Jim Stillman
NevarDemocrats Must Appeal to Emotions, not Issues
July 26th 2007 02:04
I have just completed reading an interesting, fascinating book by Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, “The Political Brain.” The sub-title of Professor’s book is, “The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”. His theories, developed over the past twenty years, explore a theory of the mind that differs substantially from the more "dispassionate" notions held by most psychologists, political scientists, and economists—and Democratic campaign strategists. The idea of the mind as a cool calculator that makes decisions by weighing the evidence bears no relation to how the brain actually works. When political candidates assume voters dispassionately make decisions based on "the issues," they lose. That's why only one Democrat has been re-elected to the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt—and only one Republican has failed in that quest.
In Professor Westen, Democrats have available a prophet who can deliver the Promised Land of winning national elections. In an earlier post on this site, I suggested that, “Liberal-progressives have, for too long, allowed the Republican right to frame the issues in the debate. This put Liberals always on the defensive. It is time to re-assert all of the human values that are the cornerstone of liberalism and that, deep down, are the principles of America.”
The Professor states, in far more dispassionate and scientific terms, everything that Democrats have done wrong. They have, repeatedly and in election after election, been appealing to the dispassionate, rational, fact-sensitive voter: a being, apparently, who doesn't exist!
Democrats keep losing presidential campaigns, not because the issues they stand for are unappealing, but because they tend to structure their campaigns to engage the brain's reasoning centers. The results speak for themselves. In most polls Americans are demonstrably more supportive of the Democratic agenda, yet somehow Republicans keep winning. The reason, suggests Westen, is that Democrats have disarmed themselves by appealing to reason and rationality while Republicans have a near-monopoly in the marketplace of emotions. They have kept government off our backs, torn down that wall, saved the flag, left no child behind, protected life, kept our marriages sacred, restored integrity to the Oval Office, spread democracy to the Middle East, and fought an unrelenting war on terror. The Democrats, in contrast, have continued to place their stock in the marketplace of ideas. In so doing, they have been trading in the wrong futures, our futures.
There are many examples of the lack of emotion on the part of a Democratic candidate.
One of the most memorable happened in the 1988 debates when Michael Dukakis was asked by Bernard Shaw if he would favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife. Dukakis answered, dispassionately, “I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." As Westen writes, Dukakis answered in the language of "rational utility," describing his concerns for the death penalty's deterrent value. But the average listener heard a different question. They heard Shaw ask Dukakis "Are you a man?" The answer came out, "no."
What should have been Dukakis’ answer? I believe it should have been, “I would have wanted to kill the SOB personally and slowly. That’s why we do not permit victims of crime or their families to decide how an evil doer is to be treated. They cannot consider all of the issues involved – and they shouldn’t be expected to do so.”
Democrats have unilaterally disarmed like this by insisting on taking the high road and focusing on policy, fact and expertise, while Republicans willingly use unconscious emotional cues such as race baiting (Willie Horton, states' rights, etc.) to win by any means.
Examples of the refusal to “fight back” are readily available.
During the presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Jim Lehrer asked Bush whether there were character differences between himself and Gore. Bush responded by raising the specter of fund raising improprieties by Gore at a Buddhist temple and suggesting that the Lincoln bedroom was offered as a prize to big dollar donors while Gore was vice president. Gore's response was: "I think we ought to attack our country's problems, not attack each other. I want to spend my time making this country even better than it is, not trying to make you out to be a bad person."
By not attacking the attack, Professor Westen says that Gore demonstrated a weakness that resonated particularly with Southern men, who more aggressively respond to any slight of honor. Maybe that is why Gore didn't carry a single state of the former Confederacy, not even his own.
Professor Westen suggests that the following rejoinder would have, possibly, changed the election: "Governor ... You have attacked my honor and integrity in front of my family, the people of my home state of Tennessee, and millions of my fellow Americans. So I think it's time to teach you a few old-fashioned lessons about character.
"When I enlisted to fight in the Vietnam War, you were talking' real tough about Vietnam. But when you got the call, you called your daddy and begged him to pull some strings so you wouldn't have to go to war. So instead of defending your country with honor, you put some poor Texas mill worker's kid on the front line in your place to get shot at.
"Where I come from, we call that a coward."
That would have stirred things considerably and just might have been the equivalent of, “I knew John Kennedy and you are not John Kennedy!”
John Kerry disarmed himself by failing to condemn the Swift Boat advertisements arranged by Bush operatives. By his silence and failure “to dignify” the attacks on his heroism from a man who hid from the war, he allowed the Republicans to take the field. When an attack is greeted with silence, the punch will leave a lingering impression that the candidate may not be able to overcome.
No one is suggesting that Democrats should adopt the entire Republican bag of dirty tricks; one has to only recall the Watergate era and the actions of the Nixon team. However, Democrats should not shy away from negative campaigning - giving voters reasons to be wary of the opponent.
It is very distressing to consider. One would hope that the electorate would be more influenced by facts and issues and not just base emotions. However the evidence points elsewhere.
Yes, this is distressing to hear. But it is a fact that Democrats need to fully appreciate and start acting on, if they want a fighting chance for the presidency.
The Professor states, in far more dispassionate and scientific terms, everything that Democrats have done wrong. They have, repeatedly and in election after election, been appealing to the dispassionate, rational, fact-sensitive voter: a being, apparently, who doesn't exist!
