In this particular case, I'm thinking about our election financing rules. I used to take great pride in the idea that Canada had managed to effectively eliminate corporate and union donations in our elections. There seems to be some evidence that businesses have managed to by-pass this rule to some extent by having individual employees channel money to parties through their own personal donations, and, by supporting "third parties" who seek to influence elections but not by directly supporting a particular party. But that's not the issue that really concerns me. It's a question of "orders of magnitude", and I don't think the money that gets around the rules is anywhere near what it used to be.
What really bothers me is the way parties are using modern technology to raise money using small donations from ordinary people. This is a startling thing for me to realize, as I had always thought that this would be the best way to finance a political party.
Indeed, I was something of a pioneer in doing this. I was first exposed to it by our past mayor, Karen Farbridge, who told me how she used contact tracking software designed for salespeople (freeware based on DOS---which should give you an idea of how far back this happened) to help with her municipal election campaigns. I set up a system for the local Green Party riding association and used it for things like fundraising and organizing around neighbourhoods by sorting supporters by their postal code. After a while, I came to a Green Party convention to suggest that the party-as-a-whole should be working with something like this. It being the Greens, I got angry complaints about "big brother", the need to create our own system instead of just buying something off the shelf, etc. But eventually, years later it too adopted the idea---just like all the other parties.
&&&&
The party that really became masters at fundraising through the use of targeted databases was the Conservatives. It seems obvious to me that this is the reason why the Steven Harper government eliminated corporate donations in 2006. Since the Liberals tended to raise their money through a small number of large donations---often from corporations, and the Conservatives raised their's through a large number of small ones from private individuals, eliminating corporate money gave them a fundraising advantage.
This didn't bother me much, as I thought the others would soon catch up. What I didn't realize was that the Conservatives were good at raising money not because of their computer database, but rather because of the message that they were marketing. It is easy to not know this, simply because you won't get any fundraising letters from Conservatives unless you are willing to sign up for them by buying a membership or asking for them. But I recently asked around and found someone who does have a federal Conservative membership and asked her to forward all the begging emails she gets to me. I won't say the results were "fascinating" or even "interesting", but they were enlightening. Let's look at the latest letter I've received.
&&&&
"World's Most Competitive Economies: Canada Falls To Lowest Spot Ever In Rankings" - Yahoo Finance
[Name withheld to protect identity of my informant], despite all our incredible potential, despite our brilliant workforce, and despite our natural wealth, we are falling behind as a country.
And the economic storm clouds are only growing darker and darker under this Liberal government.
Andrew Scheer will put Canada’s national interests first by championing Canadian resources, lowering taxes, and breaking down internal trade barriers.
Please chip in and support our efforts to reset the course of the Canadian economy!
Let's get Canada back on track.
Sincerely,
&&&&
I have about a dozen letters from the Conservatives that came out in one month. A few of them contain links to a speech by Andrew Scheer or a new advertisement by the party. But most are like the one above: a list of bold, unsupported assertions about how the Liberals are destroying the country, and, a plea for money.
Since the letter doesn't offer a link to check the headline attributed to "Yahoo Finance" I tried to find the exact story the letter was referring to. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it, but I did see references to other sites with the same title. The nearest thing I could find was in the Huffington Post, "World's Most Competitive Economies: Canada Falls To Lowest Spot Ever In Rankings". It included the following chart.
This would suggest that Canada has dropped in this ranking from number ten to thirteen in one year. That sounds bad, doesn't it? But look at the way all the other numbers are fluctuating in the same year. There are 14 countries that have a number for both years, and added together there was a fluctuation of 30 pts---some up, and, some down. Divide that by 14, and you get a little over 2 pts as being the average movement. That would be what a statistician would call "background noise". And in any statistical average, the noise is going to be composed of numbers above and below. So in this case the fact that Canada's index number changed less than one point above the statistical average, would indicate that it isn't really a significant change at all.
Moreover, if you read the text that goes with the article, it includes nuggets like "this problem can’t be pinned on Trudeau’s Liberals or any one previous government ― it’s a long-term trend in Canada’s economy".
&&&&
I suppose that if I was primarily concerned about raising money, I'd do some of the things I mention in this post. I'd pander to people's emotions and consciously try to confirm their pre-existing biases. But that's not what this blog is supposed to be about. The thing is that what the "professionals" do is try to appeal to people's subconscious, whereas what I'm trying to do is get people to become more aware. That means that in the road race of commerce I'm starting with concrete blocks tied to both of my feet.
