The Attraction Effect, Syria, and a Talk with Steve Israel

While talking over a few beers a two weeks ago, sitting around a table next to a swimming pool at a family party, I listened to my nephew expounding on Marketing, a subject he teaches at a University . I very rarely think about marketing, but when he mentioned the term “decoy product” I became interested.  Companies sometimes offer products that they don’t expect or want to sell. They do it to enhance the sales of a product they want to sell. Here’s an example. A car company offers a model of a car with a choice between a 150 horsepower (hp) and a 200 hp engine. They make the most profit selling the 150 hp engine, but most people prefer the more powerful engine. So the company offers a 100 hp engine, and strangely enough the sales of the 150 horse power engine shoot up. It’s called the attraction effect. People seem to prefer an attribute (such as horse power) intermediate between extremes.

I asked my nephew if this applied to politics and a few days later he emailed me a paper called “The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two elections.” It seems that it does apply. A candidate in a 3 candidate race has an advantage if his (or her) positions on a majority of important issues lie between those of his opponents. I know from my own experience that when confronted with a choice between 2 conflicting opinions I tend to think the truth lies somewhere in between and then stop thinking about the topic. It is so much easier that way. The alternative is to spend a lot of time evaluating each opinion objectively. I can even feel superior to those with extreme views without doing any work.  

I became alarmed when I learned that Obama wanted to bomb Syria with Congressional approval because of President Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  I read up on the subject and found that the US had blocked chances for a peaceful settlement and was supplying the rebels with weapons. I’ll list a few references at the end. You might have reached different conclusions based on what you’re heard or read. I also read that the UN had accused the rebels of using chemical weapons in May, and the rebels admitted they had chemical weapons.  Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and many others doubted that Assad would be dumb enough to use them, since he had been warned that their use would bring in direct US intervention, and Russia had threatened to stop supporting him if he used them. I also read that an attack on Syria would lead to a wider conflict and might even lead us into World War 3.

I and 2 friends went to see Steve Israel, our Congressman. We didn’t expect to see him but just wanted to drop off information packets. We got lucky and arrived just as he did, and he agreed to spend a few minutes with us.  Along with 2 very good looking female aids who took notes, we all sat down in a conference room. After the 3 petitioners presented reasons for opposing an attack on Syria, Steve Israel spoke. Here is what he said as best as I can remember:

Preident Obama has asked Congress for an open ended resolution giving him approval to take strong action against Syria, including the use of troops. Steve Israel thought that the attack should be a limited surgical strike aimed at reducing Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons. He was working with a group in the House to draft a weaker proposal. In response to the argument that Assad couldn’t be stupid enough to launch a chemical attack and risk US intervention, he said that Assad was testing our resolve. He had staged a series of chemical weapons attacks, each one more severe than the one before, and that we had to act now to stop him or the attacks would get worse. He also said that the rebels did not have the technical capability to launch such an attack and Congress had received a secret briefing detailing this information.

I asked him if he thought there was a chance that the US would attack Iran and he responded that we should do it as a last resort if they persisted in developing nuclear weapons. In response to a reference to Noam Chomsky’s opposition to attacking Syria, he said that didn’t like to hear anything Chomsky said. Chomsky is a strong critic of the policies of the state of Israel. We thanked him for speaking to us and left on cordial terms.

When I got home I began to think that Obama’s proposal for an open commitment from Congress to attack Syria was a decoy product. He really doesn’t want to send ground troops in. Recall that Obama got a marketing award for his 2008 election campaign.  By making such a proposal, Congress has to choose between 2 extreme positions, no attack or an open ended attack. I think he is counting on Congress will assume that the best course of action lies somewhere between the 2 extremes, that is, a limited attack. Quoting from the marketing article, “Subjects who expect to have to justify their choices tend to choose alternatives that are intermediate in value.” The subjects in this case are the Congressman.  Too bad someone didn’t propose that Congress cut off funding of the Syrian rebels and cut the defense budget by 50 percent. That would shift the mean between the 2 extremes.

I tried to verify Steve Israel’s claim that Assad had ordered many chemical attacks on his own people. I “Googled” Assad chemical attacks but did not find much. One British Intelligence report said that Assad had staged 14 small scale chemical attacks, but the title of the yahoo news report was “British report shows Syria case far from a slam dunk.” Can we rely on British intelligence? How about a more independent source? A dailymail.co.uk article said that Assad had panicked and launched the chemical weapons attack because he feared the rebels would overrun Damascus. But that report is based on a single intercepted phone call. Any half way competent intelligence service can fake a phone call and  several reports said that Assad was winning the war against the rebels. Most of the evidence of Assad’s chemical attacks come from US intelligence, and can anyone believe them after their disinformation campaign about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction? Most of the articles from independent sources suggested that the rebels staged the attack or certainly had the capability of doing so.  (See references below.)

