc.
Is the preceding the reason the MAGA crowd amps up support when Trump violates norms or gets charged with a crime? Clearly, anyone who smiles or cheers when Trump denigrates others is not looking for someone who is respectful of those with different views. What those supporters fail to see is that he doesn’t respect them either. According to the Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham, behind closed doors, Trump “mocks his supporters. He calls them basement dwellers.” He only feigns respect for those from whom he wants something.
Putting It All Together
If you view humanity with a constricted attitude, and see those who look or behave differently as a threat to the control that has historically been yours, you probably support Trump. You don’t want the government taking your money and using it to help those you view as undeserving. You also don’t want the government restricting firearms because you must be able to protect yourself from all who threaten you. The only arenas where you favor increasing individual restrictions is where it directly impacts only females (reproductive rights) and children (banned books). You likely think the white-, Christian-, patriarchal-dominated society of yesteryear is proper because anything else threatens the constricted world in which you live.
If you view humanity with an encompassing attitude, and see others as trying their best but sometimes struggling, you probably oppose Trump. When you see hardship, empathy strikes. You want to help alleviate the suffering and, when appropriate, you want the government to intervene with assistance. Economic hardships, natural disasters, innocent people trapped in a war, and persecution of “undesirable” groups all generate calls for help heard by those with sympathetic hearts.
Take Aways
Those opposed to Trump may or may not support standard Democratic policies, but they see his lawlessness, disrespect of others, and lack of fidelity to any oath he takes as an absolute disqualification to be President.
Trump supporters, on the other hand, either discount the importance of those flaws or even see them as indicators that he is the person to do what they want done. With the latter, his lack of character is not a flaw they find disqualifying, but a feature they cheer.
We have our answer. To a significant extent, nominally reasonable people are divided based on whether they are selfish or not, whether their world is constricted or encompassing.
Moving Forward
How smoothly and efficiently a society works depends on how expansive are the worlds of its members. A society of selfish individuals who have no qualms about lying, cheating, and stealing to benefit themselves requires a massive overhead of laws, police, lawyers, judges, and jails to hold chaos at bay. Alternatively, a society of honest and considerate individuals only requires what’s needed to deal with life’s unintentional and unavoidable accidents.
In any population, people will display degrees of selfishness ranging from constricted (self-centered) to encompassing (big-hearted). Is it possible to push the distribution towards the encompassing end? Most certainly, but it can also slide the other way.
We modify that “world in which we live” when we believe doing so will improve our situation. That is the essence of both education and indoctrination. The key is to recognize that we can enhance our personal control and reduce societal friction when we behave as good neighbors. Societies benefit when they encourage people to grow their understanding, develop an encompassing heart, and work towards a world where we see and treat others as members of our human family.
Unfortunately, too often we let ourselves be led by those who divide and denigrate. While prostituting oneself to such leaders may allow some to temporarily feel the euphoria of control, the histories of the periods driven by those leaders gets written with blood and tears.
The choice is ours. We can follow those who are fearful of ‘others’ down a pathway with a sad history, or we can embrace the beauty and strength of a colorful and diverse population. wwjd?
Final Thoughts
How ironic. While religious zealots of all stripes ferment strife and division based on their interpretations of ancient texts, an atheist, starting from bedrock physics and human observations, makes a conceptual journey to a life-affirming oasis that Jesus would likely find agreeable.
If these ideas resonate with you, even a little, please consider sharing the article. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could convince a few fence sitters to let their hearts expand.
