Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

The Realization of Alexander Hamilton’s Fear

October 29, 2018

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
—ALEXANDER HAMILTON, 1788”

By the late 1990s, Trump was clearly uncreditworthy and bankrupt. “He owed about four billion dollars to more than seventy banks, of which some $800 million was personally guaranteed. He never showed any inclination or capacity to pay back this debt. After his 2004 bankruptcy, no American bank would lend him money. The only bank that did so was Deutsche Bank, whose colorful history of scandal belied its staid name. Interestingly, Deutsche Bank also laundered about $10 billion for Russian clients between 2011 and 2015. Interestingly, Trump declined to pay back his debts to Deutsche Bank.”

“Trump’s advance to the Oval Office had three stages, each of which depended upon American vulnerability and required American cooperation. First, Russians had to transform a failed real estate developer into a recipient of their capital. Second this failed real estate developer had to portray, on American television, a successful businessman. Finally, Russia intervened with purpose and success to support the fictional character ‘Donald Trump, successful businessman’ in the 2016 presidential election.”

Putin’s grandest campaign was a cyberwar to destroy the United States of America. “For reasons having to do with American inequality, Russian oligarchy won an extraordinary victory in 2016. Because it did, inequality became a still greater America problem.”

“The rise of Donald Trump was the attack by ‘these most deadly adversaries of republican government that Alexander Hamilton had feared. Russian leaders openly and exuberantly backed Trump’s candidacy. Throughout 2016, Russian elites said with a smile that ‘Trump is our president.’ Dmitry Kislev, the leading man of the Russian media, rejoiced that ‘a new star is rising—Trump!’ Alexei Sushkov, the chair of the foreign relations committee of the lower house of the Russian parliament, expressed the general hope that ‘Trump can lead the Western locomotive right off the rails.’ Some Russians tried to alert Americans: Andrei Kozyrev, a former foreign minister, explained that Putin ‘realizes that Trump will trample democracy and damage if not destroy America as a pillar of stability and major force able to contain him.’”

“The Russian media machine was at work on Trump’s behalf. As a Russian journalist explained: ‘we were given very clear instructions: to show Donald Trump in a positive way, and his opponent, Hillary Clinton, in a negative way.’ The Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik used the #crookedhillary hashtag on Twitter—a gesture of respect and support for Trump, since the phrase was his—and also associated Clinton with nuclear war. Trump appeared on RT to complain that the U.S. media was untruthful, which for RT was the perfect performance: its (RT) entire reason for being was to expose the single truth that everyone lied, and here was an American saying the same thing.”

“When Trump won the presidential election that November, he was applauded in the Russian parliament. Trump quickly telephone Putin to be congratulated. Kislev, the leading man of the Russian media, celebrated Trump as the return of manhood to politics on his Sunday evening program, ‘Vesti Nedeli.’ He was pleased that ‘the words democracy and human rights are not in the vocabulary of Trump.’ Describing a meeting of Trump and Obama, KIselev claimed that Obama was ‘waving his arms, as if he were in the jungle.’ In his commentary on Trump’s inauguration, Kislev said that Michelle Obama looked like the hoVesti Nedeli

usekeeper.”

“‘Donald Trump, successful businessman, was not a person. It was a fantasy born in the strange climate where the downdraft of the American politics of eternity, its fettered capitalism, met the rising hydrocarbon fumes of the Russian politics of eternity, its kleptocratic authoritarianism. Russians raised ‘a creature of their own’ to the presidency of the United States. Trump was the payload of a cyberweapon, meant to create chaos and weakness, as in fact he has done.”

Quotes are taken directly from “The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America” by Timothy Snyder

Advertisements

What Should Be Done

July 24, 2018

The first part of this post is taken from the Afterword of “THE PERFECT WEAPON: War, Sabotage, & Fear in the Cyber Age,” by David E. Sanger.

“The first is that our cyber capabilities are no longer unique. Russia and China have nearly matched America’s cyber skills; Iran and North Korea will likely do so soon, if they haven’t already. We have to adjust to that reality. Those countries will no sooner abandon their cyber arsenals than they will abandon their nuclear arsenals or ambitions. The clock cannot be turned back. So it is time for arms control.”