Democrats keep losing presidential campaigns, not because the issues they stand for are unappealing, but because they tend to structure their campaigns to engage the brain's reasoning centers. The results speak for themselves. In most polls Americans are demonstrably more supportive of the Democratic agenda, yet somehow Republicans keep winning. The reason, suggests Westen, is that Democrats have disarmed themselves by appealing to reason and rationality while Republicans have a near-monopoly in the marketplace of emotions. They have kept government off our backs, torn down that wall, saved the flag, left no child behind, protected life, kept our marriages sacred, restored integrity to the Oval Office, spread democracy to the Middle East, and fought an unrelenting war on terror. The Democrats, in contrast, have continued to place their stock in the marketplace of ideas. In so doing, they have been trading in the wrong futures, our futures.
There are many examples of the lack of emotion on the part of a Democratic candidate.
One of the most memorable happened in the 1988 debates when Michael Dukakis was asked by Bernard Shaw if he would favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife. Dukakis answered, dispassionately, “I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." As Westen writes, Dukakis answered in the language of "rational utility," describing his concerns for the death penalty's deterrent value. But the average listener heard a different question. They heard Shaw ask Dukakis "Are you a man?" The answer came out, "no."
What should have been Dukakis’ answer? I believe it should have been, “I would have wanted to kill the SOB personally and slowly. That’s why we do not permit victims of crime or their families to decide how an evil doer is to be treated. They cannot consider all of the issues involved – and they shouldn’t be expected to do so.”
Democrats have unilaterally disarmed like this by insisting on taking the high road and focusing on policy, fact and expertise, while Republicans willingly use unconscious emotional cues such as race baiting (Willie Horton, states' rights, etc.) to win by any means.
Examples of the refusal to “fight back” are readily available.
During the presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Jim Lehrer asked Bush whether there were character differences between himself and Gore. Bush responded by raising the specter of fund raising improprieties by Gore at a Buddhist temple and suggesting that the Lincoln bedroom was offered as a prize to big dollar donors while Gore was vice president. Gore's response was: "I think we ought to attack our country's problems, not attack each other. I want to spend my time making this country even better than it is, not trying to make you out to be a bad person."
By not attacking the attack, Professor Westen says that Gore demonstrated a weakness that resonated particularly with Southern men, who more aggressively respond to any slight of honor. Maybe that is why Gore didn't carry a single state of the former Confederacy, not even his own.
Professor Westen suggests that the following rejoinder would have, possibly, changed the election: "Governor ... You have attacked my honor and integrity in front of my family, the people of my home state of Tennessee, and millions of my fellow Americans. So I think it's time to teach you a few old-fashioned lessons about character.
"When I enlisted to fight in the Vietnam War, you were talking' real tough about Vietnam. But when you got the call, you called your daddy and begged him to pull some strings so you wouldn't have to go to war. So instead of defending your country with honor, you put some poor Texas mill worker's kid on the front line in your place to get shot at.
"Where I come from, we call that a coward."
That would have stirred things considerably and just might have been the equivalent of, “I knew John Kennedy and you are not John Kennedy!”
John Kerry disarmed himself by failing to condemn the Swift Boat advertisements arranged by Bush operatives. By his silence and failure “to dignify” the attacks on his heroism from a man who hid from the war, he allowed the Republicans to take the field. When an attack is greeted with silence, the punch will leave a lingering impression that the candidate may not be able to overcome.
No one is suggesting that Democrats should adopt the entire Republican bag of dirty tricks; one has to only recall the Watergate era and the actions of the Nixon team. However, Democrats should not shy away from negative campaigning - giving voters reasons to be wary of the opponent.
It is very distressing to consider. One would hope that the electorate would be more influenced by facts and issues and not just base emotions. However the evidence points elsewhere.
Yes, this is distressing to hear. But it is a fact that Democrats need to fully appreciate and start acting on, if they want a fighting chance for the presidency.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Rick B.
Being a southern conservative, I do not always agree with what you say but I admire your ability to do the research and then put that research into words. You definitely stir my thinking processes. I am trying to learn how not to look at the extremes of left or right, both of which seem to get the most media coverage, but rather look for the true and most logical choices which I really feel can be found somewhere in the middle.
I somehow made it to the DNC newsletter mailing lists and find that a lot of what comes out of that camp is just as disturbing as the disaster the Republicans have created this past six and a half years.
I can only hope that one of the parties can find a viable candidate soon. Neither have done that yet (in my humble opinion) as I want to cast my next vote for the best candidate and not have to vote for what I feel is the lessor of two evils.
I do agree with you that most of the political stuff I see and hear is based on an appeal to the emotions and not to the intellect and much of it to cause FEAR of the opposition.
I know this is emotional, but I am going to do all within my power to promote the election of new faces to Washington. Based on the past several years' performances, no incumbent should be returned to office. And, how about some term limits for the House and Senate?.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Thanks for your comments.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Libs/Dems are very gifted at semantics, as well as emotional displays. When Al Gore couldn't answer some tough questions about "Global Warming", he simply changed the name to "Climate Change", after all it wasn't really getting warmer everywhere... And how about the leaky border situation? The lib/Dem solution seems to be to call illegal aliens "undocumented Americans" and solve the problem by making them all citizens (and Dem voters!).
As I said to begin with, I seem to be one of those non-existent voters who actually care about the issues. Most of my family voted Dem, because it made them "feel" like they were doing something good by following the lib agenda. I was the first one to start paying attention to facts, figures and issues. That's why I became a Republican. Having seen both parties very clearly, I can tell you, Jim, the writer you were quoting has it backwards.