The alternative to hope

Just a few thoughts as we approach the end of our primary season here in Ohio. This article provides a nice summary of the inevitability meme that Clinton pushed and many accepted to some degree, whether or not they liked the idea. I found that irksome, because, as I've already noted, I knew a long time ago that I couldn't abide Hillary as the nominee. I also knew that if people repeat something often enough, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, I think I have some idea why people repeated the message. Supporters believed that inevitability was a strategy, especially when coupled with Hillary Clinton's much touted money advantage. Opponents, I think, were probably trying to prepare themselves--bracing for a Hillary victory even while working to support or promote another candidate. At times, I wondered if maybe it really was impossible to fight against that tide.

And then I started to hear people saying that actually, "Yes we can!" It was nice to hear. Optimism, and thinking about what is possible if we humans can pull together and really be our best selves... Sure, it sounded nice. But I'd fallen for the "You have the power!" thing in the 2004 primaries, only to discover how many powerful voices were ready to say, "Oh no, you don't!" Getting my hopes up didn't seem like a risk worth taking. Best to keep that sort of enthusiasm at arm's length.

Of course, it would be nice of that chorus of voices singing the inevitability song were proven wrong. That would be downright sweet! And I was happy to see Barack Obama come from behind and win Iowa. Maybe it really was safe to hope again.

Yet, it seemed like the sensible thing to do was to keep at a safe distance, waiting for the other "shoe to drop". I had no idea what that shoe might be, but there always is one, right? So I should try to be prepared for it, unlike last time. Okay, we did put a bumper sticker on our car, and this week we got a sign to put in front of our house. Bottom line, I guess, is that, yeah, we did end up getting a little emotionally invested in this thing. But not nearly as much as a lot of other people have. Read this article about the Obama rally that took place this week at The Ohio State University for just one example of how excited and hopeful so many people are. But this line in particular is what caught my attention

Bethelchem Mengstu, a junior biology major at Ohio State, said younger voters feel a connection with Obama. "He makes us feel like we can make a difference," she said at yesterday's rally.

If Hillary Clinton and her backers pull out all the stops, and somehow crush this groundswell of ordinary citizens who have been energized and feel for the first time that they can make a difference, I think she will live to regret it. Here's where I'm expecting people to go into attack mode and say it would be petty and shortsighted for Obama supporters not to rally around Hillary Clinton if she somehow gets the nomination. I know it's coming, but I'm going to say this anyway for those who have ears to hear. You can't just manufacture enthusiasm out of thin air. And the threat of how awful a McCain presidency would be is nowhere near as effective a motivator as the hope of ordinary people uniting on behalf of a common vision.

I was thinking recently about the classic studies of learned helplessness, conducted by Martin Seligman.

In 1967, while researching classical conditioning, another accidental discovery occurred. In the original experiments, dogs were placed in harnesses so that they could not escape and then were presented with small electric shocks (Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967). After this experience, these dogs as well as dogs who had not undergone the original harness studies were placed in a shuttle box (see below) which consisted of two sides both with independent electric grids on the floor.

What they discovered was a distinct difference between the dogs who had originally been harnessed and those who had not. For the latter, when a shock was presented, they almost immediately, after trying different methods of escape, jumped across the barrier to escape the uncomfortable shock. The previously harnessed dogs showed distress, as did the other dogs, but unlike the other dogs, failed to escape the shock and ultimately laid down on the grid and whimpered (Seligman, 1975).

Seligman proposed the notion of "learned helplessness" as one explanation for depression in humans. Some people, he proposed, had learning experiences which taught them that they were helpless to improve their situations. This is, of course, only one of the explanations that has been put forth by researchers. But learning helplessness doesn't have to lead to depression to be damaging. Just convincing people that, even with huge numbers and their best efforts, they are ultimately doomed to fail against "the big guys", does us all tremendous disservice. And from a "Hillary's bottom-line" standpoint, it seems like a bad idea to teach this kind of "life lesson" to the very people whose energy and enthusiasm she may need to harness at some point down the road.

Anyway, go ahead. Tell me I'm being a big baby. Tell me how typical it is of Obama supporters to be "unable to take the heat", and that politics is a tough business. Believe me, I already know it's tough. That's why I was so hesitant to become too emotionally engaged this time around.

Which brings me back to Seligman's dogs. I remember once reading some different possible explanations for the behavior of the "helpless" dogs. Someone suggested that maybe the dogs learned that, if they were lying down, the shocks were less painful. So their behavior could be seen as a form of self defense. Indeed, sometimes "laying low" can the best course of action. Especially if one needs that energy to fight battles on other fronts. But you know what? Some little part of me still holds out hope that politics won't always have to be such a "blood sport".