“Second, we need a playbook for responding to attacks, and we need to demonstrate a willingness to use it. It is one thing to convene a ‘Cyber Action Group’ as Obama did fairly often, and have them debate when there is enough evidence and enough concert to recommend to the president a ‘proportional response.’ It is another thing to respond quickly and effectively when such an attack occurs.”

“Third, we must develop our abilities to attribute attacks and make calling out any adversary the standard response to cyber aggression. The Trump administration, in its first eighteenth months, began doing just this: it named North Korea as the culprit in WannaCry and Russia as the creators of NotPetya. It needs to do that more often, and faster. “

“Fourth, we need to rethink the wisdom of reflexive secrecy around our cyber capabilities. Certainly, some secrecy about how our cyberweapons work is necessary—though by now, after Snowdon and Shadow Brokers, there is not much mystery left. America’s adversaries have a pretty complete picture of how the United States breaks into the darkest of cyberspace. “

“Fifth, the world tends to move ahead with setting these norms of behavior even if governments are not yet ready. Classic arms-control treaties won’t work: they take years to negotiate and more to ratify. With the blistering pace of technological change in cyber, they would be outdated before they ever went into effect. The best hope is to reach a consensus on principles that begins with minimizing the danger to ordinary civilians, the fundamental political goal of most rules of warfare. There are several ways to accomplish that goal, all of them with significant drawbacks. But the most intriguing, to my mind, has emerged under the rubric of a “Digital Geneva Convention,” in which companies—not countries—take the lead in the short term. But countries must then step up their games too.”

There is much more in this book than could be covered in these healthymemory posts. The primary objective was to raise awareness of this new threat, this new type of warfare, and how ill-prepared we are to respond to it and to fight it. You are encouraged to buy this book and read it for yourself. If this book is relevant to your employment, have your employer buy this book.
It is important to understand that Russia made war on us by attacking our election, and that they shall continue to do so. Currently we have a president who refuses to believe that we have been attacked. Moreover, it is possible that this president colluded with the enemy in this attack. Were he innocent, he would simply let the investigation take its course. Through his continuing denials, cries of witch hunt, and his attacks on the intelligence agencies and justice department are unconscionable. This has been further exacerbated by Republicans aiding in this effort to undermine our democracy.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Shadow Brokers

July 18, 2018

This is the fourth post based on David E Sanger’s, “THE PERFECT WEAPON: War, Sabotage, & Fear in the Cyber Age.” Within the NSA a group developed special tools for Tailored Access Operations (TAO). These tools were used to break into the computer networks of Russia, China, and Iran, among others. These tools were posted by a group that called itself the Shadow Brokers. NSA’s cyber warriors knew that the code being posted was malware they had written. It was the code that allowed the NSA to place implants in foreign systems, where they could lurk unseen for years—unless the target knew what the malware looked like. The Shadow Brokers were offering a product catalog.

Inside the NSA, this breach was regarded as being much more damaging than what Snowdon had done. The Shadow Brokers had their hands on the actual code, the cyberweapons themselves. These had cost tens of millions of dollars to create, implant, and exploit. Now they were posted for all to see—and for every other cyber player, from North Korea to Iran, to turn to their own uses.

“The initial dump was followed by many more, wrapped in taunts, broken English, a good deal of profanity, and a lot of references to the chaos of American politics.” The Shadow Brokers promised a ‘monthly dump service’ of stolen tools and left hints, perhaps misdirection, that Russian hackers were behind it all. One missive read, “Russian security peoples is becoming Russian hackers at nights, but only full moons.”

This post raised the following questions. Was this the work of the Russians, and if so was it the GRU trolling the NSA the way it was trolling the Democrats”? Did the GRU’s hackers break into the TAO’s digital safe, or did they turn an insider maybe several. And was this hack related to another loss of cyber trolls from the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence which had been appearing for several months on the WikiLeaks site under the name “Vault 7?” Most importantly, was there an Implicit message in the publication of these tools, the threat that if Obama came after the Russians too hard for the election hack, more of the NSA’s code would become public?

The FBI and Brennan reported a continued decrease in Russian “probes” of the state election system. No one knew how to interpret the fact. It was possible that the Russians already had their implants in the systems they had targeted. One senior aide said, “It wouldn’t have made sense to begin sanctions” just when the Russians were backing away.

