Nudge to Vote
Every one agrees by now that the outcome of the last Presidential election in 2016 was the result of working class American voters dissatisfaction. They had felt left out in the technology and globalization led prosperity. Indeed that was the reason for the outcome based on the voting pattern. But there is also another reason that is less talked about and now almost forgotten and that is based on no voting pattern.
At the time of the last presidential election, there was a general sense of apathy about politics that had set in at the time. This was not a sudden phenomenon, but a long term gradual trend reaching its peak during the elections. Common feeling often expressed was that election politics had become too degrading and crass. Excessive scrutiny and virulent personal attacks in social and regular media were not worth the effort for any decent politician with intentions of doing good public work. It is true that there was certain level of excitement with the possibility of a first woman President. But that excitement was dampened by the political baggage carried by the candidacy. It could not successfully counter the morass of ‘politics as usual’ voter feeling. The political campaign by the Republican party had taken the form of cheap entertainment shows. As George Conway, one of the founders of the Lincoln project recently said, it was like a joke that had got out of hand. Those who did not vote in the election because of the general apathy were therefore as much the cause as those who voted. Unfortunately, the tone and mode of political discourse set during the elections continued further after the elections and has got even more virulent and polarized.
My rendition of this story so far may quite rightfully seem as one more partisan rant. But it is my introspective attempt to analyze my own thoughts and behavior with the hope that others may reflect upon for themselves. In particular, I like to explore any prevailing economic or political theory that I could rely on for this purpose.
The closest economic theory that I can think of in this domain is the Public Choice theory. Public Choice theory in politics is the analogue of the rational choice theory in general economics. Like the rational choice theory, it makes the assumption that man or woman, mostly a political leader in this case, acts with self interests. James Buchanan, the Nobel prize winning economist who helped develop the Public Choice theory had said that it is “politics without romance”. It negates the wishful notion that politicians and other participants in the political sphere aspire to promote the common good.
One may or may not agree with the depiction of those participating in the political sphere as mainly motivated by self interests. Those on far left probably would outright reject the notion of self interest playing any role among the politicians and rulers, or proclaim that self interest would not exist under right institutional arrangements.
But there is also another aspect to the self interest assumption beyond its opposition to altruism. Like its counterpart — rationality in general economics, Public choice theory also assumes that politicians and others participating in public sphere are ‘capable of ‘ acting rationally based on self interest. They can therefore make choices and decisions that are logically consistent under the self interest assumption.
Perhaps the public choice theory is not adequate enough in fully explaining political discourse. As a consumer of social and regular media, I am more attracted to those tweets and sound bytes that pander to my lowly emotions in entertaining way. I should instead be making more effort in learning about political issues that would help me decide my vote based on my self interests, but I don’t. This constant lowly entertainment frenzy is in turn feeding back energy through regular and social media to the politicians and leaders. Both media and politicians may be acting more rationally based on their self interests than me. They may even have some altruistic motives contrary to what the Public Choice Theory assumes. I may not be a good judge of that. But I see my own deficiencies in my self discipline.
Behavioral economics emerged as a challenge to the rationality principle in general economics. The challenge in behavioral economics is not about the dichotomy between self and common interest. Instead it raises questions if people are capable of always acting rationally in their own self interests. Experimental evidence suggests that other human emotions such as fear or hunger can overpower self interest rationality. Even inertia can play role in decision making or the asymmetric proportion of pain experienced over loss compared to happiness over gain.
In the Hindu epic Mahabharat, Arjuna was struck with doubt and despair over having to battle with his own cousins. Krishna, who had taken the responsibility to drive Arjuna’s chariot in the battle, told Arjuna about the importance of doing one’s duty. It is said that the battle depicted in Bhagvad Gita is really about the fight with inner demons. Arjuna’s cousins are nothing but his own inner demons. It is one’s duty to conquer own inner doubts and despairs to take action.
In the modern world, we may not have Krishna to guide us. But we can use what other mortal thinkers can offer to us. Richard Thaler, who won the Nobel prize in economics for his work in behavior economics, wrote a book titled ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness’. Nudge helps you in fighting inner demons to make right decisions. I need nudge to help me stay away from incendiary social media app posts. I need nudge to shed apathy. I need nudge to vote.
