Anger, fear, the reptile brain, and electoral success

It appears that it is perpetually election season. For a creature like me who is fundamentally skeptical of the ability of political systems to actually solve problems, I would rather think about almost anything except politics. I realize that my own take on the evolution of politics and the nature of political competition is but a brief flash in the long history of how politics has been conducted in human history stretching back millennia. However, it appears to me that earlier in my lifetime, my perception was that politicians at least tried to appeal to the electorate's ability to reason, at least early in campaigns. Maybe this was an aberration,

This all takes me to thinking about studies over the past 50 years on human decision making. How do we decide what party and candidates to support and what issues to champion? It turns out that we pick candidates an issues much the same way we any other choice, whether that be a pair of shoes, a menu item in a restaurant, or where to buy a house. We are endowed with two decision making machines in our brains which have been described as system 1 and system 2. The former is an evolutionary ancient tool which operates below our threshold of consciousness. It can process huge amounts of information with little or no effort and its readouts are emotional. System 2 is a more recent evolutionary development. It is what we are conscious of. It is slow and plodding, a serial processor, capable of more nuanced thought. It is also a resource hog which can be used only sparingly without exhausting its user.

My observation is that campaigns historically have started by trying to appeal to system 2, but over time as campaigns heat up, they quickly more to strict system 1 appeals. Over most recent years, it appears that all attempts to appeal to system 2 have gone away. It makes sense. Why bother appealing to the rational and thoughtful brain when we all know that the election will be decided by system 1 appeals directed to fear, anxiety, anger, and envy?

Much has been made of Donald Trump's appeal to white rage and anger. I think what made Trump stand out is his immediate dismissal of any need to appeal to the rational side of voters. In that sense he was very efficient in the use of his resources. His success derived from this strategy is very concerning, but also concerning to me is the strategy of his opponents, rejecting his aims but embracing his approach. They match anger with more anger.

My question to my readers (all five of you), is "Is anger a good starting off point for political movement?" I think not. There is no question anger and fear are powerful motivators in politics. They may be able to get you elected but they are terrible motivations when governing. Is it possible for those who get elected by appealing to system 1 can govern using system 2? Perhaps that does not matter when governing becomes a secondary priority.