Michael Hayden, formerly of the CIA and NSA said that this was “the most successful covert operation in history.

HM’s Experience in Segregated Schools

June 4, 2018

HM attended segregated schools for the first ten years of his education. HM’s family came from the north and thought segregation was wrong. They told him that Southerner’s were strange and had outdated beliefs. HM attended schools in Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida. Here are some of the things he heard his teachers say.

It’s hard to believe but ignorant colored men were able to vote before decent white women.

Ni——s will not fight. They turn and run away. (HM hopes that all readers have seen the movie “Glory”).

Here’s a riddle What is a co-c—n? Answer a n-nig—-r.

Slavery was a good thing. It is in the Holy Bible. And these coloreds were taught Christianity and were promised eternal life. So what were they and still are complaining about?
The irony of this last assertion strikes HM. Apparently they were regarded as people for the purposes of heaven, but as slaves they were treated like farm animals. And some were treated worse than farm animals.

Understand, that this was not formal education and was not required teaching by the respective states. But it reflects the seething racism among even educated whites.

In 1958, some Virginia schools were ordered to integrate. Consequently, the schools were closed. HM was furious at this, and he thought the President should have sent troops to Virginia to remind Virginians who won the Civil war. HM was alone in his anger. His former friends refused to integrate. HM says former, because he now regarded this individuals with hatred and hoped they would all end up in hell. He now realizes that this was wrong. Hatred is wrong and does damage to the hater. But what started out as slavery, turned into a segregated system that held blacks down and still exploited them. Civil rights have done much to alleviate this problem, but racism remains as a cancer in the United States.

Fortunately HM’s family moved to Ohio and HM had the privilege of attending integrated schools. However, when HM saw the movie about Jessie Owens (Race), he was appalled to see the racism present at Ohio State University when Jessie Owens attended. Racism is not confined to the southern states. In the 1936 Olympics Owens won four gold medals: 100 and 200 meter dashes; 400 meter relay; and the broad jump. As astounding as that was his achievement of setting three world records and tying another in less than an hour at the 1935 Big Ten track meet in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been called “the greatest 45 minutes ever in sport”[4] and has never been equalled. There are plaques at the site of these feats in Ann Arbor, and HM visited them and marveled at his achievements.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attended segregated schools, just as HM did. But it had a different effect on him. After Obama won the election in 2008, he swore that Obama would never be re-elected. It was clear that this was primary racial, and not political. Yet people, say that polarization is due to both parties, to show that they are broad minded. But the polarization is more pronounced on the Republican than the Democratic side.

Many Americans were proud that we had finally elected a black president. Unfortunately, there were too many others who were offended by the outcome. Racism, along with strong assistance from Russia, resulted in Trump winning the electoral college. Polls show that many white men feel that they have been victimized by blacks and civil rights. When you hear of Trump’s base, it is good to appreciate the composition of Trump’s base: nazis and white supremacists.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How Could a Trump Triumph? — Part One

February 6, 2018

The question posed in this post is identical to a chapter title in “Twilight of American Sanity: A Psychiatrist Analyzes the Age of Trump” by Allen Francis, MD. There needs to be multiple parts to this post.

Let’s begin with the campaign theme, “Make America Great Again.” The implicit assumption here is that America is no longer great. However, by all indications America was great having been brought back from an economic crisis by President Obama. When he became president, we were on the verge of a depression. He rescued us from that fate where all objective indicators indicated that the United States was already great again, if, indeed, it had ever fallen from greatness. The free nations of the world admired the United States and looked to it for leadership. However, dictatorial oligarchies like Russia, looked at the United States as a rival that needed to be defeated.

It is true that some people were unhappy. But HM would argue that in democracies, people are usually unhappy. This is true even when one’s favored party is in power. It is unlikely that they’re doing everything individuals want. There are also shortfalls due to the economy and what the government can deliver. HM has been unhappy his entire voting life regardless of which party was in power. All other advanced countries are way ahead of us with respect to medical care, many advanced countries offer less costly educational opportunities, and yet other advanced countries offer more freedoms. The term “American Exceptionalism” is frequently invoked to explain why we are different. HM argues that “Stupidity” can be readily and more accurately substituted for “Exceptionalism.”

