Irrational Trump Voters

Thanks to its being brought up in one of Jerry Coyne's recent posts, I read an interesting article in Quiilette by cognitive scientist Keith Stanovich that explores the question Were Trump Voters Irrational?  As a scientist, Stanovich takes a dispassionate approach to the question, and uses data to back up his position that Trump voters in the last presidential election are no less rational than Clinton voters.

I am afraid that my Democratic friends are just going to have to reconcile themselves to the conclusion that the cognitive science of rationality does not support their judgment of the Trump voters. ... Politics is not the place to look for objective rightness or wrongness"

As a non-expert who appreciates the value of scientific data and analysis, I find it difficult to argue with him.  He certainly makes good points about rationality and lack thereof on both sides, as I will explain.  But still, something seems to be missing from his analysis.  Perhaps this is bias on my own part.  Or perhaps not.

Stanovich starts out by noting that cognitive scientists recognize two kinds of rationality: instrumental and epistemic.  Instrumental rationality is basically choosing actions that helps us to achieve our goals.  Liberals often point to the fact that working Republicans vote for politicians whose policies benefit the rich.  Stanovich notes rightly that instrumental rationality doesn't have to be a matter of monetary benefit or self-interest.  It could well be altruistic in nature, as would be the case when liberals support environmental well-being at greater cost to themselves.  It could relate to the promotion of your own values.  So for the religious right to favor candidates who would promote religious ideals is consistent with instrumental rationality.  In general, voters on both sides prefer candidates who are aligned with their own worldview, and it is unfair to call the others irrational on the basis of their worldview.  That is really just an example of what he calls "myside" bias.

Epistemic rationality relates to how well our beliefs map to the reality of the world.  Here, we take note of the very obvious issues of science denial regarding evolution and climate change on the part of many Trump supporetrs.  And also in this respect, Stanovich points out that liberals are no better at getting their facts right on many issues such as equal pay for women, single parents raising children, that anti-vaccine movement, rent control, etc.  He mentions studies that bear this out, with roughly equal correct responses (or perhaps slightly worse for liberals) to a set of questions that are controlled to eliminate political bias in the evaluation of epistemic irrationality.  So the data shows that there really isn't much difference between the two sides, and no basis for arguing that one side is more epistemically rational than the other.

Stanovich makes some strong points that are well-taken.  I would be the last person to claim that people on my own side of the aisle are free of irrationality, or that one side is inherently better than the other.  But at the risk of showing my own bias, I will argue that Trump voters really were, to some significant degree, irrational.

It was largely on the basis of values and worldview that Stanovich made the claim that Trump voters are no less instrumentally rational than Clinton voters.  And I don't really take issue with that part of it, but I question how much Trump really serves their interests in a broader sense.  Stanovich downplays the economic self-interest aspect of it, but a big part of the appeal to these voters is undeniably economic self-interest.  It was about jobs and economic relief.  Trump promised tax relief for working people, but the only tax bills under discussion are geared primarily toward the benefit of the wealthy.  He promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.  He has worked on the repeal part, but the replacement part falls far short of the promise, with less coverage and higher costs.  He promised to buy American and hire American, and the evidence so far is that he does not adhere to that philosophy.  And how do working people benefit economically when the rights of farmers and consumers to sue large corporations for their abuses are removed?  When it comes to what is instrumentally rational, Trump voters may be getting someone who espouses their values, but it's hard to make an argument that he delivers what is economically in their interests, despite the fact that they were specifically voting for that.

But you might argue that those voters thought they were going to benefit economically, and so it was still rational to vote for Trump.  That may be the case, but it does raise the question of epistemic rationality.  If they aren't getting what they thought they were, their beliefs were not consistent with reality when they cast their votes.  And there was plenty of reason to doubt all those promises.  Not the least among them was that it was a well-published fact that Trump was the least truthful of numerous presidential candidates in contention.  And Trump has long been known as a swindler.  I understand that we are all subject to bias in what information we choose to believe, but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for someone like that, no matter how much he tries to appeal to my political tastes.  It's one thing to answer questions on a questionnaire, such as knowing the difference between debt and deficit, as a measure of epistemic rationality.  It's another thing altogether to know which politician is more likely to work in favor of your economic interests.

Finally, Stanovich turns to a somewhat more nebulous measure of rationality called "expressive rationality", which is the idea that people are making a statement of their values in their support of one candidate or another, and this is distinct from the instrumental rationality of achieving those goals.  The expression of the message has value to them.  It is Stanovich's position that this can't be judged to be irrational.  I suppose I understand his point, but I don't think I can agree.  I don't think it is rational to express a message that is socially destructive, even if it makes you feel good.  And this is precisely what many Trump voters are doing.  They are consumed with tribalism.  They want to pit various segments of society against one another.  And much of the pleasure they derive from expressing who they are comes in the form of sticking it to the other side.  This isn't beneficial to them or anyone.  It is based in emotion, not rationality, and Stanovich doesn't even mention this kind of divisiveness in his analysis.  But it is utterly irrational, in my estimation.

Stanovich does make good points, but as much as I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, in his efforts to be impartial I think he overlooks some glaring aspects of irrationality among Trump supporters.  I don't necessarily attribute this to all Trump voters, and certainly not to all Republicans.  Nor do I exempt myself or my fellow liberals from criticism for being irrational, too.  Maybe this is just "myside" bias on my part, and I am somewhat blinded by my own political leanings.  But I think there is ample reason say that a large group of Trump supporters have obvious irrational motivations that go beyond Stanovich's conclusion that we're all equally guilty.