So, the presidential campaign seems to be set: Hillary vs. the Donald. What a joy- ride it promises to be. The thing is that these candidates are all too
familiar to the American public.
Consequently, an institutional practice which we usually would see at
the respective convention, the “meet” the candidate film, might not be so
important. This is the film that is
shown just before the candidate addresses the bevy of Democrats or Republicans –
the speech being the culminating event of the convention. At least, that is what usually happens. Trump promises that his convention will be
different; it will be more entertaining, showtime. And since these two candidates are very well
known, can either candidate really reintroduce him or herself; can a campaign
really “define” the opponent to its liking?
We’ll see what the attempt will be, assuming one or the other convention
follows the usual script.
To the extent that such an effort is made – introducing the
candidate and defining the opponent – certain psychological principles will be
relied upon to guide producers in their efforts. I have, in a previous posting, I’ll Get My Fix, reported that the
cognitive psychologist, Drew Westen,[1] believes
that people generally don’t reason over politics; rather, they feel politics. It turns out, when it comes to thinking about
whom to vote for or what policy position to accept and support, people in
general let their gut feelings control their decision-making. Successful producers of such efforts as an “introductory
film” understand this, while those who are guided by notions of presenting a
logical argument are not so successful.
That previous posting explains these mental operations a bit – check it
out (posted on April 26, 2016). It all
has to do with your neurons working in association among themselves.
Westen, in describing these phenomena, uses two contrasting examples
to illustrate this difference. On the
successful side, he cites the Bill Clinton film. He judges that effort as one of the most
successful ever. He explains how footage
of his “birth town,” Hope, Arkansas, and his meeting, as a teenager, of
President Kennedy at the White House – an event sponsored by a youth group – engendered
those emotional ties to which people could relate. Here is the story of a poor kid, whose father
died just before he was born, struggling to improve himself while the narration
informs the audience that his professional commitment is to help others through
his public service – he was governor of Arkansas at the time. Westen then provides a counter example as he
describes the film produced for John Kerry, the Ivy Leaguer, born to privilege
and married to an exceptionally wealthy woman who has a foreign accent to boot. While there is nothing wrong with having a
wife with a foreign accent, the whole image was one to which the average
American voter would have a difficult time relating.
In that previous posting, I pointed out that the electorate
is fairly evenly divided into three groups:
30% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 40% not committed to either major
party and open to persuasion. This time
around, this might not be the case.
Since the primary/caucus season drew so much attention, given the Trump
factor and that it has been going on for a year now, – Trump announced his
candidacy last June 16 – many more Americans have probably made up their minds;
that is, their gut feelings have settled on a choice and that has been further
reinforced by their adoption of the respective narratives the campaigns have
been using about their candidate and the opposition. Coming up this week, Trump is going to make
notorious charges against Clinton on her schemes to become wealthy, entailing
her official duties as secretary of state, and Clinton surrogates are attacking
Trump on his attacks on a federal judge and intimating that he would use the
power of the executive branch to intimidate the judiciary – a real no-no under
our separation of powers principle. Vice
President Biden just yesterday claimed that that is what Trump threatened to
initiate in his tirade against the judge who is presiding over the case in
which Trump is being sued over matters concerning his defunct Trump
University. All of this is nasty and
promises to get nastier. The one thing I
would add is that Trump, with his experience in show business, does have an
advantage in this game of pricking emotions.
The result might very well rely on Hillary’s ability to adopt more
emotionally laden messaging; she seems to be getting better at it. She not only is evoking fear of a Trump
administration, but also has taken a reflective demeanor and is able to
communicate with an air of knowing what she is talking about – a quality which
the punditry will help – whereas Trump seems to be limited as to how deeply he
can expound on any issue. Again, the
important thing here is not how true this is, but how the candidate can generate
or quell fear or other relevant emotions in the audience.
It is said that successful lawyers are successful not because
they can muster the better argument, but because they can put on the better show
that plucks at the existing emotional biases of the jury. Well, in an election, the same principle
holds, only we voters inhabit the jury box and the two candidates are the opposing
lawyers. Think more of Johnny Cochran
than Daniel Webster or Henry Clay. I
would argue this truism has been true all through our history, but it has
gotten worse. When seeing on TV a Trump
rally, for example, one can’t help feeling that we are witnessing a modern
version of the Roman Circus. An event
lacking in any substance with a speaker spouting mostly banalities and noted
for his outrageous and inconsistent messaging.
And, of course, a news media that has abandoned just about any claim at
providing a public service – seeking eyes and ears to bolster its ratings and,
therefore, its revenues – has broadcast every spectacle of this roadshow as it moved
around the country. There is more to
come, and Trump has promised his convention will be something to remember – not
so much an introduction, but a heightened effort to cater the inexhaustible
demand for entertainment. Let the good
times roll?
[1] Westen, D.
(2007). The political
brain: The role of emotions in deciding
the fate of the nation. New York,
NY: PublicAffairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment