The GOP and Emotion Politics

[Lalaki]

Recently I was having a very intense political discussion with some friends at school. I was defending moderate social welfare systems and the Affordable Care Act, while they were arguing for a repeal (or at least significant trimming) of both concepts. They argued the standard conservative line, what with public assistance fostering government dependence and so on.

Here's where I got a bit upset. When my friends were saying that welfare inhibits the economy, I brought up a Heritage Foundation economic index showing that many countries with more robust social programs (such as Canada) have freer economies and more social mobility than the United States. They paused, looked at each other hesitantly, and started using emotion-based arguments. "It's un-American," so they argued. "Why should the government be able to take my money and give it to non-workers?" To account for that, I controlled the debate only to cover low-income families with at least one employed individual. But even so, they argued against it based on a notion that it goes against American values.

When we discussed health policy, they rallied against the individual mandate based on "government tyranny." To counter this point, I mentioned the free-rider problem. Someone who is having a medical emergency wouldn't be turned away from the hospital, but if he/she doesn't have insurance, we will end up having to foot the bill. In effect, the mandate protects the rights of those who have coverage, and makes sure that most of the population can access medicine.

After this, they actually argued that low-income workers (even those who have minimum wage) should be billed after a medical emergency, responsible for the full cost if they don't have health insurance. When I mentioned the fact that the abilities to go to college or to pay rent would be inhibited, they said "it's only fair."

I'm tired of the misinformation being spewed forth by both sides of the political spectrum, but especially the GOP in the United States. They always argue that "Obamacare puts the government in between ourselves and doctors," when that is objectively not true (all it is is a package of regulations and subsides for insurance companies). They misrepresent the policies of President Obama to rally up emotional voters. Claiming that he wants to have widespread "amnesty" (when all he did with the Executive Action was grant temporary relief with limits), doesn't care about America, has taken over our hospitals, wants to destroy the coal industry, etc. All of them, deliberate misstatements. But they are solid in the minds of millions.

It goes far beyond that. They aren't criticizing the beliefs of Hillary Clinton, but only defaming her character for political expediency. "Out of touch," "elite," and other completely irrelevant terms are thrown out there for uninformed citizens to consume. If they actually had evidence-based arguments against universal child care, free colleges, or diplomacy with Iran, I'm all for it. But what I'm not for are buzz-terms like "it's socialism," or "the Iranian deal is dangerous and ensures that they already have nuclear weapons." And their exploitation of Benghazi (despite numerous investigations proving no cause for indictment) for voter manipulation is not right.

I mean, getting mad at Obama maliciously misrepresenting what Obama has said to make it seem like he supports Islamic fundamentalism over Christianity? Characterizing his refusal not to generalize one billion people into one false narrative as "dangerous?" Many of you might say that only YouTube commenters do that, but that's not true. Look up any speech by Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker. All potential POTUS candidates. Their speeches are filled with false statements, but they are lauded by supporters as "heralding the truth."

To be clear, I'm not saying Democrats haven't done the same thing. It has happened many times before. But the GOP is particularly disturbing with its rhetoric. And I don't mean to disrespect anyone who can ground their conservatism with evidence. Many of my friends have discussed rising health care premiums, failing public schools, and other places where GOP policies can work.

[Insaeldor]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

[Lalaki]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

Very sad. When the only argument you have against something is that it's "un-American," that is a manipulative statement that serves no purpose but to trick voters.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

Very sad. When the only argument you have against something is that it's "un-American," that is a manipulative statement that serves no purpose but to trick voters.

The irony only deepens when the thing in question is truly american, like secularism or free speech, and it comes under even heavier attack.

[Conservative Values]

I agree, though it looks to me like the other side does it worse, like this week with the train crash and the rush to capitalize on those emotions.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say both sides use these type of argument in the U.S. every chance they get and the reason we think one side is worse is we notice more when we disagree?

It is annoying, but it works so we must not be that annoyed by it in a macro sense.

[United Ameritania]

The Republican Party is pretty much being Dominated, you could say by Over-Zealous Conservatives which is pretty much sending it on a path of, for Lack of a Better word..Destruction. For instance, The Tea Party, Bill O' Reilly lying about the Falklands, Megan Kelly claiming "Santa just is White", and the List goes on. I realize that they don't represent the Right as a whole, but if this happens to be the Majority, America might need some extra Lube, it's gonna be rough.

[The True North]

I pretty much agree. The Republicans, especially the far-right ones, seem to employ fear over fact in order to create their arguments. Of course, this isn't new; pathos has been more effective than logos in many instances throughout the history of persuasion. Regardless, most people don't seem to understand the basis between health policy. Since no one can predict when he/she will get hurt or sick, an insurance pool carries a certain amount of risk. However, at any given time, someone is either hurt or sick. Therefore, at any given time, an insurance company is covering the costs. To do this, insurers charge premiums. So, the more people in the insurance pool, the less the premiums need to be to cover the costs. This is the idea behind those exchanges. Yet, a lot of conservatives claim that this is either false or simply not important.

