Good post from Jonah Lehrer at the Frontal Cortex about Obama’s use of personal narrative in the health care debate.
I think research is compelling that we have an easier time dealing with moral issues on a personal level than on a mass level. I don’t think this horrible story of a woman losing her coverage, due to our poorly functioning health care system will will help the cause much though.
My sense is there is equally compelling evidence that once people have made a moral decision, they are very good at giving post-hoc rationalizations for their moral intuitions.
Where does that leave us? Forty percent of our country thinks that the story Natoma Canfield is proof that our system is immoral and forty percent think that the story of Natoma Canfield is proof that Obama is immoral for playing on our fears. Twenty percent of the country is probably watching Jersey Shore and feeling superior to both the people on the show and the 80% of the country arguing about health care.
Personally the whole situation leaves me incredibly sad and frustrated. I believe we need a more rational political system, one that allows us to come to common sense decisions and act on our shared values. Instead we are making constantly more craven emotional appeals, ranging from Sarah Palin’s bizarre death panel diatribe (in my mind one of the low moments of American political life in the past 2 years) and Obama’s attempt to humiliate the executives of the insurance companies.
While I agree passionately with the need for health care reform. I neither liked the Obama’s speech today nor thought it was effective. Sadly I think our politics demands this type of emotional circus. I for one hope that we can demand better of our politics.