The court of public opinion

There was a study conducted a short time ago. I heard it presented on NPR, and am sure it was published in some obscure science or psychology publication. I will leave that to the motivated reader to find ;-)

The study gathered relatively un-biased individuals. The group as a whole was surveyed for their “approval” of a certain candidate. The group was then presented with credible, damning information about this candidate. They were once again polled, and as expected, the approval declined precipitously. Now the interesting part. A second piece of information was presented that conclusively, and without ambiguity, showed that the first evidence was baseless and concocted. A final poll showed that the approval again improved, but did not return, not even close, to its original mark.

I am not quite sure what this says about people and their intelligence. I can say that it is obvious that emotions and feelings of mistrust come into play.
So what lesson can we take from this? Mud slinging works. And we know it works, because if it consistently failed, it would no longer be the political weapon of choice.

Which is why it is bothersome when I hear politicians neck deep in the mud. It is a very transparent effort to sway voters with falsehood. If you can’t win with the truth… well, truth is so limiting anyway. Plus, aren’t there two sides to every story? And we all love winners. Even if they had to cheat. It is the American way no?
But that is not the end of it. Some politicians not only want to cheat, but would prefer to not look bad while doing so. So they send underlings to go do the dirty work.

Someday, if we all evolve a little more, or are encouraged to use our God-given critical thinking skills, we will see these candidates for what they are. Cowardly liars.