All posts by Lloyd Stires

Little Richard (1932-2020)

Music

One of the last remaining pioneers of rock and roll, Little Richard, has died of cancer at the age of 87. Richard Penniman was born in Macon, GA on December 5, 1932. After an unhappy childhood, he began performing as a cross dresser in the Atlanta area at the age of 16. His singing and performing style was heavily influenced by gay Georgia rhythm and blues artists Billy Wright and Esquirita.

His recording career began with eight songs for RCA Victor in 1951. He also laid down eight tracks, backed by the Johnny Otis band, for the Peacock label in 1953. However, his career took off after he traveled to Cosimo Matissa’s J&M Studio in New Orleans in September 1955. There he recorded his first hit, “Tutti Frutti,” for Specialty Records, accompanied by the same local musicians who typically backed artists such as Fats Domino and Lloyd Price. Other hits followed, including “Long Tall Sally,” “Rip It Up,” “Good Golly, Miss Molly,” “Send Me Some Lovin’,” and “Keep a-Knockin’.” Richard was one of the first R&B artists to cross over to the pop music charts. He, Fats Domino and Chuck Berry all had their first pop hits in 1955.

In 1957, at the height of his career, he announced that he was quitting show business to become a minister and would record only gospel music. For the next several decades, he vacillated between religion and rock and roll. Richard was known for his flamboyant, bizarre and exotic live performances. Calling himself, “the king of rock and roll—and the queen as well,” he variously described himself as gay, bisexual and “omnisexual.” He was a survivor of alcohol and cocaine abuse.

Of his later recordings, I recommend two albums he made for Reprise Records, The Rill Thing (1970) and The King of Rock and Roll (1971). Richard was a member of the inaugural class of the Rock and Roll Hall of Hame and was also inducted in the Blues Hall of Fame.

Below are two back-to-back clips of his first two hits, “Long Tall Sally” and “Tutti Frutti,” from the 1956 film Don’t Knock the Rock. Unfortunately, they are lip syncs of the records, but they show what a typical live performance during his early years looked like. He is introduced by another member of that first Hall of Fame class, disc jockey Alan Freed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVIttmFAzek

You may also be interested in reading:

Chuck Berry (1926-2017)

Antoine “Fats” Domino (1928-2017)

Testing, Testing, Testing

Health, Social policy

If we’re not willing to remain sheltered in place indefinitely, and if we’re not willing to lose up to a million lives to the coronavirus, the alternative is massive testing followed by contact tracing. Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Paul Romer of NYU claims to have done the math to determine how much testing we must do to bring the virus under control and keep it there. He is interviewed by Dr. Aaron Carroll for his weekly podcast, Healthcare Triage.

In the interview, they refer to R0 (“R zero”), which refers to the rate of transmission of the disease. If R0 equals 1, each person with the virus infects exactly one other person. If R0 is greater than 1, the disease spreads exponentially. If R0 is less than 1, the disease eventually dies out. Romer believes he has determined how much testing we need to do to keep R0 below 1.

You may have noticed that in my last post, I referred to the possibility of losing up to 2 million lives in order to achieve herd immunity.  This was assuming a mortality rate of 1%.  Romer assumes a mortality rate of .5%; hence he arrives at a figure of 1 million deaths.  Of course, the true mortality rate is unknown.

You may also be interested in reading:

“There’ll Be More Death”

“There’ll Be More Death”

Health, Politics,

The American oligarchy has spoken. For wealthy Americans, the cure is worse than the disease. We will restart the economy, regardless of how many lives are lost. Donald Trump is deliberately implementing a policy that he knows will result in hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.

From President Trump:

There’ll be more death. The virus will pass, with or without a vaccine. And I think we’re doing very well on the vaccines but, with or without a vaccine, it’s going to pass and we’re going to be back to normal.

We can’t keep our country closed. We have to open our country. . . . Will some people be affected? Yes. Will some people be affected badly? Yes. But we have to get our country open.

I used to say 65 thousand, and now I’m saying 80 or 90. And it goes up, and it goes up rapidly.

And look, we’re going to lose anywhere from 75, 80 to 100 thousand people.

From Governor Greg Abbott, as he announced the reopening of Texas businesses:

Listen, the fact of the matter is pretty much every scientific and medical report shows that when you have a reopening—whether you want to call it a reopening of businesses or just a reopening of the economy—in the aftermath of something like this, it will actually lead to an increase and spread.

From former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:

The American people have gone through significant death before [in World Wars I and II] . . . and we’ve survived it. We sacrificed those lives.