That's OK. I've always been a pretty silly person. But I want more responsible, sensible people to get involved in doing this sort of thing. And they will only take over (so they can make fun of me later) if I can "prove the concept". And that's only going to happen if people subscribe to "the Guelph-Back-Grounder". I've been down this road before. I worked for years building the Green Party to the point where good people with careers would be willing to put their asses on the line and run for it. It's the same thing with independent, fact-based, investigative journalism. No "good people" will make it a career until the flakes like me can make some money at it.
I'm now 60 years old, so I don't have as much time to invest in rejuvenating journalism as I did in politics. Will you subscribe to the Back-Grounder (you can use either Patreon or directly with PayPal) before I get too old to do this anymore? Some smart, young person is waiting in the wings to see if I can make a success of it before he commits, and it's up to you whether he does or not.
&&&&
I could go on and write a whole article about this citation, but that's not what this editorial is supposed to be about. Instead, it's about getting people who have already "drunk the Kool-Aid" to send the Conservatives some money.
There is something known as "confirmation bias" that philosophers of science fret about. That is, human beings have a "built-in" tendency to start off with a given hypothesis and then look selectively for evidence to support it. There's a really good evolutionary reason for this way of looking at the world. When you are a hunter walking across a field you need to be constantly aware of threats that might be lurking near you. That rustling in the bushes might be a leopard stalking up on you, or, it could be something totally benign---like the wind. But if you wait to see if it is the wind versus a leopard, and it turns out to be the leopard, you end up dead. On the other hand, if you run from a supposed leopard and it was just the wind---no problem, you still get to father children.
The problem is that the biggest threat facing us right now isn't leopards, but rather things like the climate emergency. And confirmation bias has ceased to be an evolutionary asset and instead become a liability. And, I would argue that this fundraising letter is designed to take advantage of that liability in order support a party who's current election strategy is based on ensuring that Canadians do nothing to prevent runaway climate change.
&&&&
It would be bad enough if the only real issue I have with this method of fundraising was that it put money in the hands of people trying to sabotage efforts to create a functional response to the climate emergency. But what makes it much worse is that this method of raising money has the side effect of making people more angry and tribal.
The big problem with directed marketing---it doesn't matter if it's done through social media like FaceBook or letters sent out by a political party---is that it cuts down on the information that people can access. It used to be that people would often dismiss a computer projection with the saying "garbage in, garbage out". That's to say that it doesn't matter how good the program is that you use to analyze a problem if it's using an incomplete or corrupted set of data. Human beings are also information processing machines, and we access the information we work with through a repository of data known as "culture". If we restrict our access to the world around us by only paying attention to a one-sided information "silo", we aren't going to have an accurate understanding of the world around us. The result can be what's described in this YouTube clip.
In the past the mass media---like the big newspapers---had to create a generalized type of "news" that was accepted by readers who had a variety of different worldviews. This made things bland, but it did mean that people got exposed to a lot of information and ideas that contradicted their preconceived notions. But nowadays people can live in an information bubble where they only hear and read things that reinforce those preconceptions. This makes people less and less willing to think that there might actually be some value in those other opinions. This makes them more willing to open their wallets---but it also makes them more angry with and intolerant towards people who don't share their opinions.
&&&&
You probably aren't going to find much information on line about how political parties harness confirmation bias and anger to raise money. That's tremendously lucrative information and the people who know how to do it hide their information behind very expensive pay walls and charge very high consulting fees to discuss it. But luckily, since the rise of Donald Trump in the USA we've seen a parallel phenomenon with non-conservatives that gives us a window onto this world that simply didn't exist before.
The election of Donald Trump has been a gold mine for some non-profit charities. One key example is the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which protects American constitutional rights by launching lawsuits against government attempts to weaken them. As an article in Forbes magazine states in a July 5th, 2018 article:
&&&&
I'm not about to suggest that other parties don't also send out fundraising missives to members. I get a lot from the Green Party, even though I'm no longer a member (because I'm now a journalist and as such I don't think that I should be directly involved in party politics.) But I do think that there is a quantifiable difference between the different parties and the content of their fundraising appeals. I am afraid, however, that the others will eventually decide that if they are going to raise enough money to fund competitive campaigns they will have to start actively soliciting "rage donations". This would be a catastrophe from democracy.
