
How many of you went about your day yesterday as usual?
How come we weren't glued to our televisions all day watching the news unfold, watching economists explaining what was going on? How we got into this? What it means? What might happen next?
Because there are no good visuals for this story. This story could be the economic equivalent to jets crashing into the World Trade Center, but that's a VISIBLE story, which means it's a story we can understand, at least emotionally. We can see it, we can imagine "what if I were in that building?" We can FEEL it. We certainly didn't agree afterward on the causes and what to do about it.
But this story is one we can't see. Unless we've defaulted on a loan and lost our home, we can't connect to it. It's basically INVISIBLE except for the large headlines. It's harder to get film of millions of people losing their homes. Shots of for sale signs don't have the same emotional impact as giant buildings collapsing. We don't understand it, can't feel it, it doesn't fit into our brains in a way that connects directly to our emotional processing.
The debate about this election suffers from the same problems. While we might relate to some of the issues emotionally, the explanations and options require serious intellectual work. We don't want to take the time or don't know how to understand the policies the candidates propose. It takes time. It takes work. It takes intellectual training and rigor. And at the end, we still don't know for certain which options will be best.
But we rarely know for sure if we are making the optimal decision - even in more tangible situations like ordering dinner in a restaurant, buying a car, or getting married. How many of you have gone to the candidates' websites and actually looked at what Obama and McCain have to offer as solutions? (Probably those who get this far have looked at those links already.) It takes a certain level of intellectual ability [and curiosity.] These ideas are difficult to visualize. It is easier to simplify complex situations into emotional slogans like "Vote for Change" and "Country First: Reform, Prosperity, and Peace." (If you went to those links, you'd recognize these.)
The key here is how we know things. We seem to be wired to immediately get emotional messages - be they accurate or not - about whether we are in danger. In danger because we believe we are losing constitutional guarantees or because we believe we are under threat of a terrorist attack. To actually understand whether we are in danger or not (in situations less obvious than someone with a gun demanding our money) requires a lot of hard work gathering and analyzing facts that most people are unable or unwilling to do.
So, is the financial crisis an economic equivalent to 9/11 that we aren't registering because there are no easy to understand emotional symbols (like planes fying into buildings) and the facts and are too difficult to analyze intellectually? What do I know?