Christie added that the sacrifice was necessary “to stand up for the American way of life.” When asked whether the American people would be willing to tolerate this many deaths, he replied, “They’re gonna have to.”

Drawing on a military analogy, Trump and Christie have referred to those who are about to die as “warriors,” hoping we will see them as having sacrificed their lives for their country. In fact, Trump is not making war on the coronavirus but surrendering to it in order to achieve herd immunity. As Vox columnist David Roberts noted, rather than referring to workers, the elderly and the sick as “warriors,” a more appropriate term might be “cannon fodder.”

How many Americans will die? On May 4, the New York Times leaked a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicting that, if we reopen the economy, we will have 200,000 new cases and 3000 deaths per day by June 1. This is up from the current 25,000 cases and 1700 deaths per day. Epidemiologists predict that, assuming a mortality rate of 1%, allowing deaths to continue until we achieve herd immunity will result in about 2 million American deaths.

As usual, as Trump and his surrogates were making these grim announcements, the corporate media were obediently obscuring their importance by distracting us with trivial “issues” such Trump’s decision to tour a face mask manufacturing facility without wearing a face mask.

Letting the virus run its course conveniently coincides with Trump’s reelection strategy of hoping that a majority of Americans care more about their pocketbooks than the lives of their fellow citizens. Despite unanimous recommendations from experts that we need more COVID-19 testing, Trump rejected their advice, saying that “by doing all this testing, we make ourselves look bad.”  Does “ourselves” refer to the American people, or just the Trump administration?

It’s easy to dismiss Trump as an obvious sociopath, but he speaks for the American financial and political oligarchy that is quietly but ruthlessly taking pages out of the class warfare playbook. They began by passing trillions of dollars in bailouts, and ensuring that the majority of the funds would go to those corporations and individuals who are least in need of the money. (For details, see this article.) Needless to say, these bipartisan corporate welfare bills passed Congress almost unanimously.

However, in order to restart the economy, the corporate class still faces two problems. First, in order to reopen businesses, they must persuade workers (and sometimes consumers) to risk their lives and those of their families. This is to be accomplished through economic blackmail. Although figures are hard to come by, a high percentage—perhaps a majority—of working Americans are either ineligible for unemployment, or have not received it yet due to a bureaucratic system designed primarily to prevent fraud. Many of these same people have lost their health insurance. These workers will have to choose between risking death from COVID-19 and starvation.  (The weakest link in Trump’s plan may be the fact that consumers will usually not have to make this choice.)

Trump issued an executive order directing meat packing plants to remain open during the pandemic in spite of unsafe conditions. Republican governors of three states, Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas, have announced that workers who refuse to return to work when their workplace reopens will be ineligible for unemployment benefits. Denying benefits to people who have turned down a job is apparently legal and is likely to spread.

A second possible problem for corporations is that, should they fail to provide safe working conditions, they might be held legally responsible for the deaths or illnesses of their workers. Senator Mitch McConnell has announced that one of his conditions for approving any future coronavirus relief is that Congress grant employers immunity against any lawsuits from employees or their survivors.  Trump’s Justice Department has stated that they intend to take the side of meat-packing companies should they be sued by their workers for not providing a safe environment.

Whenever we turn on TV, we are bombarded by insipid messages from corporate America claiming “we’re all in this together” (and presumably all equally in need of the sponsor’s product). This message becomes a form of black humor in a country where not everyone has been rescued by the government and not everyone will be protected from harm.

You may also be interested in reading:

Did Ebola Influence the 2014 Elections (Revisited)?

The Changing Demographics of COVID-19

Health, Politics, , ,

The media have given us a stereotype of the Americans most likely to have contracted the coronavirus. You probably think of COVID-19 as a disease primarily affecting the country’s urban poor. You have probably also read the news that African-Americans, and possibly Latinos, have been stricken at a rate higher than their percentage of the population. These generalizations are accurate, but things are changing.

In a brief paper, Dr. William Frey of the Brookings Institution analyzed date compiled by the New York Times in order to compare the demographic characteristics of those counties hardest hit by the virus at different points in time.

In the above chart, the second bar from the left shows the characteristics of those counties with an infection rate of 100 or more per 100,000 population as of March 29. The bar at the left shows the population baselines. As you can see, the hardest hit counties were more likely to be in the Northeast, more urban, and more likely to have voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

The next three bars show the characteristics of the new counties that reached the 100/100,000 rate during each of the next three weeks. These counties are increasingly located in the West, South and Midwest, they are more suburban and rural, and they are more likely than the early counties to have voted for Trump. In other words, the counties that are most affected by the coronavirus are gradually coming to resemble the demographics of the country as a whole.