The best way to think of this is like a pie you don't want to eat. The more people who volunteer to eat the pie, the smaller the slices are. So, the more people who sign up for insurance, the smaller premiums will be. Most people don't understand this, or simply refuse to believe this...which is sad, because it isn't hard math.

The big picture is, whether its health care, presidency, or foreign relations, conservatives have gone too far to the right. Just look at Britain. The centre-right (Tories) was hugely successful. The far-right (UKIP) was a bust. The GOP can't let themselves get too far right, or they'll ostracize too many voting blocs.

[Insaeldor]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

Very sad. When the only argument you have against something is that it's "un-American," that is a manipulative statement that serves no purpose but to trick voters.

Tis politics,most of middle America is far for persuaded by emotional arguments then by hard facts. Honestly if Obama worked harder on the emotional side of his arguments he'd be in a far better place.

[United Ameritania]

Well.."He be a damn liberal, he gonna kill 'murica !" Thing is, that hasn't really worked out for many Left Politicians, as That Fields' been Dominated already..

[Lalaki]

Very sad. When the only argument you have against something is that it's "un-American," that is a manipulative statement that serves no purpose but to trick voters.

Tis politics,most of middle America is far for persuaded by emotional arguments then by hard facts. Honestly if Obama worked harder on the emotional side of his arguments he'd be in a far better place.

Compare the Democrats and Republicans on their health care plank.

In order to fix health care, we need to start fresh so that patients and their doctors, not Washington, make health care decisions. The Republican Party supports common-sense health care reforms that will lower costs, ensure quality care that Americans deserve and end lawsuit abuse. ObamaCare negatively affects the physician-patient relationship, reduces competition and damages health care quality and choice. President Obama earned the "lie of the year" because of his ObamaCare claim that "if you like your health care plan you can keep it," and now the American people are losing their health care plans and seeing their costs increase dramatically. We oppose government-run health care and seek to protect the liberty of American patients.

In March 2010, President Obama fulfilled a promise that Democrats have pursued for nearly a century: making quality, affordable health care available to all Americans. In all, seven presidents pushed for health reform over the years. Today, we finally are able to make real the principle that every American should have access to quality health care, and no one should go bankrupt just because they get sick.

For decades Democrats have fought for the simple idea that everyone should have some basic security in health care. When President Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965, we were finally able to provide that security to America’s seniors. In 2009, President Obama extended SCHIP and Medicaid to cover an additional 4 million children.

But it took nearly a century to extend that basic measure of security to all Americans.

In 2010, despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, Democrats were finally able to pass comprehensive health reform into law.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, about 16.4 million Americans gained health care coverage and the uninsured rate has been reduced by more than a third. Among the newly insured are 2.3 million young adults who are covered because the Affordable Care Act allows them to stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is now illegal, and nearly 8 in 10 Americans who recently shopped for health insurance in the marketplace could get it for less than $100 per month.

The Affordable Care Act has also allowed states to expand Medicaid to help even more Americans get covered. Twenty-eight states have expanded Medicaid, and Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment has risen 26 percent.

The Affordable Care Act also provides tax credits to small businesses to help offset the costs of employee coverage and tax credits to help families pay for insurance. We are also experiencing health care spending growth at its lowest level in 50 years.

Democrats are proud of this progress and are fighting every day to preserve it for generations to come.

[Costa Fierro]

I remember watching something being presented by John Green who said that American politics these days was more about ideological purity rather than any form of pragmatism that was generally the rule before.

Although, to be honest, appeals to emotion is one of the oldest tricks in the proverbial book. It's more about people reassuring themselves of their position by appealing to a higher emotive state such as patriotism. People don't like it when they are wrong.

[Atlanticatia]

When you have no basis for the promotion of your policies, you have to turn to emotions and propaganda. aka Fox News

[The Nihilistic view]

Tis politics,most of middle America is far for persuaded by emotional arguments then by hard facts. Honestly if Obama worked harder on the emotional side of his arguments he'd be in a far better place.

Compare the Democrats and Republicans on their health care plank.

In order to fix health care, we need to start fresh so that patients and their doctors, not Washington, make health care decisions. The Republican Party supports common-sense health care reforms that will lower costs, ensure quality care that Americans deserve and end lawsuit abuse. ObamaCare negatively affects the physician-patient relationship, reduces competition and damages health care quality and choice. President Obama earned the "lie of the year" because of his ObamaCare claim that "if you like your health care plan you can keep it," and now the American people are losing their health care plans and seeing their costs increase dramatically. We oppose government-run health care and seek to protect the liberty of American patients.