It is true that since 1970 real wages in the United States have declined. When HM was in elementary school it was unusual for women with children to work. Now working spouses have become the norm. The question here is why have so many married women joined the workforce. Do they have to or do they want to? After all, there are still women who prefer to be full time mothers. But a very large number would be extremely unhappy if they were denied careers.

Middle-aged whites without a college degree (Trump’s most solid base) feel that a they are worse off then their parents. When they think that African-Americans and Latinos are somewhat better than they are, they become angry. So an ethnic factor exacerbates the problem. And, indeed, election time presents an opportunity to correct the situation. But it appears that whites who are not college educated do not widely read, if, indeed, they read at all. Otherwise, they would have realized that Trump’s solution was faulty. The loss of jobs was attributable primarily to automation. Other industries like coal were going out of fashion. Moreover, breaking trade agreements will likely have an adverse effect on the economy. So Trump will likely make the jobs problem worse, not better. Time will tell.

The preceding accounts were from the text. But more recent research questions the belief that job or income losses led to Trumpism. A 2016 study of 125,000 American adults by Gallup’s Pablo Diego-Rosell found that Trump voters had slightly higher incomes than others and were no more likely to be unemployed or exposed to competition from trade and immigration.

Terrorism is a factor exploited by Trump. Since 9/11, an average of only 9 people a year in the United States died from terrorist acts by radical Islamists; while each year more than 250,000 die from medical mistakes, 50,000 from drug overdoses, 37,000 from car accidents, and 33,000 from guns (not wielded by terrorists). Nevertheless, people are worried about terrorists. HM was in high school during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He remembers saying good-bye to his classmates at the end of a school day wondering, along with his classmates, whether we would ever see each other again. In those days, nuclear annihilation was a distinct possibility. At worst, terrorism is a minor nuisance. Even the detonation of a dirty bomb pales in comparison to nuclear annihilation. However, whenever people see a terrorist event on television, they feel threatened. Moreover, most mass killings are the result of the number of guns readily available, and not Islamists. Nevertheless, Trump capitalized greatly on these fears. He went beyond terrorists to immigrants in general.

The world is changing rapidly, and many people have difficulty coping with this change. It’s almost like stop the world, I want to get off. So the campaigning on the theme of “Making the World Great Again” promises a return to the quieter, good old days, if they, indeed, ever truly existed.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

False Beliefs

September 8, 2017

Belief: Crime is rising. Every recent year, 7 in 10 Americans have told Gallup that there is more crime “than there was a year ago.” Donald Trump said in early 2017 that “The murder rate is the highest it’s been in 47 years.” And the Attorney General said that “rising crime is a dangerous and permanent trend.”
Fact: For several decades, both violent and property crime rates have been falling. In 2015, the FBI-aggregated violent crime was less than half the 1990 rate—a downward trend confirmed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics crime-victimization surveys.
HM Comment: Perhaps one of the reasons for this is the prevalence of police and crime shows on television. These shows frequently involve firearms. In point of fact, the majority of police officers retire without ever having fired their weapons (apart from training). A ratio of only 1 in 20 officers having fired their weapons according to “Blue Bloods,” HM remembers.

Belief: Many immigrants are criminals. Horrific true incidents, as in the endlessly retold story of a Mexican national killing a young woman in San Francisco, feed this narrative. Trump’s words epitomize this perception: “When Mexico sends its people…They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
Fact: Poor immigrants may fit our image of criminals, yet some studies report that, compared with native-born Americans, immigrants commit less violent crime.
HM Comment: Never rely on anecdotes, whether or not they are true. Always rely on statistics correctly collected and analyzed.

Belief: Under Obama, unemployment rose and the stock market fell. At the end of 2016, 67% of Trump voters told Public Policy Polling that unemployment increased during the Obama years, and only 41% said the stock market had risen.
Fact: At the end of 2016, the 4.7% US unemployment rate was about half the 2009 rate, while the stock market had more than doubled.

Belief: At the end of the Reagan presidency, more than half of strong Democrats believed inflation had worsened under Reagan.
Fact: In actuality,it had plummeted from 13% to 4%.