I recalled that 10 years ago I was one of a group that visited Steve Israel and urged him not to vote to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq. I wore a sport jacket and a tie, hoping to impress Israel that I was a substantial citizen. He listened and was very friendly, but supported Bush anyway.  This time I wore an old wrinkled shorts and sport shirt. I knew it was most likely useless to talk to him, but wanted to try anyway.

I  began to think that we needed a new Congressman. Would somebody progressive  please run for Congress as a third party candidate? I’m too old and unqualified to do it myself. He (or she) probably wouldn’t get elected unless conditions in this country got much worse. If someone ran against Israel in the general election, most would say that it would help a republican, who would be even worse that Israel, get elected.  But they don’t know about the attraction effect.  If someone on the left ran against Israel and a republican, most would vote for the candidate with positions between those of his opponents. That candidate would be Steve Israel, but his positions on issues would tend to shift to the left. So again, will someone on the left please run against Steve Israel? I hope that someone on the far right doesn’t get the same idea.

References

Below are mostly links to articles that I found searching on the internet. I’ve included references with diverse view points and I’ve added comments on most of the articles.

1.       http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/03/obama-syria-poll-pew-abc/2758597/   Public opinion polls show that most Americans oppose attacking Syria. Congress pays little attention to public opinion, so why doesn’t someone just poll the rich and powerful?

2.       “How the West Fueled the Ever-Growing Carnage in Syria,” by Nicolas J.S. Davies, Z Magazine, May 2013. http://www.zcommunications.org/how-the-west-fueled-the-ever-growing-carnage-in-syria-by-nicolas-j-s-davies.html Shows how the west blocked chances for a peaceful settlement in Syria.

3.       The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections, by Yigang Pan, Sue O’Curry and Roberts Pitts, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(1), 85-101.

4.       http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411254/Syria-crisis-claims-Assad-launched-chemical-attack-scared-rebels-Damascus.html   This is the report that says that Assad used chemical weapons because he feared the rebels would overrun Damascus.

5.       http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10077046/Is-Bashar-al-Assad-winning-the-civil-war-in-Syria.html

6.       http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-lays-groundwork-possible-syria-strike This is an AP article stating that the US is trying to get evidence against Assad from Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel intelligence services (paragraph 12). Okay, let’s attack a sovereign nation based on foreign intelligence.

7.       http://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-report-on-last-weeks-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-2013-8     This article is typical of many that refer to massive evidence that Assad has been using chemical weapons based only on US intelligence.

8.        http://www.policymic.com/articles/60997/the-world-has-condemned-bashar-al-assad-for-firing-chemical-weapons-but-did-he-actually-do-it   Hacked documents show US supported shipping chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels.

9.       http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/04/20315142-syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal-remains-a-menacing-mystery?lite  This is a NBC news story based on US and British intelligence.  Here’s a quote: “Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal is so large and diverse because it considers it a strategic deterrent to Israel’s nuclear weapons.“ So let’s bomb the weapons depots so Israel can safely invade Syria.

10.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSAMT5Pe15k  This is a video with rebels admitting they had chemical weapons.  It discusses the probability that Assad would stage a large chemical weapons attack under the noses of the UN inspectors.

11.   http://news.sky.com/story/1135350/syria-regime-ready-to-retaliate-to-strike     On September 1, A UN spokesman stressed that all available information, including lab analysis of the samples, had to be evaluated “before the mission can draw any conclusions about the incident.”

12.   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html  In early May of this year the UN accused the rebels of chemical weapon use.

13.   http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/ In Mint Press News,  Dale Gaviak and Yahya Ababuch  reported that many Syrians claim that Saudi – supported rebels were behind the chemical attack. Dale Gavaik is a well known journalist who writes for the Associated Press.

14.   http://www.globalresearch.ca/yes-the-syrian-rebels-do-have-access-to-chemical-weapons/5347611 Evidence that Syrian rebels have a motive for using chemical weapons and access to them.

15.   http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/09/sources-defense-contractors-training-syrian-rebels-in-chemical-weapons/ The Syrian rebels were trained to seize chemical weapons by private contractors.  Russia threatened Assad that they would stop supporting him if he used chemical weapons, another reasons why it is unlikely that he was behind the recent attack.