Is being unable to connect emotionally with the general public a problem?

In "Star Trek: Generations", Captain Kirk is killed while helping Captain Picard save 400 million lives in the Veridian system, and many Star Trek fans are still upset at how "pathetically" (for lack of a better generalization) Kirk died. The reason appears to be twofold: Kirk died in a somewhat awkward manner (he was crushed by a falling bridge); and viewers never got to see any of the 400 million aliens and supposedly could not build any emotional connection with the aliens...

Rationally speaking, it was a heroic sacrifice on Kirk's part to save 400 million other individuals... but somehow, it did not connect emotionally with viewers. It's true in other films as well, such as in "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", where the destruction of Alderaan is an event in a sequence of events. The tragedy of the loss of an entire world and its people, civilization, places, and life is so beyond the experience of a normal person that Obi Wan Kenobi verbalizes the emotion in the film ("it was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced").

-----------------------------------------

What do movies have to do with real life? In one post, thwap wonders how much of an effect the anti-war movement has had on Canada's deployment in Afghanistan. It raises another interesting issue: how come certain issues rile up the public enough to affect government while other issues seem to get no attention?

Take the large anti-war protests in 2002 and 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. Much of the focus was on the lies about the supposed weapons of mass destruction or the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. People get angry when they are lied to. How much of the public sentiment was actually anti-war (as in against killing and destruction as a foreign policy tool except as a last resort)... as opposed to "anti-Gulf War II"?

Corruption and government misspending can bring down governments, such as Paul Martin's Liberals and the sponsorship scandal in the January 2006 election. People don't like feeling that their money is being wasted.

The current Conservative government has had its fair share of questionable behaviour, but its polling numbers had been fairly high prior to the Afghan detainee issue. It began to dip when the Afghan detainee issue flared up, probably due to the government's secretive behaviour (again, people hate being lied to). Polling numbers for the Conservatives have now really dropped due to Harper's prorogation of Parliament, as people are usually angered by an abuse of power. Again, it's something that many people can emotionally relate to (if they have ever had an overbearing boss or supervisor or parent, for example).

Other issues don't seem to have as much effect. For example, if one polled the public, the majority usually supports fighting climate change, yet when the government was obstructionist at Copenhagen, support for the government did not really drop. The only explanation, given public awareness, is that there is the lack of emotional connection that would give the issue the importance that it deserves. There is nothing in a person's existence that is similar enough for it to trigger an emotional response since change occurs so slowly and subtly. This is seen similarly with other environmental issues.

Now, if an alien armada suddenly entered orbit and began dumping mild toxins into the air and water while trying to melt the ice in Antarctica with the intent of destroying Earth's populous coastal regions with rising ocean levels within a century or so, would the response be different? Chances are that people would be more willing to fight the changes in this case... given the instinctive fight or flight response, with nowhere to run to. (And yes, I'm fully aware that it would be an odd way for an alien armada to attack, at least from a human perspective.)

This lack of emotional connection makes it easy for climate change deniers to fight using conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, people in general hate liars, but they also assume that other people will lie. Deniers make full use of this emotional appeal to people's inherent mistrust and suspicions.

I cannot think of a solution... in fact, this is just a random theory of mine that may have plenty of holes in it, making a solution irrelevant. "Framing" a message might help a little, but ultimately, promoting critical and rational thinking is probably of utmost importance.

Canada's sub-sphere of influence

Given the growing number of allegations from beyond Canada's borders, one can possibly argue that Canada has a sub-sphere of influence in Latin America within the larger U.S. sphere. Those who are "in the way" have come to regard Canada in the same light as the U.S. with regards to exploitation of resources and disregard for people.

Human rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One can only hope that everyone will remember that people who live outside of Canada's borders are humans with rights as well...

Peace and long life.

What's the point of banning political parties again?

An Iraqi court has ruled that candidates running for the Baath party (previously affiliated with Saddam Hussein) should not be banned from running in elections. This has prompted the Iraqi government to denounce the ruling as "illegal and unconstitutional", and there will be an emergency government meeting on Sunday.

This is not uncommon when governments are being propped up by external forces. Another example is Haiti, where Famni Lavalas was denied the right to run in Haiti's next election.

The problem with rationalizations of banning parties is the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the will of the people should prevail. Ideas that are truly on the radical fringe will invariably be ignored (except in times of prolonged crisis when increasing political polarization may occur if things are not seen as getting better... see Germany in the early 1930's). For example, Canada also has a Communist Party, and invariably a small fraction of the population votes for it every election. I think most Canadians aren't worried about the Communists suddenly taking over...

In the event where truly differing political views of different parties cannot be reconciled, and both parties hold similar power, then politicians should have to work together. The worries about violence are mostly unfounded. Giving a political party (even one with a sordid history like Baath under Hussein) a voice in a democratic government gives them an avenue other than violence to exert political pressure. Denying that voice only drives the Baathists more toward the fringe, and more likely to conduct extreme acts.

Let Iraq's populace, and not those already in power, decide how much political influence Baath deserves. Same with Haiti with regards to Famni Lavalas. Real, full democracy: it's the best way.

Peace and long life.