This post is based on an article by David G. Myers titled “Misinformation, Misconceptions, and our Teaching Mission” in the Association for Psychological Science publication “Observer”, September 2017.

Implicit Versus Explicit Prejudice

August 30, 2017

This post is based largely on the groundbreaking book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz “Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Reveals About Who we Really Are.” Any theory of racism has to explain the following puzzle in America: On the one hand, the overwhelming majority of black Americans think they suffer from prejudice—and they have ample evidence of discrimination in police stops, job interviews, and jury decisions. On the other hand, very few white Americans will admit to being racist. The dominant explanation has been that this is due, in large part, to widespread implicit prejudice. According to this theory white Americans may mean well, but they have a subconscious bias, which influences their treatment of black Americans. There is an implicit-association test for such a bias. These tests have consistently shown that it takes most people milliseconds more to associate black faces with positive words such as “good,” than with negative words such as “awful.” For white faces, the pattern is reversed. The small extra time it takes is interpreted as evidence of someone’s implicit prejudice—a prejudice the person may not even be aware of.

There is an alternative explanation for the discrimination that African-Americans feel and whites deny: hidden explicit racism. People might be aware of widespread conscious racism but to which they do not want to confess—especially in a survey. This is what the search data seems to be saying. There is nothing implicit about searching for “n_____ jokes.” It’s hard to imagine that Americans are Googling the word “n_____“ with the same frequency as “migraine and economist” without explicit racism having a major impact on African-Americans. There was no convincing measure of this bias prior to the Google data. Seth uses this measure to see what it explains.

It explains, as was discussed in a previous post, why Obama’s vote totals in 2008 and 2012 were depressed in many regions. It also correlates with the black-white wage gap, as a team of economists recently reported. In other words, the areas Seth found that make the most racist searches underpay black people. When the polling guru Nate Silver looked for the geographic variable that correlated most strongly with support in the 2016 Republican primary for Trump, he found it in the map of racism Seth had developed. That variable was searches for “n_____.”

Scholars have recently put together a state-by-state measure of implicit prejudice agains black people, which enabled Seth to compare the effects of explicit racism, as measured by Google searches, and implicit bias. Using regression analysis, Seth found that, to predict where Obama underperformed, an area’s racist Google searches explained a lot. An area’s performance on implicit-association tests added little.

Seth has found subconscious prejudice may have a more fundamental impact for other groups. He was able to use Google searches to find evidence of implicit prejudice against another segment of the population: young girls.

So, who would be harboring bias against girls? Their parents. Of all Google searches starting “Is my 2-year-old, the most common next word is “gifted.” But this question is not asked equally about young boys and young girls. Parents are two and a half times more likely to ask “Is my son gifted?” than “Is my daughter gifted?” Parents overriding concerns regarding their daughters is anything related to appearance.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

The URL above will take you to a number of options for taking and learning about the implicit association test.

Every Body Lies

August 27, 2017

“Everybody Lies” is the title of a groundbreaking book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz on how to effectively exploit big data. The subtitle to this book is “Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Reveals About Who We Really are.” The title is a tad overblown as we always need to have doubts about data and data analysis. However, it is fair to say that the internet currently does the best job at revealing who we really are.

The problem with surveys and interviews is that there is a bias to make ourselves look better than we really are. Indeed, we should be aware that we fool ourselves and that we can think we are responding honestly when in truth we are protecting our egos.

Stephens-Davodowitz uses Google trends as his principle research tool and has found that people reveal more about their true selves in these searches than they do in interviews and surveys. Although the pols erred in predicting that Hilary Clinton would win the presidency, Google searches indicated that Trump would prevail.

Going back to Obama’s first election night, when most of the commentary focused on praise of Obama and acknowledgment of he historic nature of his election, roughly one in every hundred Google searches that included “Obama” also included “kkk” or “n_____.” On election night searches and sign-ups for Stormfont, a white nationalist site with surprisingly high popularity in the United States, were more than ten times higher than normal. In some states there were more searches for “n____- president” than “first black president.” So there was a darkness and hatred that was hiding from the traditional sources but was quite apparent in the searches that people made.