This table shows a similar picture. Majority-white counties are catching up with counties with more minorities. The newly-affected counties are less likely to have a large immigrant population. The income data, however, are less consistent with the media stereotype, since the early counties contain more higher income people. I assume this is because the virus first took hold in cities with high income inequality like New York and Seattle. Over time, however, the income distribution is starting to resemble the baseline for the country.

These demographic shifts seem likely to have political implications. At the very least, white rural Republicans are not going to be able to dismiss the pandemic as somebody else’s problem. Frey suggests that they will become less receptive to Trump’s attempts to reopen American businesses. Fear of mortality will spread. In the past, such external threats have tended to help conservative candidates, but the situation is far too volatile to make a one-sided prediction. Will some people who voted for Trump in 2016 blame him for not keeping the danger away from their community?

You may also be interested in reading:

Did Ebola Influence the 2014 Elections (Revisited)?

Did Ebola Influence the 2014 Elections (Revisited)?

Media, Politics, Social psychology, , , ,

Social psychologists have known for a long time that (a) politically conservative people are more responsive to fear-arousing threats, such as news about terrorism or weather emergencies, and that (b) reminding them of these threats causes people to become more conservative in their attitudes. Due to COVID-19, this is a time when we are all confronting our own mortality. (How many of you, in the last six weeks, have thought about the current status of your will?) This raises the question of what effect the coronavirus will have on the 2020 elections.

This week the Association for Psychological Science reprinted a 2016 research study by Alec Beall and colleagues entitled “Infections and Elections: Did an Ebola Outbreak Influence the 2014 U. S. Federal Elections (And If So How)?” Unfortunately, the study is gated, so only members can read it, but I wrote a blog post about it on December 31, 2016, shortly after its publication. Here is that post. After you’ve read it, I’ll return with some comments (also in italics).

 

Republicans did very well on Election Day 2014, gaining control of the Senate for the first time in eight years and increasing their majority in the House of Representatives. Most pundits attributed these results to low turnout by Democrats in a non-presidential election year and to President Obama’s poor approval ratings, due primarily to the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act earlier that year. But a recent paper by Alec Beall and two other psychologists at the University of British Columbia suggests that breaking news about the Ebola epidemic also played a significant role in the election outcome.

Their paper contains two studies, both of which are interrupted time series designs. In this design, data that are routinely collected are examined to see if they change after a specific event. In the first study, they analyzed the aggregate results of all polls conducted between September 1 and November 1, 2014 that asked respondents whether they intended to vote for a Democrat or a Republican in their upcoming House election. The “interruption” occurred when Center for Disease Control announced the first Ebola case in the U. S. on September 30. The research question was whether the poll results changed from before to after that date.

The above results show support for the Republican candidate minus support for the Democratic candidate in the month (a) and the week (b) before and after the Ebola story broke. In both cases, the temporal trends were significantly different from before to after September 30. The before and after lines had different slopes, and the shift was in favor of the Republican candidates. The authors also collected data from Google on the daily search volume for the term “Ebola,” and found that it too was positively related to Republican voting intentions.

Beall and his colleagues examined two possible alternative explanations—concern about terrorism and the economy. They measured daily search volume for the term “ISIS,” and checked the Dow-Jones Industrial Average, which was dropping at the time. Interest in ISIS was (surprisingly) negatively related to Republican voting intentions and the stock market had no significant effect.

In their second study, the authors looked at the 34 Senate races. They computed 34 state-specific polling averages by subtracting Democratic voting intentions from Republican intentions. Then they subtracted the September results from the October results. Thus, a higher number would indicate a shift toward the Republican candidate. The aggregate results showed a significant increase in Republican voting intentions after September 30.

However, not all states shifted in the same direction. Using Cook’s Partisan Voter Index, they determined whether each state had voted more for Republicans or Democrats in recent years. Then they analyzed the data separately for “red” and “blue” states. The results are shown below.

The changes were in the direction of the state’s dominant political party. In the red states, the Republican candidate did better after September 30. In the blue states, the Ebola scare seemed to help the Democrat, although the effect was smaller. This could also be interpreted as a shift toward the favorite, since candidates who were leading before September 30 tended to do even better after that date.

