Surely you’ve heard that scientists are advising a tax on sales of all soda pop in America.  You can read the policy report here for the details, but the key claims are direct:

Soda pop consumption causes obesity.

Taxes will reduce soda pop sales and hence consumption.

Since people will consume less soda pop, they will lose weight.

While the folks involved in this claim hale from elite universities and own distinguished research records, they clearly know little or nothing about persuasion.  I’m telling you now – This won’t work.

Here’s why.

First, the science linking soda pop consumption to obesity then taxes to less consumption and less consumption to weight loss is weak at best.  It is based upon a chain of evidence that is poorly connected.  There is some good experimental evidence that links high sugar consumption with metabolic problems and obesity.  There is weak observational research linking human consumption of soda pop with obesity at the level of small effects.  There is no direct experimental research that demonstrates people facing higher taxes on soda pop buy less pop, consume less pop, and then lose weight; there’s only basic economics on the effects of taxes on purchase.

Thus, even if this policy proposal was immediately passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and affirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court, it would not reduce the obesity rate in the US.  There is no good science to support that direct claim.  There’s only Cool Table Science to support that inference.

Second, this will fail because of the difficulties in enacting the legislation.  The Obama Administration has already indicated that it wants to Nudge people to do the Right Thing and now comes along this group of Allies that wants to use that stronger government tactic, the Push.  Hey, jerks are getting fat because they drink pop and they won’t listen to our Nudges, so dammit, Push Them with Taxes!  I’m betting that the Obama loyalists will not want to associate with a Push on lifestyle changes since they’ve already signed up for the Nudge.  Thus, this group of Food Police is starting a Civil War with other Food Police.  A Food Police divided cannot stand!

Consider now the Rules.

As always and eternally:  All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere!  The Food Police really mean this.  It is crucial to their collective self concept.  They are authentic.  You should drink less Evil Soda!  Thus, we know more about them than science or you.

Power Corrupts Persuasion!  We haven’t seen the Food Police ascendant since Mr. Clinton was President.  If the nutrition experts really had indisputable Science on their side no one could resist their persuasion.  But, the science is weak and they need Power, not Persuasion, to make change happen.  Now that they have a sympathetic White House and Congress, the Food Police may act like scientists, but their success depends not on science or persuasion, but mere power.

It’s About The Other Guy, Stupid!  The Soda Taxers aim only at convincing themselves and their Fellow Travelers of their correctness.  Nothing in the policy report convinces the unConvinced.  All the arguments are technical, elite, and Cool Table.  Hey, those guys are already on board.  You need to convince some Other Guys.

If You Can’t Succeed, Don’t Try.  Proposing the Push of a tax is the desperate gambit of an arrogant loser.  This failed attempt will do nothing but further polarize people and strengthen the resistance of those who oppose a soda pop tax (and other Food Police forays).

Soda with tax stamp image from http://michaelbrowntoday.com/journal/tag/soup-nazi.

The New York Times reports on the death of Noordin Muhammad Top.

He did not set out be become a bomb maker but began working with explosives when another militant, who had been hiding them, said he no longer wanted to keep them, Ms. Jones said, speaking by telephone from Jakarta.

“It was only when he was forced into a decision about having explosives that he became a leader and turned into a bomb maker,” she said.

Give a boy a bomb and he becomes a bombmaker.  Really.

This is a possible demonstration of dissonance at work.  Assuming as the quote implies that Mr. Noordin was not violent before this event, he clearly changed after this action.  The behavioral act of taking the bombmaking materials would be a “counterattitudinal” behavior for a nonviolent actor that would produce dissonance.  To resolve the dissonance, Noordin would change his attitudes and beliefs to become consistent with the behavior.

That’s the theory.

Foreign Policy put up a copy of President Obama’s metrics for the Long War.  With these standards he’s going long on the Long War.  Of course, this is from a Congressional briefing and is the starting point for an ultimate statement of goals and aims, but his first offer is all in and consistent with his March 2009 statement.

While everyone can quibble with any element on the list, it is hard to read this and not see the former Bush Administration proposing much the same.  Those who support the Long War will have to feel support for Obama on this.  Those opposed will be looking for something.

All of this obviously plays into the current politicking with health care reform and other big ticket legislation like energy, labor, and financial reform.  I’m kind of surprised the Obama would publicly do this without first trying to secure Republican support for that other legislation.  It’s an interesting line of persuasion and pretty obvious, too.

I’m reading the metrics in detail now and will post later on the persuasion applications.

Secretary of HHS Sebelius once again demonstrates her tone deaf persuasion skills.  The Wall Street Journal notes:

Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in the middle of a pointed exchange on the Obama administration’s new malpractice pilot projects when a cough rang out in the White House briefing room.

Not just any cough, but a cough into the hands of NBC White House reporter Chuck Todd. Without missing a beat, the Obama administration’s point person on swine flu shot him a withering look. “What’s up with that?” She asked, quickly demonstrating proper procedure — cough into the arm!

She suggested Sesame Street’s Elmo would have to do an additional consultation with NBC.

First, the effect of coughing into your sleeve offers some slight improvement over coughing into your hands, but is not a cure-all, yet Secretary Sebelius acts as if all that stands between the world and a grand killer epidemic is the crook of her arm.  Her persuasion analysis lacks proportion.

Second, persuasion plays accompanied by scolds only work with mean second grade teachers and, even then, not so well.  Modeling a new behavior during a “teachable moment” is a good play.  Adding a mean face (like Mrs. Douglas, my fifth grade teacher, would do) is a bad play.

Consider the Rules!

Power corrupts persuasion.

It’s about the other guy.

If you can’t succeed, don’t try.

And, finally . . .

All bad persuasion is sincere.

I thought the Obama Administration was Persuasion Central?  This is great communication?  I’m not even taking sides on health care, finance reform, Afghanistan, or soda pop taxes.  This is just bad persuasion.

SWJ points to a 23 minute interview of Secretary Gates with Al-Jazeera with a focus upon Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.  Gates is consistent with recent prior statements, but most particularly notes that in his view, America will not withdraw from Afghanistan, will remove all troops and bases from Iraq by next year according to treaty, and has great faith in Pakistan as a partner.  Gates also suggests he hasn’t made up his mind about the exact change in strategy with Afghanistan.

This is a powerful interview that contains many important persuasion points for President Obama.  If you read, for example, the comments at the Washington Post on this Gates interview, you can already see the early response of the Left and its concern about the Long War.  It’s hard to imagine that this Gates interview is going over well with progressives.  How can Obama stay with Gates on this and not start a riot in a key political constituency?

Gates provided some likely lines of persuasion.  He frankly accepted or admitted mistakes in past American policy going back as far as the Reagan withdrawal from Afghanistan following the defeat of the Soviet Union.  Thus, Obama’s own “conservative” Defense Secretary acknowledges not simply that things could have gone better, but that mistakes were made.

I predict that Mr. Obama will employ this as justification for his continuing support of the Long War.  He will castigate Republican errors, including the fabulous Mr. Reagan whom Obama himself has praised in the past.  These criticisms will have to assure the activist Left, although a common sense analysis of Obama’s actions clearly grieves progressives.

This is a triangulating move in the grand style of Mr. Clinton.  It appears that Mr. Obama can assuage these key allies with rhetorical attacks (for now) as opposed to significant, observable policy change.

[It will also be interesting as hell to see how different countries react to this interview, especially in Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan.  If Gates is right in his analysis, there should be fairly positive, if somewhat private response.  I cannot believe that Mr. Obama let this interview go without his support and he must have a strong feeling about how it will play.  Get ready to go long on the Long War.]