Elections, Truth and the Applause Meter

Recently my wife and I completed a month-long road trip to Florida and back to Winnipeg. To pass time, and stay awake while driving, I often entertain myself with the CBC radio Podcast, The Debaters. Pun-filled fun, the host Rick Patterson invites two comics to debate some usually inane subject. The latest episode up for debate on November 3rd was, "Whereas not everybody enjoys a surprise, be it resolved when visiting friends and family it is better to call ahead than just drop in.” The debate occurred before a live audience. As with all the debates it began with opening arguments followed by a firing round where the debaters’ poked jabs at each other. Their job was simply to dislodge their opponent and convince the audience that their side was the most entertaining. Reason is seldom a factor in these debates. The debates are clever harmless fun intended to leave the audience laughing. Finally, the audience voted by applause. The comic who elicited the loudest applause won the debate. In this instance, “dropping in without calling first” won the day. Apparently, the crowd agreed that the threat of someone dropping in thereby keeping the house clean and everyone in the household dressed was a good idea.

November 8th was the midterm election in the United States. As I write this column the results fraught with bathos could still be a couple of weeks away. With counts, recounts, and some losing Republican politicians complaining of election fraud, the results may never reach resolution before the next presidential election. But, at a minimum the tv ads ad nauseum featuring opposing snippets of politicians badmouthing each other should stop interrupting my favorite tv programs.

---

Bathos: refers to rhetorical anticlimax, an abrupt transition from a lofty style or grand topic to a common or vulgar one, occurring either accidentally (through artistic ineptitude) or intentionally (for comic effect).

---

To be sure the stakes are higher in these political dramas than a radio show like The Debaters but the similarities, albeit tragic, are impossible to ignore. Two sides are created: nay and yea. The object of the duel is to counter each other at all costs. Any resemblance of searching for truth or at a minimum the common good is held in abeyance. The appeal is to an applause meter.

Jonathan Haidt is a noted social psychologist. In his latest book the Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Haidt pervasively argues and demonstrates that “reason is not fit to rule: It was designed to seek justification, not truth. People care a great deal more about appearance and reputation than reality.” In other words, to get re-elected a candidate must score higher on the applause meter. The only break in this cycle says Haidt, is when people know they will be held accountable by an audience that is well informed and interested in accuracy.

Of course, this is easier said than done, witness the two years of trying to hold people accountable for the Jan 6, 2020 insurrection. Against, the grain of many others Liz Cheney stood-up for moral thinking and lost her job over it. “Reason is not fit to rule:” says Haidt “It was designed to seek justification, not truth.”

Alas I am not a politician and have never had the stomach for the job. I am a churchman. I have worked in and around churches all my adult life but am only too aware how pastors are burdened by the same applause meter. What does the congregation think of me and my job? What do denominational leaders think of me? (Ironically denominational leaders think the same thing, what do pastors think of my performance on the applause meter) And where does that leave the pursuit of truth when everyone is concerned with what everyone else thinks of them.

To be certain we are always working within a framework that works with others. But will someone please put away the applause meter and maybe we can work together for the common good, be it in politics or the church.