Instead, I think one thing we could do is dramatically reduce the amount that any party can spend on a campaign. I did a quick search for how much each federal candidate spent on running in Guelph. The earliest financial numbers I could find said that the most spent 1993 was about $58,000 by Bill Scott for the Conservatives. In 2015 this had ballooned to $222,000 by Gord Miller for the Greens. That's an astonishing 383% difference! And remember, this doesn't take into effect the "air game" that comes from the head office and is spent on things like advertising, polling, etc. I can't help but think that if the "financial throttle" was eased back a bit, there'd be less pressure to get the money needed to keep a party functioning. That might tone down a bit of the propaganda that get pushed at ordinary people.
&&&&
Furthermore, I say to you---climate emergency must be dealt with!
Protectionism threatens free trade.Enough is enough!
Our natural resources are trapped.
Investment is fleeing the country.
Consumer debt and affordability concerns are ballooning.
Getting anything done is almost impossible.
Canadians have less in their pockets.
And, of course, there is the carbon tax.
Canadians cannot afford for Justin Trudeau to captain the ship any longer.
His government has been a parade of new taxes, red-tape, bureaucracy, incompetence, and corruption.
Andrew Scheer will put Canada’s national interests first by championing Canadian resources, lowering taxes, and breaking down internal trade barriers.
Please chip in and support our efforts to reset the course of the Canadian economy!
Let's get Canada back on track.
Sincerely,
The Conservative Party of Canada
&&&&
I have about a dozen letters from the Conservatives that came out in one month. A few of them contain links to a speech by Andrew Scheer or a new advertisement by the party. But most are like the one above: a list of bold, unsupported assertions about how the Liberals are destroying the country, and, a plea for money.
Since the letter doesn't offer a link to check the headline attributed to "Yahoo Finance" I tried to find the exact story the letter was referring to. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it, but I did see references to other sites with the same title. The nearest thing I could find was in the Huffington Post, "World's Most Competitive Economies: Canada Falls To Lowest Spot Ever In Rankings". It included the following chart.
 |
| From the Huffington Post. Used under the "Fair Use" copyright provision. |
This would suggest that Canada has dropped in this ranking from number ten to thirteen in one year. That sounds bad, doesn't it? But look at the way all the other numbers are fluctuating in the same year. There are 14 countries that have a number for both years, and added together there was a fluctuation of 30 pts---some up, and, some down. Divide that by 14, and you get a little over 2 pts as being the average movement. That would be what a statistician would call "background noise". And in any statistical average, the noise is going to be composed of numbers above and below. So in this case the fact that Canada's index number changed less than one point above the statistical average, would indicate that it isn't really a significant change at all.
Moreover, if you read the text that goes with the article, it includes nuggets like "this problem can’t be pinned on Trudeau’s Liberals or any one previous government ― it’s a long-term trend in Canada’s economy".
&&&&
I suppose that if I was primarily concerned about raising money, I'd do some of the things I mention in this post. I'd pander to people's emotions and consciously try to confirm their pre-existing biases. But that's not what this blog is supposed to be about. The thing is that what the "professionals" do is try to appeal to people's subconscious, whereas what I'm trying to do is get people to become more aware. That means that in the road race of commerce I'm starting with concrete blocks tied to both of my feet.
That's OK. I've always been a pretty silly person. But I want more responsible, sensible people to get involved in doing this sort of thing. And they will only take over (so they can make fun of me later) if I can "prove the concept". And that's only going to happen if people subscribe to "the Guelph-Back-Grounder". I've been down this road before. I worked for years building the Green Party to the point where good people with careers would be willing to put their asses on the line and run for it. It's the same thing with independent, fact-based, investigative journalism. No "good people" will make it a career until the flakes like me can make some money at it.
I'm now 60 years old, so I don't have as much time to invest in rejuvenating journalism as I did in politics. Will you subscribe to the Back-Grounder (you can use either Patreon or directly with PayPal) before I get too old to do this anymore? Some smart, young person is waiting in the wings to see if I can make a success of it before he commits, and it's up to you whether he does or not.
