“Let’s be reasonable” is
a common refrain. Yet, are people
reasonable? They can be; there’s
evidence from time to time that show people being so. But overall – in everyday interactions – the
evidence is that humans are mostly irrational or emotional. This blog has shared the work of various
cognitive experts that provide arguments and evidence to that effect. They include Jonathan Haidt,[1] George Lakoff,[2] and Drew Westen.[3]
This posting picks up on the work of Westen. A former posting pointed out his argument
that politicians, to be effective, need to address issues from an emotional
basis. Logical arguments backed by
relevant data are all fine and good, but if it is not encased within emotional
messaging, the points will not hit home.
He goes on to point out, according to his observations, that Republicans
are significantly better at affect messaging than Democrats are.
To support this last claim, he offers the example of how
the candidate Al Gore, in the first presidential election debate of the 2004
election cycle, critiqued candidate George Bush’s medical care proposal. While citing a real-life example of a person
in the audience, Gore does not emphasize the plight of the man – an emotional
story – but his presentation gets muddled by statistics – including percentage
numbers.
Bush,
on the other hand, does not logically rebuke the numbers, but reminds everyone
of the claim that Gore took credit for inventing the internet and then says his
opponent is probably going to take credit for inventing the calculator. Bush lost logically but won emotionally. He also won the election. Emotional appeals, for regular people, win
the day and stories are a viable vehicle in appealing to emotions.
But
the reader can justifiably point out that this blog often cites the federalist
origins of the nation’s polity. In the
late 18th century, educated thinkers, which the founding fathers were,
emphasized humans’ ability to be reasonable.
They particularly ascribed to the arguments offered by the social
contract thinkers – Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
There
were other writers who wrote in this vein – Thomas Reid and Francis Hutcheson,
among others. In each case, the assumed
process for an ideal polity is for its founders coming together and formulating
a government for the purposes of mutual protection and the fulfillment of other
identified goals and aims. This is
reasonable and not based on emotional appeals of religion, nationality,
ethnicity, or other emotionally based foundations. One can readily see where this turn in
political thinking debased any justification for monarchial rule, for example.
After
all, that time or era has been given the title, “the Age of Reason.” During that time, emotions were taken to be a
negative force. They were seen as having
distorting influences on the decision-making processes that policy makers
practice in a democracy. This is still
the case today.
[O]nly through reason can people set
aside their self-interested and parochial desires to make decisions in the
common interests. Passions can lead to
rapid, poorly thought-out, self-interested acts, or to the psychology of the
mob, inflamed by the emotions of the moment and capable of turning on anyone in
its path.[4]
While all this might be
true, it doesn’t change how people think and feel. And it is the real person with whom a
political actor must deal.
And
political actors are not just limited to pols; it also includes the whole
political industry which encompasses interest groups, lobbyists, and the
press. And beyond those groups, it also
includes other entities such as well-endowed corporations and other well-financed
organizations.
There
is evidence, according to Westen’s review of the literature, that even coverage
by the press reflects how polling indicates popular opinion is flowing. After all, they are also interested in their
viewership, in the number of people who read their papers or view their
programming. In turn, it affects how
much they can charge their sponsors.
They,
in turn, massage their messaging to appeal to the emotions of their
listeners. In addition, their ability to
do so, as the years go by, improves.
Some would say, it improves in scary ways. This blogger argues that by relying on
natural rights views – a person has the right to do what he/she wants to do
without any sense of obligation or duty – strategies develop in which the only
standard to guide such messaging is success in meeting self-interested goals
and aims.
And
as such, the press, pols, and other players in the political arena of this and
other nations has undermined the more institutionalized entities and processes
upon which responsible democratic rule needs to function. The solution must include better civic
instruction by schools, parents, and other socializing agents. They need to encourage and teach their
charges about the value of reason and the skills to practice it.
[1] Jonathan
Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion (New York, NY: Pantheon
Books, 2012).
[2] George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think
(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press, 2002) AND George Lakoff, The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century
American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain (New York, NY: Viking, 2008).
[3] Drew Westen, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotions in Deciding the Fate of
the Nation (New York, NY:
PublicAffairs, 2007).
[4] Ibid., 26.
