As this blog notes the new year – hoping all are having a
happy one – its writer observes certain things don’t change. One is how people choose emotion over reason
all the time. More specifically, how
emotions determine valuing. Values can
be based on reasons, but emotions are inescapable. At some point, unless a person can be a Spock
from Star Trek, his/her emotions play a role in forming values – what one
wants. For most, that role is either
central or exclusive.
As a matter of fact, people take
emotional appeals as reasoned argument, if not all the time, most of the
time. To point, a philosopher from the
1700s made quite a name for himself by just pointing out a distinction. The “is” is not the “ought.” Sentiments are not observations of
reality. Thank you, David Hume for
pointing out what should have been obvious; yet it took that long in human
history to nail that point down.
And yet, most humans continue to
think and act as if the point has not been made. And one prominent area of concern, that one
witnesses this convolution, is the area of politics. A more recent writer, Drew Westen, argues,
quite convincingly, that political rhetoric, to be successful, needs to appeal
to emotions. He offers this
example: when talking to a religious
audience, one should say something like:
“… no one is suggesting we give special
rights to anyone, only treat all
Americans as equal under the law – that we treat all Americans as God’s children.”[1]
In this example, by adding “as God’s
children,” the speaker provides the context that is emotionally meaningful to a
religious person. The only thing this
writer would suggest is the speaker should start with that phrase for that
audience. So, the target is someone or
something close to the listeners:
themselves (usually relating to an economic factor), their family, or
some entity that has emotional attachment (a hometown, a favored sports team, a
historical linkage or heritage like religion).
At the time of his book being
written, Westen claims the Republican Party and its candidates were better at
this type of messaging than the Democrats.
Hence, at that time, the GOP was meeting with greater success at least
at the national level. He further claims
that the Democrats exercised an irrational commitment to rationality. This might still be the case. They indulge in reasoned arguments while
Republicans aim for the gut.
But such an irrationality leads one
to think in rational terms. This extends
to how one views the voter. The pol, who
adopts such an approach, tends to project this approach. He/she tends to see the voter as a
calculating agent. And when trying to
see where that voter stands, where the voters’ calculations leave them on
policies and issues, a pol determines this by looking at the polls. The pol will use rational arguments in their
rhetoric to meet where the voters are.
But there is the rub, as the polling
shifts, the pol comes across as shifting, waffling, pandering, and lacking
principled conviction. This tends to be
highly unattractive to the voter. While,
if the pol first determines the emotional positions of large blocks of voters
and then determines a message(s) that is appealing to those positions (“… all
of God’s children”), he/she is much less likely to shift, waffle, or be seen as
pandering. It is, therefore, more appealing.
Is it more honest? This general strategy is not, necessarily,
more or less truthful. It is, though,
more effective. It is one of several
strategic elements comprising effective messaging. These parties hire professionals who should
know how to message and, really, one side should not be so much better than the
other.
In addition to aiming for some
emotional target there are other “rule-of-thumb” practices a pol should
do. It is also important to either
establish what becomes the consensus opinion during a given news cycle – get
out fast with a response to an emotionally charged event – or, if failing that,
be able to issue an equally emotional response to mitigate the damage the
initial message has inflicted.
In addition, a contextual aspect of
these strategic elements is one that pols should keep in mind: office holders are opinion-makers. As such, they have a potential advantage. Unless the issue is big enough, strident
enough, important enough, voters will give the elected leader, who issues messages
effectively, the benefit of the doubt.
Unfortunately, the typical voter does
not give the day-to-day conflicts, news headlines, or punditry much attention. So, the pol, who can capture the overall
message – its emotional punch or, more likely, its emotional jab – wins the
day. An elected official, who gets the
sufficient number of jabs and punches in, wins the match and gets re-elected.
[1] Drew Westen, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotions in Deciding the Fate of
the Nation (New York,
NY: PublicAffairs, 2007), 15. (emphasis in the original)
No comments:
Post a Comment