When reading the “Impossible” reading, I was immediately struck by the quote “The problem is not that we have so little power. The problem is that we don’t use the power that we have.” This specific quote reminds me a lot of the American political system and specifically reminded me of the most recent two presidential elections where voter turnout was low from certain groups, such as younger voters whose turnout is always, disappointingly, low.

Currently, in our political system, the two parties are so polarized that the elections are entirely about defeating the other candidate rather than actually electing a candidate which the party actually backs and has faith in. For example, in the current presidential election, many people claimed that though they supported Bernie Sanders’ ideas, they did not vote for him because he was not “electable” and somehow that was more important than voting for a candidate who they actually believe in. Thus, Joe Biden became the candidate to win solely on the platform that he is “not Donald Trump” and many Americans believe that because he is more of a centrist candidate, he is more “electable” and this race was dissolved into who the people think can beat Donald Trump as opposed to who is the best candidate, which is unfortunate. People need to start using the voices that they have to stand up for ideas that they really believe in, as speaking out and coming together is the only way to achieve progress. Americans are fortunate to have power in the political process, and they need to stop letting the polarized party system and political establishment get in the way of this.

Out of the living room ads for Obama’s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney, the one that really stood out to me was the “Big Bird” ad. This ad was a remarkable change of pace from the majority of ads which highlighted Romney’s corruption and Obama’s dedication to prosperity and unity. Though still an attack ad as the majority of the ads were, this one was primarily focused on the fact that Romney lacked vision and policies aside from wanting to cut subsidies to PBS. This ad made fun of Romney, for lack of a more accurate phrase, for wanting to take on the corruption of Sesame Street as opposed to Wall Street. I thought that this ad was an effective comedic ad, though hard to take at all seriously if it was intended that way.

I did find it very interesting that Obama was using almost entirely an attack ad strategy in his 2012 campaign as he was the incumbent and could have used this time to promote his vision for the next four years of his presidency along with his accomplishments from his previous four years in office. Of course, there was a lot of material to attack Romney, as there is with most politicians, but almost none of the ads actually discussed Obama’s policies and/or successes. Now that he was an established candidate and incumbent, one would think Obama would have shifted strategies a bit. It is interesting to think that his campaign team thought that attacking Romney for not wanting to subsidize PBS should take precedence over actually discussing the Obama administrations’ successes of future.

In the Von Rueden and Van Vugt article, I was particularly struck by looking at leadership from an evolutionary perspective. I think that there are definitely certain leadership traits which have evolved to most effectively benefit leaders and to bring them to success but before this reading I had not given any thought to what would benefit leaders the most and what we have evolved to view as effective leadership or charisma. Specifically, the concept of evolutionary mismatch is not one that is oftentimes discussed but can be very relevant.

The evolutionary mismatch regarding leadership and its effectiveness reminds me of how ever changing leadership styles and how when people evolve to be inclined towards certain types of leaders and leadership styles eventually something shifts such as moving from a small society with a group of mostly kin to an entire country. The leaders who were most effective years ago at the dawn of society will not actually be the most effective leaders today, but we are most inclined to think that they would be based on inherent evolutionary perspectives.

I was most intrigued by the concept of the Volunteer’s dilemma which is a concept I had never learned about before. I was most fascinated by the idea of the “great loss” which could result from this dilemma; seeming almost greater than the risks of losses of the Prisoner’s dilemma. Specifically the idea that if one party waits too long to act, then the resulting loss can easily be “devastating.” I think that this Volunteer’s dilemma is maybe even more relevant than the much more mainstream Prisoner’s dilemma and can be applied to more scenarios all across the board. One quote which really resonated with me regarding this dilemma is: “When fear holds us back, it can be others who suffer.” I think that this is too common of a problem and too often holds too many people back from doing the right thing. One example that I personally thought of is the U.S. Healthcare system in which many are afraid to vote for these policies which would promote universal healthcare to ensure people do not die or suffer because they do not have access to adequate healthcare. Those who are too afraid to vote for these policies ultimately by not acting are letting others suffer and die which is as drastic as the “devastating loss” I envisioned. People need to start taking bolder stances and doing this more quickly to avoid the loss which comes with this dilemma.