I will vote for George W. Bush in November because I am an optimist, and I recognize that same trait in him. He has a vision of where he is going in the War on Terror, and that vision is a grand and hopeful one, worthy of America. It is a vision expanding freedom and democracy in the world--and without freedom and democracy, there can be no real peace on earth.
In John F. Kerry, we are presented with a pessimist of the worst sort--a "Grima Wormtongue" who is not only deceitful about his pessimism in order to advance his own quest for power; but who is willing to sacrifice all that America stands for in that quest. There is no national policy--even in a time of war--that he is not willing to undermine; and the evidence is mounting that our enemies around the world are taking full advantage of his unwise and self-aggrandizing words.
Wretchard had a fine post on September 29th that analyzed the data on the insurgency/terror attacks in Iraq, which the NY Times had reported as 'sprawling' and 'sweeping' and 'widespread'.
So everything checks out just as the New York Times article reported it. All the facts are individually true, but Prime Minister Allawie's assertion that most provinces are "completely safe" and that security prospects are bright are also supported by those same facts. Such is the fog of war.
This is a classic example of "the glass is half empty/half full" scenario. Depending on how you look at the data, it is one way or the opposite. This is primarily a psychological argument, since those who are hopeful/optimistic see it one way (half full); those who are defeatist/pessimistic see it the other (half empty). You can never prove the other side wrong, because the data can support either view.
But there are other data that support optimism and hope as having positive impact on individuals as well as situations. Optimism is positively and highly correlated with mastery and self-esteem. It is negatively correlated with anxiety and neuroticism. The correlations appear to be higher for women than for men. The test that measures optimism is strongly correlated with reported use of particular coping strategies such as emotional regulation strategies (sublimation, humor, and anticipation) and strongly negatively correlated with avoidant coping strategies (such as fantasy, acting-out, repression, projection, hypochondriasis and passive-aggression). Optimism was also found in some studies to improve health and lead to substantially better illness outcomes and longevity; while pessimism was found to predispose to illness and to increase mortality.
As one researcher commented, "It confirmed our common-sense belief. It tells us that mind and body are linked and that attitude has an impact on the final outcome — death." There is likely a strong biological component to both optimism and pessimism. There are pros and cons to both styles. Extreme optimism can be a denial of reality and pain. Extreme pessimism can be depressing and inexorable lead one to disaster, because it focuses only on the negative and catastrophizes events.
Genuine optimists are not in denial. They see the situation for what it is, yet are also able to mobilize the energy and effort necessary to be able to push through, persevere and complete a task despite setbacks. A healthy dose of optimism can be uplifting and hopeful. Achieving a balance of being realistic and hopeful can be a challenge. A perfect example of unhealthy optimism is the gambler who always believes that his risks will result in winning. It is easy to see that this is more than optimistic, it is delusional, because the individual denies the reality of statistics and chance inherent in gambling and can grossly overestimate his/her odds of winning.
The huge advantage of the optimist appears when reality in all its unpleasant aspects is faced unflinchingly and taken on. The optimist will work to identify strategies that have a potential for success and be much more likely to implement them. Optimists, because they are focused on success, will be quicker to abandon a failing strategy and substitute one with a greater chance of working. While their psychological state does not guarantee success, if success is possible, the optimist will have a great chance of finding it.
Pessimists on the other hand, are very good at looking at reality and acknowledging the unpleasantness; but the problem is that it makes them flinch, and they give up searching for solutions much earlier than the optimist would. Failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the pessimist, who at heart believes that is the only possible outcome anyway. They can accuse the optimist of living in a "fantasyland", but that accusation can just as easily be applied to them, since "failure" can become a fantasy as readily as "success" can.
In the end, the determination of failure or success in Iraq will have to wait for events to unfold. The pessimists would have us pack up and go home, thus guaranteeing failure. The way of the optimist is to persevere and keep the eyes on the prize (an Iraqi Democracy in the Middle East). Failure may also result, but it is not a given.
So, although the data may be neutral and can be interpreted as either positve or negative; the psychological underpinnings of data analysis have significant implications in the real world. Most people understand this fact intuitively, and will tend toward the political candidate who is a healthy optimist and who is likely --particularly in a war--to lead the country to victory.
All in all, I tend to see the glass as half full--as does President Bush. That kind of optimism will improve my own health and sense of mastery over the world; and may very likely also have a positive impact on what is going on in Iraq at the same time.
I will vote for George Bush because he has an optimistic vision of the world--and it is in that world I want my daughter to live.