The Trump Trial: What It Means for America’s Future

 What happens when a political opponent faces trial during an election cycle? This episode unpacks the unprecedented Trump trial and its ripple effects across politics, business, and public trust. We explore how undecided voters could be swayed by last-minute revelations and why snap judgments, guided by peripheral thinking, often shape major decisions. Learn how economic concerns are tied to high-profile cases, the challenges facing New York’s business sector, and why trust in the justice system is on the line. If you're curious about what this trial truly means for America’s future, don’t miss this deep dive. 

Chapters

• 0:00 How Peripheral Thinking Shapes Decisions
• 1:07 Timing and Influence on Political Outcomes
• 2:21 Changing Minds: The Elaboration Likelihood Model
• 4:16 Automatic vs. Deliberate Thinking Explained
• 6:44 Undecided Voters and Election Surprises
• 9:24 Business and Economic Fallout in New York
• 12:48 Rebuilding Trust in America’s Judicial System

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

What we found out is that most decisions, including important decisions, are made on the peripheral route. Here's why it affects the truck. Verdict the people who hate Trump, they've already decided they're not a factor. The people who love Trump, they've already decided not a factor, but the people for whom it's a factor are those undecided voters. And the undecided voters don't make their decision until November 3rd. What happened ten years ago or ten weeks ago doesn't really matter for those undecided voters until right before the election. In the political world, there's there's this phenomena called the October surprise. There's some revelation that happens right before the election that may or may not be germane to the decision making process. But it's dramatic enough that it will sway the people who are undecided, who are prone to the peripheral or system. One way of making a decision, what really matters is what's going to happen in the last two weeks before the election, which is why the center facing decision is so important. It's been delayed by about a month, which puts it closer in time to the time of the election. Whatever happens closer and closer to the date of the election, that's really going to matter more, even if it isn't logical, even if it isn't rational.

Speaker 2: 1:38

Let's dive into the Trump verdict that just came out, and what the ramifications of this might be for our nation.

Speaker 1: 1:46

In terms of of the psychology of it. I have spent a good deal of time looking at attitude change research or how people make decisions and, I spent a year in graduate school researching a topic, on how people change their mind, attitude change research. And there was a theory at the time called the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change, which is, how do people change their minds? And it's a really long name elaboration likelihood model. So they just called it the Elm. And so we researched this and what we, what it pretty much found is that there are two ways that we theoretically think that people change their mind. And one, they call the central route. And that is the way you you take in data. You look at reasoned arguments, you have this internal debate, you talk to other people, and it's this really cognitively complex way of making a decision. And we always assumed that people made the important decisions via the central route. The other route was called the peripheral route, which is how do you make a distinction between sprite and 7Up? Which which one should I get you? Nobody's weighing those decisions. I wonder how much ascorbic acid is in each of these. And yeah, no, it's like nobody thinks about those decisions very hard. And so the two researchers, Petit and both said, well, we're going to make the important decisions, they thought via the central route and sprite versus 7UP by the peripheral route. Fast forward to neuroscience. The field of neuroscience was not really well developed in the 1980s when I was doing this research, one of those two researchers, John Cassiopeia, who's since passed away, he worked with another one of my professors, Gary Berntsen, to to create the field of social neuroscience. And so they studied how people brains change in interaction with other people. That neuroscience then developed this model called they called they called it system one and system two. And that system one was the part of your brain that was kind of on autopilot all the time. And so there's so much of our life we don't ever think about as grown ups. We don't think about time, our shoes. We don't think about, how to make our cup of coffee in the morning. It's a it's a habit. So that system one most of our life is on autopilot because making decisions about all those things would be exhausting. We would we would never get out of bed because there's too many decisions involved. So our life is enhanced by being on system one, system two is this cognitively complex way of thinking and examining data? Well, it just so happens that system two looks a lot like the central route in the Elm research. And system one looks a lot like the possible route. That's all background stuff nobody cares about, but maybe me. Here's the thing. What we found out is that most decisions, including important decisions, are made on the peripheral route made on system one. In other words, we make our most important decisions with really not good information. And so system one or the peripheral route, you know, why do people drink sprite? Well, because Shaquille O'Neal says you should drink sprite. You know, he's in the ad and Kobe Bryant says you should drink sprite. And there are no famous basketball players who drink 7Up. So sprite dominates the market because basketball, which has nothing to do with how much you're going to prefer a carbonated beverage, it turns out that system one or the peripheral route works really well with superficial decisions or superficial information and last minute decisions. So last minute decisions don't really know. I'm thinking about it. And I have to decide right now we don't look at information. We look at what's most recent in our head. Here's why it affects the Trump verdict. The the people who hate Trump. They've already decided they're not a factor. The people who love Trump, they've already decided not a factor, but the people for whom it's a factor are those undecided voters and the undecided voters don't make their decision until November 3rd. And so what happened ten years ago or ten weeks ago doesn't really matter for those undecided voters until right before the election. And there's a in in the political world, there's there's this phenomena called the October surprise. There's some revelation that happens right before the election that may or may not be particularly germane to the to the decision making process, but it's dramatic enough that it will sway the people who are undecided, who are prone to the peripheral or system. One way of making a decision, and the political pundits on each side are spending so much time and so much energy cataloging these distinct steps of why he's guilty, why he's innocent. None of it really matters for the people who are going to decide this election. What really matters is what's going to happen in the last two weeks before the election, which is why the sentencing decision is so important. It's been delayed by about a month, which puts it closer in time to the time of the election. So as long as however you think about it, whatever happens closer and closer to the date of the election, that's really going to matter more. Even if it isn't logical, even if it isn't rational.