These Google searches also revealed that a much of what we thought about the location of racism was wrong. Surveys and conventional wisdom placed modern racism predominantly in the South and mostly among Republicans. However, the places with the highest racist search rates included upstate New York, western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, industrial Michigan and rural Illinois, along with West Virginia, southern Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Google search data suggested that the true divide was not South versus North, but East versus West. Moreover racism was not limited to Republicans. Racist searches were no higher in places with a high percentage of Republicans than in places with a high percentage of Democrats. These Google searches helped draw a new map of racism in the United States. Seth notes that Republicans in the South may be more likely to admit racism, but plenty of Democrats in the North have similar attitudes. This map proved to be quite significant in explaining the political success of Trump.

In 2012 Seth used this map of racism to reevaluate exactly the role that Obama’s race played. In parts of the country with a high number of racist searches, Obama did substantially worse than John Kerry, the white presidential candidate, had four years earlier. This relationship was not explained by an other factor about these ares, including educational levels, age, church attendance, or gun ownership. Racist searches did not predict poor performance for any Democratic candidate other than Obama. Moreover these results implied a large effect. Obama lost roughly 4% points nationwide just from explicit racism. Seth notes that favorable conditions existed for Obama’s elections. The Google trends data indicated the there were enough racists to help win a primary or tip a general election in a year not so favorable for Democrats.

During the general election there were clues in Google trends that the electorate might be a favorable one for Trump. Black Americans told polls they would turn out in large numbers to oppose Trump. However Google searches for information on voting in heavily black areas were way down. On election day, Clinton was hurt by low black turnout. There were more searches for “Trump Clinton” than for “Clinton Trump” in key states in the Midwest that Clinton was expected to win. Previous research has indicated that the first name in search pairs like this is likely the favored candidate.

The final two paragraphs in this post are taken directly from Seth’s book.

“But the major clue, I would argue, that Trump might prove a successful candidate—in the primaries, to begin with—was all that secret racism that my Obama study had uncovered, The Google searches revealed a darkness and hatred among a meaningful number of Americans that pundits, for many years, had missed. Search data revealed that we lived in a very different society from the one academics and journalists, relying on polls, thought that we lived in. It revealed a nasty, scary, and widespread rage that was waiting for a candidate to give voice to it.

People frequently lie—to themselves and to others. In 2008, Americans told surveys that they no longer cared about race. Eight years later, they elected as president Donald J. Trump, a man who retweeted a false claim that black people were responsible for the majority of murders of white American, defended his supporter for roughing up a Black Lives Matter protestor at one of his rallies, and hesitated in repudiating support from a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan (HM feels compelled to note that Trump has not renounced the latest endorsement by the leader of the Ku Klux Klan). The same hidden racism that hurt Barack Obama helped Donald Trump.

 

Trump and Behavioral Economics

June 2, 2016

On the June 6 & 13, 2016 “New Yorker” Financial Page there is an article by James Surowiecki.  He is the regular “New Yorker” correspondent for economics, business, and finance.  He has also written a book that Healthymemory would highly recommend, “The Wisdom of Crowds.”  His article is titled “Losers” and it is about how behavioral economics explains the attitude of Trump supporters.  The field of behavioral economics was founded by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. There have been many, many healthy memory blog posts on this topic and about these authors.   Prospect Theory is key to behavioral economics and resulted in a Nobel Prize being awarded to Kahneman.  Unfortunately Tversky had already passed away when the award was made.

Surowiecki notes that Trump plays to one of the most powerful emotions in economic life, which is what behavioral economics call loss aversion.  The basic idea is that people feel the pain of loses much more than they feel the pleasure of gains.  Empirical studies estimate that, in general, losing is twice as painful as winning is enjoyable. Consequently, people will go to great lengths to avoid losses, and to recover what they’ve lost.

Suroweicki notes that Trump’s emphasis on losing is unusual  even in bleak times.  But he believes that it has worked for him, because it resonates with what many Republican voters already feel.  A study by the Pew Research Center last fall found that 79% of those who lean Republican believe that their side is losing politically.  A RAND survey in January found that voters who believed that “people like me don’t have any say about what the government does” were 86.5% more likely to prefer Trump.  Trump supporters feel that they, and the country, are losing economically, too.  In the RAND survey, Trump did better  with the people who were the most dissatisfied with their economic situation, and exit polls from the Republican primaries show that almost 70% of those who voted for Trump were “very worried” about the state of the economy as compared to only forty-five % of all voters in Democratic primaries.

