Kamala Harris, target of maximizers
In the psychology field, there is a concept known as being a “satisficer” versus being a “maximizer”. According to The Balanced WorkLife Company, a satisfier (we’re going to use this spelling because it’s much more common) is someone whose:
satisfaction is judged by meeting the standards they have in place. To them time and energy is considered a waste if there is a reasonable option ready for the taking. Satisfi[]ers don’t necessarily have low standards; they can be super picky or want the top brand.
In contrast, according to the company:
Maximizers are satisfied by researching as many options as they can. They sacrifice time and effort into learning as much about the “offer” as possible. They consider all the variations, advantages, and weaknesses. When the decision is final, they then compare it to the choices those around them made. The question on the maximizer’s mind is “Is there something better out there?”
In simple terms, we like to think about satisfiers as choosing among the readily available options, and being happy with their best choice, even if they know it’s not perfect. Maximizers, on the other hand, are more like perfectionists, who obsess over every detail, and need everything to be just right. As one can imagine, such perfection is almost never achieved, and as a result, according to the book The Paradox of Choice, as cited by The Balanced WorkLife Company, “maximizers experience significantly less life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem.”
Often the satisfier and maximizer personalities can be seen in our own lives, when it comes to consumer matters such as buying food, electronics, clothing, and more. Does someone you know or see in the supermarket pick up every apple, looking for the perfect one? Or do they grab six apples quickly and move on to the vegetable aisle? Do you know people who go to a restaurant and take 10 minutes to order, asking the servers extremely detailed questions about each dish? Or do they glance at the menu and say, “wow, that linguini looks good, I’m getting that”? And how well do you think the satisfier versus the maximizer enjoys those apples or their restaurant food after getting it?
The satisfier versus maximizer concept also applies in politics. Specifically, the trend for some would-be Democratic voters at least since 2016 has been to criticize one or more individual aspects of leading Democratic candidates and nominees, to the exclusion not only of all the candidate’s positive qualities, but instead of spending their energy attacking the Republican opponents. Obviously, these voters can be considered maximizers. Unfortunately, many of their criticisms originate with Republicans, meaning that these Democrats are doing the Republicans’ work of tearing down Democratic candidates and suppressing Democratic voting for them. Thus, for example, we heard from the supposedly Democratic New York Times in April 2016 that Hillary Clinton “Became a Hawk”. Likewise, many voters supposedly from the Democratic side in 2024 charged that Kamala Harris “supported genocide in Gaza”. Those charges seem quaint, and quite false, especially when compared to the competition, i.e. Donald Trump.
On the Republican side, the voters tend to be more like satisfiers. Surely, they didn’t all love George W. Bush or Donald Trump, but they supported each of them enough for them to be elected twice. One political adage is that “Democrats want to fall in love, Republicans just fall in line.” What this means very often is that Democrats don’t fall in love with their candidates. Nor should they have to fall in love with their candidates, or think the candidates must be perfect and pure. That is an unrealistic and frankly immature standard. If the goal, as it should be, is to win elections and gain power, voters who are satisfiers likely will be more successful.
Photo by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, used under Creative Commons license. https://is.gd/9X6zcB