Speaker 2: 9:00

What do you think the potential implications are of going after a political opponent? Because this is now this is something that we have not seen previously to this extent, in the United States. And suddenly it's here and suddenly we're looking at potential jail time over what half the nation thinks is purely a political attack. Even, you know, whether or not it is. But that's what half the nation truly believes.

Speaker 1: 9:27

It's easy for, for people who are talking heads to get hysterical and say things like, this is unprecedented. And I try not to be one of those people, but this really is the first time in modern American history that a political opponent has been, put on trial during an election cycle. So it is also the first time, according to, to my information, my knowledge, that a former president has been put on trial. So so these these are some pretty unusual things before I talk about before I talk about the political implications, let's talk about the economic implications. I believe that business owners in the city of New York are now wondering about the wisdom of staying in the city of New York. They see what has happened to a business icon in their city, a person who's who's been visible and, valuable to that city. And in the blink of an eye, has been put under the spotlight and has been fined over $100 million. Is looking at jail time, for things that I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying, I guess a lot of people do stuff like this. It doesn't make it right. I'm not. I'm not an apologist for his behavior because I don't know what happened. But I but I think business owners in New York are scratching their heads and thinking, how do I get my money out of this town? And so I think, unfortunately for the city of New York, which has historically been the center of business for the world, it's lost a lot of its luster and it's in trouble, because if large sums of money large, our powerful people, with their large sums of money and their business entities move out, that's going to really harm the tax base. It will harm the infrastructure and it will harm the regular people in the city. So that that's that was the first thought that came to my head. Yeah. So what are the political outcomes or what are the consequences to our nation? The judicial branch in the various cities and in the various states outside of New York. And I'm sure New York is not, The city in the state, it's not a uniform entity. There are there are voices of reason. There. And I think we'll see in the appellate, that the appeals process, I think we're going to see things happen that are smart. Back to the first part of your question. They may be delayed until after the election, which leaves this open loop of is he guilty or not? And apparently he is, you know, been convicted. But it did he get a fair trial. And if the appellate courts either in the, in the, in the district, in the state or in the district, if they decide, this this didn't this didn't pass the smell test, then in the long run, he will be exonerated. But that may not happen in time for the election. So I think the speed with which the appellate process occurs is going to be very important for the outcome of the election. But back to the first part of my my answer, the other state judiciaries and the other municipal judiciaries, I don't know how they'll do it, but they need to re instill confidence in, the population that in our in our area, in our municipality, in our state, we will follow the law and we will not actively prosecute people for political reasons. And I don't know how now that the barn door is open and the cows are out, I don't know how we get them back in. And so as a result, the all of the, the judiciaries in the rest of the country are going to be burdened with re instilling confidence in the justice system, you know, things that they're not responsible for. So, so but, but I think there, there needs to be some way and I don't really know how to do it to assure the population that there will not be political witch hunts. Because the more the more you plead, oh, you can trust me. I mean, the more people don't know, not so much. Yeah. And so it may just be that they're going to have to double down on their due diligence. And being a judge is already hard, and it's only going to make their jobs harder. What? Once trust has been betrayed, it's hard to ever get it back. And I guess I this this goes back to system two. Thinking of the central root processing, which is that we as citizens have to think about, not what's happened in a municipality a long way away from where we live. Unless, of course, you live in Connecticut. But someplace, it's a long, long way from where you live. And focus and not say the whole judicial branch is corrupt. But to focus on what's happening in my area and of the judges and the courts and, the district attorneys, are they acting in an aboveboard way? Because I, I hate to paint a broad brush and say every district attorney and every judge is corrupt because it's just not true. It's the same burden that's put on anyone who's part of a of a group where 1 or 2 bad actors have given the whole group a bad name, maybe.