&&&&
I could go on and write a whole article about this citation, but that's not what this editorial is supposed to be about. Instead, it's about getting people who have already "drunk the Kool-Aid" to send the Conservatives some money.
There is something known as "confirmation bias" that philosophers of science fret about. That is, human beings have a "built-in" tendency to start off with a given hypothesis and then look selectively for evidence to support it. There's a really good evolutionary reason for this way of looking at the world. When you are a hunter walking across a field you need to be constantly aware of threats that might be lurking near you. That rustling in the bushes might be a leopard stalking up on you, or, it could be something totally benign---like the wind. But if you wait to see if it is the wind versus a leopard, and it turns out to be the leopard, you end up dead. On the other hand, if you run from a supposed leopard and it was just the wind---no problem, you still get to father children.
The problem is that the biggest threat facing us right now isn't leopards, but rather things like the climate emergency. And confirmation bias has ceased to be an evolutionary asset and instead become a liability. And, I would argue that this fundraising letter is designed to take advantage of that liability in order support a party who's current election strategy is based on ensuring that Canadians do nothing to prevent runaway climate change.
&&&&
It would be bad enough if the only real issue I have with this method of fundraising was that it put money in the hands of people trying to sabotage efforts to create a functional response to the climate emergency. But what makes it much worse is that this method of raising money has the side effect of making people more angry and tribal.
In the past the mass media---like the big newspapers---had to create a generalized type of "news" that was accepted by readers who had a variety of different worldviews. This made things bland, but it did mean that people got exposed to a lot of information and ideas that contradicted their preconceived notions. But nowadays people can live in an information bubble where they only hear and read things that reinforce those preconceptions. This makes people less and less willing to think that there might actually be some value in those other opinions. This makes them more willing to open their wallets---but it also makes them more angry with and intolerant towards people who don't share their opinions.
&&&&
You probably aren't going to find much information on line about how political parties harness confirmation bias and anger to raise money. That's tremendously lucrative information and the people who know how to do it hide their information behind very expensive pay walls and charge very high consulting fees to discuss it. But luckily, since the rise of Donald Trump in the USA we've seen a parallel phenomenon with non-conservatives that gives us a window onto this world that simply didn't exist before.
The election of Donald Trump has been a gold mine for some non-profit charities. One key example is the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which protects American constitutional rights by launching lawsuits against government attempts to weaken them. As an article in Forbes magazine states in a July 5th, 2018 article:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has seen a spike in membership in the Trump era. ACLU membership grew from 400,000 to 1.84 million in the 15 months following President Donald Trump’s election, according to the New York Times. The group’s online donations used to run between $3 to $5 million annually, but in the year after Trump took office, it raised $120 million online.This phenomenon is called "rage giving" or "rage donations". That is, people see some sort of assault on civil liberties or simple decency, and get angry. This causes them to seek out some group that they feel is doing good work pushing back against this---Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, etc---and immediately make a donation. This hasn't been lost on people who make a living doing fundraising for charities, as these articles in Non-Profit Quarterly and Inside Philanthropy show. (I suspect the people at these two publications are less concerned than political consultants would be about people reading their papers without paying hard currency first.)
&&&&
I'm not about to suggest that other parties don't also send out fundraising missives to members. I get a lot from the Green Party, even though I'm no longer a member (because I'm now a journalist and as such I don't think that I should be directly involved in party politics.) But I do think that there is a quantifiable difference between the different parties and the content of their fundraising appeals. I am afraid, however, that the others will eventually decide that if they are going to raise enough money to fund competitive campaigns they will have to start actively soliciting "rage donations". This would be a catastrophe from democracy.
Instead, I think one thing we could do is dramatically reduce the amount that any party can spend on a campaign. I did a quick search for how much each federal candidate spent on running in Guelph. The earliest financial numbers I could find said that the most spent 1993 was about $58,000 by Bill Scott for the Conservatives. In 2015 this had ballooned to $222,000 by Gord Miller for the Greens. That's an astonishing 383% difference! And remember, this doesn't take into effect the "air game" that comes from the head office and is spent on things like advertising, polling, etc. I can't help but think that if the "financial throttle" was eased back a bit, there'd be less pressure to get the money needed to keep a party functioning. That might tone down a bit of the propaganda that get pushed at ordinary people.
&&&&
Furthermore, I say to you---climate emergency must be dealt with!
No comments:
Post a Comment