In March 2010, President Obama fulfilled a promise that Democrats have pursued for nearly a century: making quality, affordable health care available to all Americans. In all, seven presidents pushed for health reform over the years. Today, we finally are able to make real the principle that every American should have access to quality health care, and no one should go bankrupt just because they get sick.

For decades Democrats have fought for the simple idea that everyone should have some basic security in health care. When President Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965, we were finally able to provide that security to America’s seniors. In 2009, President Obama extended SCHIP and Medicaid to cover an additional 4 million children.

But it took nearly a century to extend that basic measure of security to all Americans.

In 2010, despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, Democrats were finally able to pass comprehensive health reform into law.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, about 16.4 million Americans gained health care coverage and the uninsured rate has been reduced by more than a third. Among the newly insured are 2.3 million young adults who are covered because the Affordable Care Act allows them to stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is now illegal, and nearly 8 in 10 Americans who recently shopped for health insurance in the marketplace could get it for less than $100 per month.

The Affordable Care Act has also allowed states to expand Medicaid to help even more Americans get covered. Twenty-eight states have expanded Medicaid, and Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment has risen 26 percent.

The Affordable Care Act also provides tax credits to small businesses to help offset the costs of employee coverage and tax credits to help families pay for insurance. We are also experiencing health care spending growth at its lowest level in 50 years.

Democrats are proud of this progress and are fighting every day to preserve it for generations to come.

They are both full of bullshit about it.

[Celsuis]

Recently I was having a very intense political discussion with some friends at school. I was defending moderate social welfare systems and the Affordable Care Act, while they were arguing for a repeal (or at least significant trimming) of both concepts. They argued the standard conservative line, what with public assistance fostering government dependence and so on.

Here's where I got a bit upset. When my friends were saying that welfare inhibits the economy, I brought up a Heritage Foundation economic index showing that many countries with more robust social programs (such as Canada) have freer economies and more social mobility than the United States. They paused, looked at each other hesitantly, and started using emotion-based arguments. "It's un-American," so they argued. "Why should the government be able to take my money and give it to non-workers?" To account for that, I controlled the debate only to cover low-income families with at least one employed individual. But even so, they argued against it based on a notion that it goes against American values.

When we discussed health policy, they rallied against the individual mandate based on "government tyranny." To counter this point, I mentioned the free-rider problem. Someone who is having a medical emergency wouldn't be turned away from the hospital, but if he/she doesn't have insurance, we will end up having to foot the bill. In effect, the mandate protects the rights of those who have coverage, and makes sure that most of the population can access medicine.

After this, they actually argued that low-income workers (even those who have minimum wage) should be billed after a medical emergency, responsible for the full cost if they don't have health insurance. When I mentioned the fact that the abilities to go to college or to pay rent would be inhibited, they said "it's only fair."

I'm tired of the misinformation being spewed forth by both sides of the political spectrum, but especially the GOP in the United States. They always argue that "Obamacare puts the government in between ourselves and doctors," when that is objectively not true (all it is is a package of regulations and subsides for insurance companies). They misrepresent the policies of President Obama to rally up emotional voters. Claiming that he wants to have widespread "amnesty" (when all he did with the Executive Action was grant temporary relief with limits), doesn't care about America, has taken over our hospitals, wants to destroy the coal industry, etc. All of them, deliberate misstatements. But they are solid in the minds of millions.

It goes far beyond that. They aren't criticizing the beliefs of Hillary Clinton, but only defaming her character for political expediency. "Out of touch," "elite," and other completely irrelevant terms are thrown out there for uninformed citizens to consume. If they actually had evidence-based arguments against universal child care, free colleges, or diplomacy with Iran, I'm all for it. But what I'm not for are buzz-terms like "it's socialism," or "the Iranian deal is dangerous and ensures that they already have nuclear weapons." And their exploitation of Benghazi (despite numerous investigations proving no cause for indictment) for voter manipulation is not right.

I mean, getting mad at Obama maliciously misrepresenting what Obama has said to make it seem like he supports Islamic fundamentalism over Christianity? Characterizing his refusal not to generalize one billion people into one false narrative as "dangerous?" Many of you might say that only YouTube commenters do that, but that's not true. Look up any speech by Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker. All potential POTUS candidates. Their speeches are filled with false statements, but they are lauded by supporters as "heralding the truth."

To be clear, I'm not saying Democrats haven't done the same thing. It has happened many times before. But the GOP is particularly disturbing with its rhetoric. And I don't mean to disrespect anyone who can ground their conservatism with evidence. Many of my friends have discussed rising health care premiums, failing public schools, and other places where GOP policies can work.

