Is it possible to believe that Donald Trump hides tax returns or that Joe Biden caresses reluctant females or that Elizabeth Warren faked Native American ancestry yet still support them? Not only is it possible, but if the person in question has built a reasonable stash of goodwill prior to the particular offense, it is probable. Is this because we are all morally bankrupt- so dedicated to party over country that we just don’t care about blots on our politicians’ characters? While there is certainly an argument to be made that the “party first” mentality is part of the equation, there is also a basic psychological phenomenon at play, and it’s called the Love Bank.
The Love Bank is a concept that has been used by marriage therapists for years. Originated by Dr. Willard Harley, the Love Bank is “simply the idea that every person has an ‘account’ with every other person. Everything you do or say or don’t do or say is either a deposit or a withdrawal in the love bank of the person with whom you are interacting. The idea is to have a big account with tons of deposits.” (Jim Maxwell). As Dr. Harley explains, “You will like anyone with a balance above zero…if you withdraw more than you deposit, your balance can fall below zero. When that happens the Love Bank turns into the Hate Bank. You will dislike those with moderate negative balances, but if the balance falls below the hate threshold, you will hate that person.”
So, the basic idea is that we have a threshold for people in our lives, and as long as they put in enough positive deposits, we will overlook a negative act or two…or more. In order for us to reach dislike or even hate, there have to be either many small to medium withdrawals or at least a few catastrophic withdrawals, and their impact must outweigh the positive deposits. Dr. Harley says that someone can remain in good standing with us if their positive actions outweigh their negative conduct by a ratio of about 5:1. This means that they need to keep stoking the fires of goodwill, but as long as they are making deposits, they can still slip up here and there.
Now, humor me for a moment and let me relate this to a real life scenario. Imagine that you had a friend named Todd who brought you soup when you were sick and called you every day after the loss of a family member. Then, the same friend behaved poorly at a party and embarrassed you. Maybe Todd drank too much, told some ridiculous tales, and required you to drive him home. This would be a hit to your general regard for your friend. You might feel angry and miffed, but if someone came up to you and said, “Denounce Todd immediately!” you would be taken aback. You might admit some irritation with Todd and secretly harbor a bit of resentment, but your friendship with Todd is based on more than just his recent failures, and he has built a rapport with you. He could destroy your regard with repeated offenses, but that threshold has not yet been reached.
Now, let’s bring this back to our politicians. If our associations with a politician are generally positive, we will develop an overall feeling of affection for them. We will likely form a confirmation bias that predisposes us toward giving them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if our perceptions are mostly negative, we will view them with an overly critical lens. Once our support has been acquired, little acts will keep building our store of goodwill (a great speech, a shout out to a group we care about, or any number of political maneuvers). Once our ill will has been established, little acts will erode our opinion (a bad speech, support for a group we DON’T like, etc.) It is a balancing act, but our previous perceptions strongly affect the way it tips.
Politicians we end up supporting generally start out with a deck stacked in their favor because they already share our ideologies. Every policy point that lines up with ours is a deposit into our Political Love Bank. Big policies (abortion, immigration, economy, environment, etc.) are going to give us bigger deposits or withdrawals. As long as we line up ideologically on the larger issues, we can disagree on some of the small things and still have a positive bank account. Conversely, we might agree on the smaller points and even prefer an opponent’s personality, but if she supports the “wrong” big-picture policies, she probably won’t win our support. She might cash in a few units, but they won’t be enough to overcome the ideological points her opponent has stored.
As a result, policy deposits are usually much more important to us than personality withdrawals. We can overlook many character-related withdrawals as long as they don’t drop us below the critical point. This is why character attacks directed at our opponents are usually ineffective unless: 1.) they are horrendously damning or 2.) there are so many flaws that they eventually outweigh our goodwill. This is precisely why political character attacks are generally so over-the-top and so repetitive. Candidates and their allies are trying to erode and destroy the Love Bank deposits of their opponents and replace them with withdrawals. They know they need to cause big losses, and they want supporters to drop below that critical threshold and change alliances.
These tactics sometimes work- particularly when a race has narrowed down to two people who are being constantly compared. They may also work on Independents, first time voters, or reluctant supporters. Most people, however, will have a bank that is already mostly full of one candidate’s currency and very low on the other’s, making their feelings relatively steadfast. They will probably brush off most failures- even large ones- as unfortunate but not worthy of “denouncing.” Even if they decide that the person has dropped enough in their esteem to knock the balance into negative territory and lose their vote (which can certainly happen with repeated disappointments), it probably won’t win their opponent a vote. If it is a primary election, they will instead transfer their vote to someone else in their own party who has a positive Love Bank account. If it is a final election, they may not vote at all. Either way, they probably won’t flip parties unless not only their candidate’s account but also their party’s account is in the red.
So, what is the take away? Merely that support is based on many factors, and most of them are already baked into the pie. Due in large part to positive ideological capital, it is not easy to flip opinions, even in the face of acknowledged shortcomings. You may be able to convince an opponent that the person they support dishonored a war hero or mishandled emails or claimed minority status or ate New Mexican dirt. That may be enough to turn them away from someone who has built up credit in their bank, but it probably won’t be. Opinions and alliances CAN be changed, but the best way to tip a Political Love Bank is the same as it has always been- win the big points. Win the ideology. Convince your opponent that their favored lawmaker is wrong on the important stuff that affects the country. Back up your claims with facts. It will still be an uphill battle, but unless you can PROVE that your opponent is a rapist or a murderer or a thief, a flaw in ideology is more likely to break the bank than a flaw in character.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to Click here to Subscribe!About the Author
|
Jackie Chea is a blogger from San Antonio, Texas who holds a B.A. in Psychology and an M.A. in Community Counseling from the University of Texas at San Antonio. She writes on political and cultural issues from a conservative, religious standpoint. She lives in the Lone Star State with her husband Nick, her 5-year-old son Lincoln, and her rescue dogs. |
Facebook Comments