It's the emotions, stupid

When Bill Clinton was campaigning for president for the first time, he had a note stuck to the wall above his desk that said “It's the economy, stupid.” It was just a reminder to focus on George Bush Senior's weak point. I just read a new book by Drew Westen called The Political Brain (Subtitled “The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation”), which shifts that focus to the realm of emotion.

It follows in the wake of books such as “What's Wrong With Kansas?”, which explores the strange disconnect of blue collar conservatives voting against their own economic interests. Westen goes beyond the usual politics into the function of the brain itself. He explores how our brains process political decisions.

Dr. Drew Westen, PhD is a clinical psychologist and professor at Emory University. He has spent years studying the way people actually make political decisions, as opposed to the way people assume that they make political decisions. He has drawn on studies using high tech brain scanning devices and clever word association tests to parse out our decision making processes. The results are not particularly complimentary to the human species.

We like to think of ourselves as rational. How do we pick a candidate? Well, we find out about his or her positions on the issues of the day, look at the candidate's past for signs of character or lack thereof, and.....well, no we don't. What Dr. Westen has found is that people choose candidates according to a combination of tribal loyalty and a web of emotional associations. By tribal I mean, generally, Republican and Democrat. The web of emotional associations is a complex assortment of images, words, and concepts that have been placed in proximity to the candidate's image, name, family, philosophy, associates, and party. If a candidate is smart and/or lucky, those emotional associations were promoted by the candidate's own campaign. If not, the opposition candidate and party will generously supply the emotional baggage.

Polling has shown that ardent supporters of Ronald Reagan tended to disagree with him, point by point, on fundamental political and social issues. A more recent study showed that over half of the people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 thought that he held many political positions that were the opposite of his actual positions. Westen points out that over the past few decades the Republicans have been quite adept at crafting appealing, forceful, coherent emotional campaigns on behalf of their candidates. These campaigns have generally been less coherent logically, but the GOP has realized the key truth that this is not important. Westen also points out that the Democrats, believing in reason, have lost and lost again as they win rational arguments while neglecting the emotional ones.

Westen provides a prescription for the Democratic party: Get the emotions right. He doesn't tell them to stop being rational, but to enclose their rational arguments in a carefully crafted and tested emotional framework. This failing of the Democratic party is a failing of the progressive movement in general.

Anthropologists call it the error of charity. In anthropology this means that the researcher assumes that the people being studied have the same thought processes and values as the researcher. Progressives tend to make two false assumptions. One is, of course, that evidence and logic on their own will carry the day in a political battle. The other is confusing activities that are emotionally satisfying for the actors with actions that are persuasive for the intended audience. I know I am stepping on a lot of toes here, but I'd propose that the vast majority of vigils and public demonstrations (by anybody) have done exponentially more for the emotional states of the participants than the political beliefs of any spectators. This error of charity also manifests itself in the tone and emphasis of materials published for progressive causes.

Dr. Westen's book is a necessary reference for anybody who either works for a political campaign or is facing a run for elected office. It will also interest anyone who has wondered how these people actually can get elected. It's the emotions.

Comments

[Robert Nuner]

Demonstrations may well benefit primarily the demonstrators. I recall a candle-light vigil against the war in Iraq, maybe in October or so of '02. It was to be silent, but someone in the crowd could not bear the silence, and started singing (My recollection is that it really was, literally, KumBaYa). A slightly different point, granted, but in that case, the point of witnessing was tangibly diminished by the diffusion of the silence, the event was tarnished, and its power to motivate the participants was diffused

.Maybe the Democrats should spend campaign bucks providing all voters with enameled flag lapel pins.

[Rebecca]

Sounds similar to the concept of "projection". The unconscious attribution of one's own emotions and attitudes onto others. The explanation behind the "irrational" love for certain pets and even some marraiges. That pretty much sums up the methods behind most advertising too. It's verypwerful stuff. On tuesday I was aware that emotionally I wanted to vote for one candidate but rationally I wanted to vote for the other. It took some discipline. I'm thinking I'll take a look at this book.......