Kicking Over My Traces

One of the reasons that the Founders decided on a republican form of government was the possibility of direct democracy to be unduly influenced by emotional appeal. While our senators and congressmen and assemblymen and council members represent our interests and desires, they are just as much elected to protect us from our worst impulses.

Enter Drew Westen with a book describing how emotion plays into the American political process.

This is a summary from Capitol Reader:

The Political Brain is an investigation into the role of emotion in deciding the life of the nation. It looks at data across several Presidential elections from the 1950s through 2000, examines the evidence for the role of emotion in driving voting behavior, and provides a “clinical” view of a number of campaign ads, debate lines, and personal profiles of the candidates who have sought to win voters’ hearts.

(Capitol Reader provides 8-page pdf summaries of current books in the areas of politics, current events and policy. This quick review is based on Capitol Reader’s summary of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.)

By the second paragraph of the summary, I suspected Mr. Westen’s argument would derail:

“Republicans have a keen eye for markets, and they have a near monopoly in the marketplace of emotions.” As a result, the GOP has won five out of the last seven presidential elections. Even more staggering, over the last six decades, only one Republican has failed to be reelected president, while only one Democrat has succeeded. Republicans have succeeded because they understand the importance of branding; Americans know what the Republican Party stands for (lower taxes, smaller government, and strong national defense), whereas Democrats have failed to identify their party with core values that strike an emotional chord with voters.

“The last six decades” covers the 1950s forward — selectivity affects the study outcome due to historical oddities unrelated to the choice of the American polity. This swift gloss skates right over an abundance of political anomalies that include the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the decision of Lyndon Johnson not to run for re-election, and the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The argument left the tracks in the next paragraph:

Republicans have succeeded because they framed elections in terms of values rather than specific policies. Speaking in terms of values is critical because it activates emotional centers in the brain that rouse the passion of voters. Democrats, in contrast, have made the mistake of engaging voters on an abstract level, often bombarding audiences with arcane policy proposals backed up with a blizzard of facts. Such an approach leaves most voters cold.

I am not disagreeing with the assertion about the behavior of voters. I think the characterization of the two major political parties is hilarious, and factually incorrect. No voter was ever put to sleep by a Republican policy wonk? Democratic candidates never pander to voters?

Please.

From later in the summary, it appears that Mr. Westen has written an advocacy tract begging Democratic candidates to create political narratives in order to win in 2008, rather than a description of research into political decision-making:

Democrats err greatly when the try to make their campaigns about the issues. Instead, they should be talking in terms of life stories and values. Simply put, “managing positive and negative feelings should be the primary goals of a political campaign.”

Okay, okay. This advice on political narrative is neutral enough:

In order to be compelling, a political narrative should include the following elements:

• It should be simple so it is easily understood and can be told and retold.
• It should have protagonists and antagonists.
• It should have a clear moral.
• It should be both vivid and memorable.
• It should be emotionally moving.
• It should include emotionally evocative metaphors.
• It should include appropriate elements from the opposition’s storyline and recast them as its own.
• It should be the kind of narrative parents could share with their children because it embodies core values, particularly about right and wrong.

But the summary ends with this exhoration:

Democrats need to abandon their dispassionate approach to voters and begin tapping the passionate political brain. This means having the courage to take stands based on principle without fear of offending certain segments of the electorate. In politics, there’s nothing worse than being wishy-washy. It also means being prepared to defend your beliefs and values toe to toe with the opposition. Elections are won and lost in the marketplace of emotions and candidates that can passionately defend the values they care about will inspire support and win elections.

You cannot convince me that Hillary Clinton, for example, does not understand how to appeal to emotion, nor that she does not understand passionate defense, or cold and calculating offense. (See my earlier post, “Peggy Noonan on The Hildebeast.”)

I would skim this book for the few nuggets such as the political narrative list above. The rest is hogwash.

Tags: Books, Politics

This entry was posted on Monday, October 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 am +0000 GMT and is filed under Books, Politics, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.