This study is part of a small but increasing body of research which shows that external threats that cause fear in the population seem to work to the advantage of conservative political candidates. In a previous post, I reported on a British study which indicated that the 2005 London bombings increased prejudice toward Muslims. More to the point is a 2004 study in which reminding participants of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center increased support for President George W. Bush in his campaign against John Kerry. These studies are consistent with older research suggesting that social threats are associated with an increase in authoritarianism in the U. S. population. Authoritarian attitudes are characterized by obedience to authority, hostility toward minority groups and a high degree of conformity to social norms.

Surprisingly, Beall and his colleagues did not mention terror management theory as a way of understanding their results. According to this theory, human awareness of the inevitability of death—called mortality salience—creates existential terror and the need to manage this terror. One way people manage terror is through defensive efforts to validate their own cultural world views—those attitudes that give their lives meaning and purpose. Previous research suggests that mortality salience results primarily in conservative shifts in attitudes, including support for harsher punishment for moral transgressors, increased attachment to charismatic leaders, and increases in religiosity and patriotism. (A charismatic leader is one whose influence depends on citizen identification with the leader or the nation-state, as in “Make America great again.”) The Bush v. Kerry study mentioned in the preceding paragraph was intended to be a test of terror management theory.

One of the effects of saturation coverage of the Ebola epidemic was to remind people of the possibility of their own death and that of loved ones. The results of the 2014 House elections are consistent with a terror management interpretation. The Senate results do not contradict the theory, since there was an overall shift in favor of Republican candidates, but they add an additional detail. In states that usually voted Democratic, the Ebola scare increased support for Democrats. If mortality salience causes people to reaffirm their cultural world views, this could have produced a shift toward liberalism in states in which the majority of citizens held progressive attitudes.

Research findings such as these suggest the possibility that political parties and the corporate media might strategically exaggerate threats in order to influence the outcomes of elections. Willer found that government-issued terror alerts between 2001 and 2004 were associated with stronger approval ratings of President Bush. Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security at the time, later admitted that he was pressured by the White House to increase the threat level before the 2004 election. Since that time, it has become routine for Republicans to emphasize threats to the public’s well-being more than Democrats, and evidence from the 2016 presidential debates suggests that the media gave greater attention to Republican issues.

Republicans made Ebola an issue in the 2014 election, claiming that President Obama was failing to adequately protect public health and arguing that he should close the borders and not allow Americans suffering from the virus back into the country for treatment. In retrospect, news coverage of the threat of Ebola appears to have created unnecessary panic. Analysis of the motives of the media decision makers is complicated by the knowledge that they also exaggerate threats because they believe that increasing public fear leads to higher ratings. Media Matters for America presented data showing that coverage of Ebola plummeted immediately after the 2014 election was over (see below). However, I know of no “smoking gun” showing that the corporate media deliberately created panic in order to help Republican candidates.

 

Addendum

It’s interesting to speculate about how the coronavirus affected the 2020 Democratic primary contest. The first known American death due to COVID-19 occurred near Seattle on February 28. The sudden reversal of fortune in which the most conservative candidate Joe Biden burst into the delegate lead at the expense of the most liberal candidate Bernie Sanders began with the South Carolina primary on Saturday, February 29, and continued with the Super Tuesday contests on March 3. Over that weekend, one of the top news stories was the dramatic spike in the number of infections in Europe. President Trump finally declared a national emergency on March 13, by which time the Democratic contest was essentially over. It seems plausible that the coronavirus was a background factor that helped convince Democrats not to risk going into the 2020 election with a candidate that Trump might brand a socialist, and to choose a more familiar candidate.

I’m not suggesting that the coronavirus will guarantee the reelection of President Trump or the election of any other Republican candidate. I’m sure you’ve noticed that the data in Beall’s study were collected within just a few days of the peak of publicity surrounding the Ebola virus. A lot can happen between now and November. In the unlikely event that the coronavirus is no longer a problem, its effect on the elections may be minimal. In the case of the president, the success with which he is perceived to have responded the emergency should logically be more important than the existence of the emergency itself. But the polling done thus far suggests that there is very little agreement among partisans on how effectively Trump has dealt with the crisis. And the Ebola study suggests that the pandemic could even influence the outcomes of down-ballot races for political offices have no direct effect on the epidemic or our recovery from it.

If nothing else, Beall’s research should alert us to the importance social context during an election, including external threats that are sometimes overlooked because they are not explicitly political. It should also make us mindful of politicians and media sources that attempt to either exaggerate or downplay these events.

