I have long observed, since my formative years living overseas in fact, that a driving force in US society is its uncanny ability to sell and market, with an emphasis on marketing.  I see it as a fundamental driver of our consumer based economy.  The purpose of marketing is to get us to buy, and the industry has long figured out how to manipulate us into doing just that.  Problem is, this capacity has also long since permeated well beyond advertising into, among many areas it might not belong, politics.

Marketing could be seen as notorious for tapping into our belief systems and our emotions in order to do its job.  The problem I see is that those, and there are many, unaware of this, become and/or remain malleable.  Couple this with the fact that we, as a society, are generally inept at managing emotion because it is just so uncomfortable to address, especially in professional life, and we have a foundation for emotionally hijacking great swathes of the US population.  Despite a discomfort with emotion, or perhaps because of it, we love to be emotionally involved.  We crave passion for what we do, due, I would argue, to being trained to buy or pay attention to what others are selling.

There is a reason we deem people in an emotional state irrational.  Emotion, despite our discomfort and its greater value than we give it, can and does cloud our judgment.  We get caught up in the romance of feeling passion for a political candidate.  It’s a version of falling in love, really, to feel the chemistry of connection.  But if we check ourselves, we realize that we eventually have to live with the reality, the rational version of that relationship.  Now, if the candidate, much as a lover, has both charisma and stability, that really is the preferable option.  But love, and hatred for that matter, are blind and emotional attachment or disenchantment can have us overlook, or even avoid looking, at a whole candidate.

In the recent national election, the emotional connection and disenchantment were highly evident.  Those who fell in love with Bernie Sanders were devastated at the loss of their emotionally connecting candidate, and left with over-rational Hillary Clinton or emotionally volatile Donald Trump so driven to the rebound option of a third choice.  There were many more factors at play, of course, like identification by way of similar beliefs, but, as mentioned, tapping into our belief systems is another marketing ploy used on us on a regular basis, so ditto the effect.

There are those who will remain enamored with Trump and continue to overlook his instability.  And there are those who are not enraptured by him who simply didn’t or couldn’t align with Hillary’s version of stability.  But just as in relationships of all kinds, we must come to terms with the fact that not one of us is perfect or ever a perfect fit, and so it goes with political candidates.  In light of the options, it may behoove us to forego our passion and disenchantment for simply making the best rational decision.

Fascinating read: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-dialogue-with-a-22-year-old-donald-trump-supporter/484232/.  Kudos to this dialogue occurring and to its publication.  We could certainly use much more of it.

I say kudos, because I have long held that the PC movement has caused more harm than good in that it has driven underground  this kind of critical dialogue. I am also intrigued at yet another revelation that the left disregarding the views of our fellow citizens on the right as “less than” has helped to create a divide unhealthy to American society.  Now, it is not lost on me that there are those who have purposely influenced a creation of ignorance to be exploited, so perhaps we could treat the situation more appropriately by acknowledging the requisite disenfranchisement that now exists?

Another observation brought to mind by this article is that men have long enjoyed dominant status in American society, and in any number of other societies around the globe. There is currently underway a global challenge to patriarchy. Some countries have made progress on what I witness to be a leveling off to a more egalitarian community. As the US traverses this process, males are undoubtedly experiencing a loss of status, and especially white men. The change is already in process, and those resistant perhaps see in Trump an uber-caricature of (white) male dominance they simply crave to save, and keep in mind this is most likely a subconscious reaction. Bias is not often in awareness, which is why it can be so potent.

It might also be debated that the decades long scrutiny of the Clintons, especially Hillary, plays into this as well.  Obama basically came out of the blue, so without Hillary’s requisite “baggage” from her longer term exposure to the existing elements, as a representative of minorities in American society.  Is the vitriolic reaction to a minority president not obvious by now?  And here comes, has been coming, a dominating female challenger (note that a black man usurped her long anticipated rise) to male dominance.  Is it possible the decades long scrutiny of her has been a subconscious effort to make her take her submissive place in patriarchal society?

The question becomes, how do the rest of us assist the transition? Help men see that they are simply experiencing what pretty much the rest of society has dealt with under their dominance? It must be an extremely sobering event for them, and let’s face it, it is not human nature to swallow pride so easily. Nope, that’s as vulnerable a position as apologizing.

Be well.  Be kind.  Bring compassion.

~ Jacqueline, Scholar-Practitioner of Human Systems