"Emotions," states author and thought leader James Clear, "drive decisions."
Unless you're one of those rare individual's that is on the fence about how you're going to vote come November, It's quite likely you've calculated your morals, values, needs, and frustrations with whatever our political system is these days and made your choice already. And you're pretty damn sure you feel good about that decision!
But do you actually understand why you're voting the way you are?
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, a pivotal question emerges: Are voters truly making individual, informed decisions, or are they swayed by the powerful currents of groupthink and the law of intellectual averages known as the Wisdom of Crowds?
Understanding the dynamics of how the Left and Right groups are influenced by their leaders, movements, and various factors such as emotion can shed light on this complex electoral landscape. My dear friend, Merrick Rosenberg wrote the brilliant book "Personality Wins" in 2020, which highlights the nature of today's political popularity contest-style choices.
It's a fascinating thing to realize how far we've come since the days of single-source news and high-information voters. You would think with the myriad choices we have now in how we get our information our knowledge of the truth would be greater.
But it isn't. Why? Let's dig in.
Groupthink and the Left
For those who lean Left, groupthink often manifests through a collective emphasis on social justice, environmental concerns, and inclusivity. Influential figures and movements such as progressive politicians, climate activists, and social justice organizations have played crucial roles in shaping the narrative.
When a prominent leader or a viral movement advocates for a specific cause, the ripple effects are felt throughout the biosphere. Supporters often align their views with these leaders, sometimes without critically examining alternative perspectives, and more likely based on how they feel about the subject.
Famously, Bill Maher - a life-long self-described Liberal - has begun to mock and deride the far Left for what he sees as "Woke" extremism. His claim that the Left is giving conservatives reasons to make fun of them seems to be landing with those who feel an exaggerated take on issues may be expanding at a ridiculous rate.
Here's an example of an incident that caught my attention recently. The brilliant artist, Lin Manuel Miranda directed the movie version of his first Broadway musical, "In The Heights." Before the movie was even released, groups were calling for his apology because - according to them - he didn't accurately represent a diverse enough culture within the casting of the movie.
The guy who wrote Hamilton - a nearly 100% cast of people of color playing the white founding fathers - didn't diversify enough? It's the calling for accountability from its own members - add to that a confusing mixture of new gender classifications and whatever Gen Z is up to - that tends to cause those outside the liberal bubble to scratch their heads.
A good reasoning for this is clear: this alignment is the human tendency to seek affirmation from like-minded individuals. Social media platforms amplify this by creating echo chambers where users are primarily expo-sed to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This phenomenon can lead to a form of intellectual conformity, where dissenting opinions are marginalized, and the group's dominant narrative prevails.
Groupthink and the Right
On the Right, groupthink similarly takes hold, but with different focal points. Themes of national security, economic conservatism, and strong adherence to religious dogma dominate the discourse. Key influencers include politicians, media personalities, and think tanks. These entities often set the agenda, and their followers align closely with the positions articulated by these leaders.
The conservative base is frequently galvanized by charismatic figures who articulate uncompromising stances on wedge issues, often bringing their followers together against what they perceive as a common foe or threat. This can create a unified front, but it also risks suppressing internal debates and diverse viewpoints.
As with the Left, social media plays a significant role in reinforcing these dynamics, with conservative-leaning platforms and groups fostering a strong sense of community and shared purpose, often uniting around grievance or a common struggle.
A strong example of this is the attacks on the capitol on January 6th, 2021. Based on false claims of election fraud, thousands of riled up people who felt they were denied a legitimate election stormed the capitol, smashing windows, fighting police officers and even defecating on the desks of public officials.
Voting Behavior and Group Dynamics
Voting behavior in both groups is heavily influenced by the principles of groupthink.
People are more likely to vote in line with their perceived group identity, driven by a desire for social cohesion and fear of ostracism. This can lead to situations where voters prioritize group loyalty over individual critical thinking. Those who see refugees and drag queens as a threat will pull the red lever in November. Those who see the erosion of basic rights based on theology will pull the blue lever.
Non-voting behavior is also worth examining. Individuals who abstain from voting might do so because they feel disenfranchised or disillusioned by the political process. In some cases, groupthink can contribute to this apathy; if the dominant narrative within a group is that the system is rigged or ineffective, members might be less inclined to participate.
According to FasterCapitol's article, Polarization: The Divisive Consequences of Groupthink, To better understand the psychology of groupthink, it's helpful to consider the following insights:
Social Identity theory: This theory suggests that individuals view themselves as part of a larger group and derive their social identity from that group. In order to maintain a positive self-image, individuals may conform to the group's beliefs and behaviors, even if they disagree with them personally.
Conformity: Conformity is the tendency for individuals to adjust their beliefs and behaviors to match those of the group. This can be driven by a desire for social acceptance, fear of rejection, or a belief that the group is more knowledgeable or experienced.