Feelin’ Hot, Hot, Hot

Environment, Law

The data are in. 2019 was the second-hottest year in modern history. (2016 was the hottest.) The last five years have been the five hottest years on record. According to Petteri Taalas, the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, “On the current path of carbon dioxide emissions, we are heading towards a temperature increase of 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.” That’s of course presuming that human beings are still around in 2100.

Here is a chart from NASA showing the average global temperature from 1880 to the present. The baseline, represented by zero on the chart, is the average temperature between 1950 and 1980. (“GISTEMP” stands for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Surface Temperature Analysis.)

The second figure shows that the temperature increase is not evenly distributed around the Earth, but it concentrated at the poles, particularly the Arctic.

The next chart shows the steep decline of Arctic sea ice from 1880 to the present, this time compared to a baseline of the 1981-2010 average.

Finally, this illustration shows the distribution of the 2019 temperature increase (or decrease) within the continental United States, this time compared to the 20th century average. Obviously, the problem is concentrated in the Southeastern states. (I don’t know why NASA keeps changing the baseline. Maybe they just want to keep us on our toes.)

As if to put an exclamation point on these data, last Friday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed the five year long lawsuit (Juliana v. United States) by 21 American young people intended to force the government to do something about climate change on the grounds that climate inaction was putting their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at risk. The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the climate, and that “the plaintiff’s case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large.” Good luck, kids.

The dissenter, District Judge Josephine Stanton, stated: “It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward the Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”

You may also be interested in reading:

Climate Spirals

The Cost of Climate Inaction

Things That Never Change

Media, War and peace, , ,

               It’s deja vu all over again.

                                                  Yogi Berra

Some thoughts on the corporate media’s coverage of the Middle East crisis in the two weeks since President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Suleimani:

The corporate media’s initial response was uncritical acceptance of the Trump administration’s justification for the attack.

There is near universal agreement that media coverage of the George W. Bush administration’s justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a total failure. The media reported without skepticism our government’s false claims that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and that he had participated indirectly in the 9/11 attacks. A 2003 study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found that pro-war commentators greatly outnumbered anti-war voices on the major networks during the run-up to and early days of the invasion. If fact, only 3% of American sources could be classified as anti-war. People’s misperceptions continued long after the war and were systematically related to the coverage provided by their preferred news sources.

This month, the media are continuing in their traditional role as “stenographers to power,” dutifully reporting that Suleimani’s assassination was necessary to prevent “imminent” future attacks on Americans. Following unwritten rules, it was only after Congresspeople began to question the administration’s claims that the media began to focus on technicalities such as Trump’s failure to consult Congress. Unfortunately, this “he said/she said” journalism was not followed by any serious attempt to discover the truth.

Trump eventually contributed to the partial unraveling of the rationale for his attack by making embarrassingly inconsistent claims that his own subordinates were unwilling to confirm, i.e., “I believe it would have been four embassies.” In the end, Trump concluded that whether Suleimani posed an imminent threat “doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past.”

In fact, there was almost a consensus among politicians and media commentators that Suleimani deserved to die, since he was a “terrorist.” He was said to have helped Iraqi dissidents to kill American soldiers with roadside bombs. (Trump: “Great percentages of people don’t have legs right now, or arms, because of this son of a bitch.”) Presumably, the Iraqis are too dumb to have constructed such bombs on their own. But even if this charge is true, terrorism is defined as violence directed at civilians, not at soldiers and “contractors,” i.e., mercenaries, who have occupied Iraq since our illegal invasion in 2003.

The media’s pro-war bias is facilitated by their almost exclusive reliance on “expert” commentators who are current and former government employees, including retired generals.

Within a few weeks, someone will undoubtedly publish an analysis similar to the 2003 FAIR study showing that hawkish voices predominated during these past two weeks. As we wait, I want to make two points.

  • Many of these pro-war voices turn out, on closer inspection, to be owners or directors of, or consultants to, weapons manufacturers; for example, Barry McCaffrey (Raytheon), Michael Chertoff (BAE Systems), and Jeh Johnson (Lockheed-Martin) . These financial conflicts of interest are almost never disclosed on the air.
  • If one were looking for a true expert on the Middle Eastern conflict, a logical choice might be someone who had opposed the disastrous 2003 invasion. There are such people. Some of them are still in Congress. (One of them is even running for President.) However, the socialization of media personnel is so complete that looking for this source of information is unlikely to even occur to them. Instead, we hear the same old voices that have been so wrong so many times in the past.

