Getting Shot Is Not the Same as Getting Elected
Teddy Roosevelt was shot during the 1912 election — and lost. That incident & the 1968 Chicago convention haunt this year's race. But science says something besides history may play a bigger role
Shortly before the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13th, I came across recent science that shed light on the incident as well as current predictions about the 2024 presidential election.
But before I get to that, I want to say this. I feel personally offended by Saturday’s attempt to assassinate Donald Trump. A violent attack against any candidate is an attack on each of us. It is also an attack on the very fabric of our nation.
I agree with everyone who says it’s time to turn down the volume on hateful, destructive rhetoric as investigations uncover more information. About the shooter, his motives, his connections, his mental condition — as well as the security failure that allowed a gunman to get within 148 yards of the former president.
I also condemn any attempt to score political points from the terrible incident that injured Trump, took the life of an innocent spectator, as well as the 20-year-old shooter, and critically injured two others.
As for those who are saying Trump will win the election because of the shooting — history says, “Not so fast.”
When Teddy Roosevelt sought a third term
in office in 1912, he was shot while giving a speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin — the site of this year’s Republican Convention. Roosevelt famously continued to speak after the shooting. But only because the 50-page speech in his pocket kept the bullet from damaging his heart.
Opening his vest to reveal his bloodstained shirt, Roosevelt also removed the speech and showed where the bullet had gone through.
“The bullet is in me now,” he said, “so I cannot make a very long speech, but I will try my best.”
It was a moment of triumph for the former president, who was running as a third party candidate on the Bull Moose ticket. But despite his valor, he lost the 1912 election to the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson.
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) apparently believes history will not repeat itself this year. In a brief interview following the attack on former President Trump, he told Politico: “Trump survives the attack — he just won the election.”
When Donald Trump accepts the Republican nomination in Milwaukee
he will have something Teddy Roosevelt did not. Social media and a now-historic photograph showing him with blood on his face, surrounded by Secret Service agents, as an American flag stands in the background. Will that give him an edge over history come November?
And what about the fractured Democratic Party, at odds with itself over whether President Biden should remain at the top of the ticket? Many have pointed to the chaotic Chicago convention of 1968 to support arguments that a brokered convention leads to catastrophic loss on election day.
If the Democrats replace Biden
at the convention, can they overcome the stigma of Chicago as they return to that city to anoint this year’s candidate?
Milwaukee and Chicago. How much karma do those cities hold for Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden?
According to a scientific study I discovered just hours before the attempted assassination, the answer to that question depends on an unseen and little understood factor. The human brain.
The experiment
Joel Pearson is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of New South Wales. Several years ago, he made a novel discovery. Using a device similar to Virtual Reality (VR) goggles, he conducted an experiment.
In the test, a subject puts on these goggles, which are programmed to show two competing images. The left eye, for example, sees a green square. And the right eye gets a red circle. Neither eye can see the image in the other eye. Which means the ability of the eyes to fuse multiple images and create meaning or perception from that, can no longer function as usual.
Because the subject’s eyes were not able to fuse the two competing images, it sent alternating images of each to the wearer. The green square would alternate with the red circle. The wearer could not see both images at the same time.
Here’s the decisive thing that happened next
Dr. Pearson put on the goggles and closed his eyes. Then he focused his mind only on the red circle. When he opened his eyes, they showed him only the red circle. They did not alternate between the two images but continuously showed him the red circle.
When he repeated the experiment focusing on the green square, the goggles only showed him the green square. They completely ignored the image in the other eye. It was as if the red circle no longer even existed.
What does this mean?
Pearson’s experiment demonstrates that choosing to imagine one object over the other caused his brain to show him only the image he had focused on before opening his eyes.
As he described it, “What we imagine does change our visual perception. It literally changes how we see the world.”
I learned of this experiment
while listening to the car radio three hours before the failed assassination attempt. At the time, a local station was rebroadcasting a month-old Radiolab podcast that featured Dr. Pearson.
His research would have interested me under any circumstances. But I was especially struck by his experiment that day because of a startling statistic I learned about one day earlier.
As of July 9–10, fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans think Trump will win this year’s presidential election regardless of whom they plan to personally support. That statistic includes nearly all Republicans, a majority of independents, and nearly a quarter of Democrats.
Months away from voting
more than half of the electorate has already chosen the next president in their minds.
They were not wearing Dr. Pearson’s VR goggles during the poll. But their current attitudes about the election indicate that the mind — and the power of imagination — may haunt this year’s election just as much as Milwaukee in 1912 and Chicago in 1968.
Comedian Flip Wilson used to say, “What you see is what you get.” Dr. Pearson’s research would update that famous catchphrase to this: “What you imagine is what you get.”
A psychologist I know tells me Einstein put it this way: Imagination gives shape, form, and color to unformed mental energy.
So before the voting begins this year, here’s a question for anyone who cares about the outcome— What result are you imagining? Perhaps the time has come to make the mind an ally. Because now empirical evidence confirms that thoughts matter. They really do.
©2024 Andrew Jazprose Hill
Thanks for reading.
So here is a different thought experiment: What do you suppose would have happened if the shooter hadn’t missed?
“We see what we want to see.”
Harry Nilsson (1970) “The Point”