Group polarization: group polarization occurs when a group's initial beliefs become more extreme or polarized after group discussion. This can happen because individuals are exposed to more extreme viewpoints within the group, or because they feel pressure to conform to the group's prevailing opinion.
Cognitive dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort or mental stress that arises from holding two conflicting beliefs or values. In the context of groupthink, individuals may experience cognitive dissonance if they disagree with the group's prevailing opinion but feel pressure to conform. This can lead to irrational or inconsistent thinking and decision-making.
Groupthink can have serious consequences. For example, the decision-making process that led to the Challenger space shuttle disaster in 1986 was influenced by groupthink, as engineers and managers ignored warning signs in order to maintain a positive group dynamic.
Mechanical Forces:
There is alo the very real effect that voter suppression and manipulation has had on the ability, will and result of a vote. In many areas, Gerrymandering has caused a tectonic shift in representation, allowing a minority to have majority rule simply be arranging districts in such a way that one side could never carry the majority, even if the population of that district is in the majority. This diluting of the power of the vote has been taking root for decades.
What about the "October Surprise"?
Momentum swings are a critical aspect of elections, often influenced by the release of new information or unexpected events, known as "October Surprises." These can significantly impact voter perceptions and behaviors. For example, a scandal involving a candidate or a major policy announcement can shift the momentum dramatically, leading to rapid changes in groupthink dynamics.
The latest and most famous example was in 2016 when, after closing an investigation into Hillary Clinton, the FBI re-opened the case just 11 days before the November vote. Many believe it was that action by the FBI that swung the election in Trump's favor.
In such scenarios, both Left and Right groups may experience a reevaluation of their positions. The influence of key leaders and media narratives becomes even more pronounced as they attempt to control the damage or capitalize on the new information. This underscores the fluid nature of groupthink, where opinions can be swiftly reshaped by external factors.
Implications for Democracy
The implications of groupthink and crowd wisdom in the context of the 2024 presidential election are profound. On one hand, as rhetoric and real-wold consequences become apparent, many will dig in and participate, ready to support their chosen leaders. On the other hand, the suppression of dissenting voices and the potential for misinformation to spread rapidly pose significant challenges to a healthy democratic process.
So how can we make sure, especially in today's world of misinformation, biases and media saturation, that each vote is counted and each vote counts? In my opinion, it starts at home. I've never believed elections are won nationally, I believe they are won locally, on the ground, in the heart of districts. Despite whatever suppression or gerrymandering occurs, the system is built to be fair. (See electoral college debate HERE).
Here's what I think is the key to democratic participation and the true meaning of free and fair elections: Critical Thinking.
Encouraging Critical Thinking
To mitigate the effects of groupthink, it is essential to foster environments where critical thinking and open dialogue are encouraged.
This starts at home. Teaching your children that questioning concepts is healthy. However, it must also be taught that starting with a conclusion and then ignoring facts just to prove your point is wrong. (See Flat Earthers)
This means promoting media literacy, encouraging engagement with diverse perspectives, and creating spaces for respectful debate. Leaders and influencers have a responsibility to challenge their followers to think critically and to question prevailing narratives, but that call for clarity must be first appreciated by those who can listen.
On a personal note, my mom taught me early on the value of critical thinking, debate, and most importantly humility - admitting when you're wrong and learning from it. This is where I think we've actually lost our way; we just have lost the art of compromise and concession. And in the absence of this most critical aspect to human intelligence and progress, we will run to our corners and dig in. I see nothing valuable in holding fast to an opinion just because someone threatens it with another opinion.
Wrapping it up
As we approach the 2024 presidential election, it's been fascinating to see the twists and turns the camaigns take as strategies shift along with momentum. The media plays a huge role in a lot of that momentum (I'll write on them in a future post), and recognizing the power of how groupthink drives a movement provides at least a small window into how Americans choose our leaders.
But... and this is a really important distinction to ponder... are we actually informed, or do our opinions inform how we recieve information?
I'm pretty sure it's the latter for most of us - if indeed most of us are even paying attention. As I've stated in multiple interviews and blog posts, my view of American society these days includes what I see is our inability to appreciate the complexities of the electoral process and the importance of fostering a more informed and critically engaged electorate.
I don't have a rosy view of our critical thinking abilities. And without that very important skill, groupthink becomes the wool we pull over our collective eyes.
Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that the election is not just a battle of ideas but a true reflection of the will of the people, grounded in thoughtful deliberation rather than mere conformity. Right or Left, if you're coming from emotion, not information, you might never be a true rerepsentative of a democratic choice.
I'd love to hear from you... do you think Americans vote with their critical thinking skills, or with emotion?
How Do Americans Vote?
We are an informed electorate and we vote that way
OOOhhh the other side SUCKS! I'm voting with my rage!
It's a mixture with the majority mostly informed
Who cares, when is the new season of Love Island?
Comments