Iran may well be another Iraq waiting to happen. That Trump and his advisors believe that we can get Iran to capitulate with “maximum pressure” shows how little they know about the Middle East. Trump, like Obama before him, is testing the limits of presidential war powers. But short of a mass movement taking to the streets, what’s to stop him? A recent survey shows that over two-thirds (69%) of voters want an end to the “war on terror” in Afghanistan and the Middle East. But does public opinion make any difference?

You may also be interested in reading:

Worthy and Unworthy Victims

The World According to the Donald

Eddy Clearwater (1935-2018)

Music

Veteran Chicago bluesman Eddy “The Chief” Clearwater died Friday, June 1, of heart failure in Skokie, IL. His nickname came from the fact that he was part Native American (Cherokee). He began his career in the late 1950s as a Chuck Berry imitator, but evolved into one of Chicago’s finest blues singers and guitarists. A member of the Blues Hall of Fame, he was also known for his showmanship. My favorite Eddy Clearwater moment came at the 1998 Pocono Blues Festival, when he rode across the field to the stage on horseback wearing a full Indian headdress.

This version of “Blues This Morning” comes from a 2008 performance in Paris.

You may also be interested in reading:

Chuck Berry (1926-2017)

Antoine “Fats” Domino (1928-2017)

Compared to What?

Cognitive psychology, Politics, ,

According to an October 22-24 The Economist/YouGov poll, 51% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush, while only 42% have an unfavorable opinion of him. Journalist Jacob Sugarman calls this “the single most depressing poll of Trump’s presidency.” He implies that our current president is implicated in this result.

George W. Bush told the American people the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. His invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. It resulted in the deaths of 4400 Americans and 268,000 Iraqis at a cost conservatively estimated at $2 trillion. It set off chaos in the Middle East and led indirectly to the formation of ISIS, sponsors of a terrorist threat that continues 14 years later. According to a Gallup poll, only 6% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of Bush when his presidency ended in January 2009. But now a majority of Democrats have a favorable opinion of him. How can we explain this?

Human judgment is context dependent. Today’s temperature will feel warm or cool depending on what the temperature was yesterday. Both assimilation and contrast effects can occur. If today’s temperature is similar to yesterday’s, it may be assimilated to yesterday’s and the two days perceived as more alike that they actually were. However, if there is a noticeable difference between yesterday’s and today’s temperatures, a contrast effect occurs, with the result that today’s temperature feels cooler when it follows a warmer day than when it follows a colder day.

What determines whether assimilation or contrast will occur? Assume we are comparing an object of judgment, called the target, to a standard of comparison. According to the inclusion/exclusion model of Norbert Schwarz and Herbert Bless, if the standard of comparison can be included within the target group, assimilation will occur, and the evaluation of the target will shift in the direction of the standard. However, if the standard cannot be included within the target—that is, if it is excluded—the target will be contrasted with the standard and its evaluation will shift in the opposite direction.

If that sounds complicated, here’s an example. In a 1992 study, Schwarz and Bless encouraged participants to think about a corrupt politician. They used German politicians, but an American example might be Richard Nixon. Participants were then asked to judge the trustworthiness of politicians in general, and the trustworthiness of several specific politicians. In this example, Richard Nixon is the standard by which other politicians are judged. Since Nixon is a member of the category of politicians, he is assimilated to the target group, and politicians in general are evaluated more negatively. However, when participants are asked to judge other politicians, say, Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter, contrast effects occur. Richard Nixon is not Gerald Ford; they are mutually exclusive. If Nixon comes to mind when Ford is evaluated, they will be contrasted and Ford will be seen as more trustworthy than he would have been if the participants had not been thinking about Nixon.

According to an August 2017 survey by the American Psychological Association, a majority (59%) of American adults consider this to be the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember. The target of the Economist/You Gov survey was George W. Bush. Let’s assume that Donald Trump’s recent behavior has been very salient to most Americans. Even though respondents were not asked to compare Bush to Trump, he is now the standard to which all other presidents are compared. Since Bush is not Trump, he will be contrasted with Trump. In the survey, 91% of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion of Trump, while 7% had a favorable opinion. Therefore, we can expect Bush to be evaluated more favorably by Democrats than he would have been had Trump not been our president.

The argument here is that Democrats consider Donald Trump to be so corrupt and so incompetent that, while he has a negative effect on the evaluation of politicians in general (an assimilation effect), he has a positive effect on the evaluation of all other specific politicians (a contrast effect). Compared to Donald Trump, any other past president looks good to Democrats, even George W. Bush.

You may also be interested in reading:

A Plague on Both Your Houses

The Stress of Politics

So Far, It Looks Like It Was the Racism