Welll, while the GOP does tend to use ridiculous emotionalism in some of their arguments, many of the things you accused of being false are actually true. Welfare does inhibit the economy. Any government program does, because any tax whatsoever takes money away from its most efficient free-market allocation and its use as capital for investment, and uses it for an inherently less efficient purpose. Government is just here to determine whether or not said purpose is more worthwhile than the lack of the program and the return of those dollars/capital into the economy. A lot of environmental regulation Obama/the EPA desires actually will harm the coal industry, as regulations increase operating costs and raise the entry level. If you don't believe this, just ask congressmen/women from coaling districts. Obamacare does hurt doctors because it expands programs like Medicaid, which often pay physicians and other medical professionals disgusting amounts for their service. Benghazi also raises legitimate concerns because Hillary Clinton and her underlings lied to the media, attempted a cover-up, and demonstrated a blatant disregard for American life. That being said, the majority of GOP warhawk and religious rhetoric is still ridiculous. Also, if you want a free-market view on why universal healthcare and universal college education, you should visit libertarianism.org. On the vast majority of the other stuff though, I completely agree.

~Just my 2 cents

[Atlanticatia]

Welll, while the GOP does tend to use ridiculous emotionalism in some of their arguments, many of the things you accused of being false are actually true. Welfare does inhibit the economy. Any government program does, because any tax whatsoever takes money away from its most efficient free-market allocation and its use as capital for investment, and uses it for an inherently less efficient purpose. Government is just here to determine whether or not said purpose is more worthwhile than the lack of the program and the return of those dollars/capital into the economy. A lot of environmental regulation Obama/the EPA desires actually will harm the coal industry, as regulations increase operating costs and raise the entry level. If you don't believe this, just ask congressmen/women from coaling districts. Obamacare does hurt doctors because it expands programs like Medicaid, which often pay physicians and other medical professionals disgusting amounts for their service. Benghazi also raises legitimate concerns because Hillary Clinton and her underlings lied to the media, attempted a cover-up, and demonstrated a blatant disregard for American life. That being said, the majority of GOP warhawk and religious rhetoric is still ridiculous. Also, if you want a free-market view on why universal healthcare and universal college education, you should visit libertarianism.org. On the vast majority of the other stuff though, I completely agree.

~Just my 2 cents

If there is extreme poverty and no welfare system, that could pose huge issues for the labor force and aggregate demand.

Also, not everything is about 'economic growth'. There is also the importance of society's well-being. Excessive coaling might grow the economy short-term, sure, but is it worth the social costs of pollution, carbon emissions, etc? Is the social cost of poverty worth the benefit of lower taxes.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

This.

[Geilinor]

They are both full of bullshit about it.

Compared to the British healthcare system, they certainly are.

[Galloism]

You know, maybe it's because I'm an immigrant to America and not a native, but if someone points out the way you are doing things is stupid, and there's a better way being done elsewhere, saying "well that other way is unamerican!" implies that americanism requires doing things badly.

Which wouldn't speak well for Americanism, if it were true. People who claim such have a very small view of America, and I think we're capable of better things. Always striving towards that which is better - that's a better American way than whatever the hell American way they're thinking of.

[Geilinor]

Which wouldn't speak well for Americanism, if it were true. People who claim such have a very small view of America, and I think we're capable of better things. Always striving towards that which is better - that's a better American way than whatever the hell American way they're thinking of.

We need more people who can look at issue this way. Badly.

[The New Sea Territory]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

This.

Also, I'd like to add that American liberals really aren't much better than conservatives when it comes to emotional politics. Of course, most Democrats on NSG tend to be exceptions to this rule, but this is because NSG just does that to people.

[Insaeldor]

Emotional arguments are shit but logical arguments don't get to the vast majority of the population. Sad but that's the world we live in.

This.

Also, I'd like to add that American liberals really aren't much better than conservatives when it comes to emotional politics. Of course, most Democrats on NSG tend to be exceptions to this rule, but this is because NSG just does that to people.

Of course, that statement was directed at the whole of the political system not just one side.

[Zurkerx]

Quite honestly, they both use emotion in politics. It stirs the people. Of course, I always use logic and will go by logic then emotion.

[Romalae]

Another emotional argument to add to the repertoire is when many conservatives portray liberals as being "soft on crime" if they don't act punitive enough or if they are against the Drug War that imprisons and ruins the lives of millions of people for nonviolent drug possession crimes.

[Caninope]

I'm confused by what exactly you think an "evidence based argument" is, since all political decisions are inherently normative.

[Caninope]

Quite honestly, they both use emotion in politics. It stirs the people. Of course, I always use logic and will go by logic then emotion.

Cool.

How do you logic out values?