Letter to the Editor,
As we head into the primary voting season, we should consider what influences our decision on candidates and issues.
I recall, while in college, coming upon a journal article about name recognition of candidates. The study used the campus student council elections as their research event. The researchers posted a made-up candidate name around campus for a few weeks, then took the fake candidate signs down. A few weeks later, when actual candidates began putting up signs, the researches polled students about which candidates they viewed favorably. The made-up name polled well, even though no actual candidates existed. Those who answered the questions had no idea who the candidates were nor whether they stood for any position. Mere name recognition increased favorable ratings. Each election cycle, when I see signs pop up around the county roads and yards, I think of that article.
If we want to be better informed, where do we look, other than how many signs, mailings, social media adds for this or that candidate pass by our view?
Start by asking what information sources you utilize. Traditional news media, such as newspapers and magazines (in print or on line) or FoxNews, CNN, etc? News-feeds on your electronic devices? Social media sites like Facebook, X, TikTok, podcasters? Entertainment venues (Saturday Night Live, stand up comedians, movies, TV-streaming shows)? Personal contacts (family, friends, neighbors, random people in public places)?
Next consider how trust worthy, partisan, and biased these sources might be? I am less concerned with their editorial stance, as long as I know what to expect. The Washington Post or Washington Times are going to give me different perspectives. The Week or Insight magazines are going to emphasize this or that topic. Turning Point USA, Liberty Vault, Don Lemon, Candice Owens, et al podcasts are going to spin the same topic in different spirals. Personally, I trust none of the above fully, but read and listen to all, with the idea that the more voices I consider, the more likely that I will see patterns of information which agree with or contradict each other.
Be cautious when a source turns a pattern into a conspiracy. This usually occurs when the source selects, if not fabricates, evidence to support the idea. Often these claims are enticing and amusing. But, the usual flaw in logic is to see causation when only correlation exists. If the whole scenario seems to be too exciting to be true, then it probably is not true. Many of these conspiracies have been circulating for hundreds of years with new variations fitting the times.
Inherent to pure name recognition, news as entertainment, and conspiracy theories is the appeal to emotions rather than logic. Emotions evoke loyalty (name recognition). Emotions are a lot of fun (entertainment). Emotions are scary (politics of fear and conspiracies). But, emotional reasoning is different from sorting through lots of facts and philosophies to make a decision. That requires a lot of work.
To that end, I encourage readers to do some writing. The process of putting our ideas onto paper can help us to see when we are talking through our emotions versus sorting out which set of facts support our ideas. If we consider the lists of virtues and vices which Paul writes about in Galatians 5:19 – 23, we might see how most of these are related to emotional reasoning.
“Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. “
Writing a Letter to the Editor is a good place to put your ideas about candidates and issues into the public forum. This also puts ownership to those ideas. It can contribute to the civic discourse which democracies needs to flourish. Obviously, I have been at this for a while. The first Letter to the Editor which I can recall was published in the Seattle Times in about 1981.
Get those keys tapping.
Oscar Larson
Baker, WV