Surowiki notes some surprising things about all this.  The first is that, in objective terms, plenty of Trump supporters haven’t lost that much.  We’re familiar with Trump’s appeal among white working class voters, many of whom truly have seen wages stagnate and jobs dry up.  But Nate Silver has recently pointed out that the median Trump voter is actually better educated and richer than the average American.  But an important point of Kahneman and Tversky’s work is that people don’t look at their status objectively, they measure it relative to a reference point, and for many Republicans that reference point is a past time when they had more status and more economic security.  Kahneman argues that even people who simply aren’t doing as well as they expected to be doing feel a loss.  And people don’t adapt their expectations to new circumstances.  A study of loss aversion by Jack Levy concluded that, after losses, an individual will “continue” to use the status quo ex ante as her reference point.”  Suroweicki notes that Trump’s promise is precisely that he’s going to return America to the status quo ex ante.  He tells his supporters that he will will help recoup their losses and safeguard what they have.

Suroweicki goes on to say that the other surprising thing is that you might expect loss-averse voters to be leery of taking a risk on an unpredictable outsider like Trump, since loss aversion often makes people cautious:  offered the choice between five hundred dollars and a 50 % chance at a thousand dollars or nothing, most people take the sure thing.  However, loss aversion promotes caution only when people are considering gains; once people have sustained losses, impulses change dramatically.  Offered the choice between losing five hundred dollars and a 50% chance of losing a thousand dollars or nothing, most people prefer to gamble—opposite of what they did when presented with the chance to win a thousand dollars.  People are willing to run huge risks to avert or recover loses.  In the real world , this is why people hold falling stocks, hoping for a rebound rather than cutting their losses, and it’s why they double down after losing a bet.  For Trump’s voters, the Obama years have felt like a disaster.  Taking a flyer on Trump actually starts to feel sensible.

Suroweicki continues, noting that historical parallels are always tendentious, that loss aversion has been instrumental in the success of authoritarian movements around the world.   The political scientist Kurt Weyland has argued that it played a crucial role in the rise of such regimes in Latin American, where the fear of Communism drove putatively democratic societies toward the radical solution of strongman rule.  Suroweicki notes that Trump may not quite be an American Peron, but, to his his supporters, his unpredictability is a selling point rather than a flaw.

It is important to remember that the basis thesis of behavioral economics, a thesis that has ben consistently supported, is that humans do not behave or think rationally.  Rather they are driven by emotions.

Healthy memory feels compelled to note other facets of human cognition that contribute to flawed political decisions.  One is the success of the big lie and the continued persistence of these lies.  It is extremely difficult to correct these lies.

Another problem is  the fallibility of memory and how selective memory makes it difficult to correct erroneous beliefs.  Consider the Iraq war that the younger Bush took us into.  The weapons of mass destruction, on which the invasion was predicated, were never found.  France and Germany were urging Bush to delay an invasion until the inspection were completed and the existence of these weapons could have been ascertained.

It was also the case that the King of Jordan and Henry Kissinger warned Bush that an invasion would result in a broken country that would serve as a base for radical Islamist groups..  This is exactly what has happened.  So the costs of this war not just monetary, which added to the national debt, but more importantly human, produced a situation that is worse, not better, than what prevailed, before the beginning of the war.

People also seem to have forgotten the financial crisis left by the Bush administration that resulted in the very real possibility of a depression.  In spite of recalcitrant Republicans, Obama managed to prevent the depression and aid in an important economic recovery.  By most objective standards, the U.S. economy is in good shape, and the American economy is one of the best performing economies.

Healtymemory still wonders about Trump.  It is difficult for him to imagine Trump curling up with a copy of Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow.”  It is also difficult imagining Trump taking consul with an expert informing him how to exploit human information processing shortcomings for political gain.  Using the word “instinct” is inappropriate here, but Trump has a flair for exploiting human information processing shortcomings so that System 2 processing is avoided and System 1 prevails resulting in emotions rather than reasoning governing their voting.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.