Obama and Guilt by Association: Why It Works among Authoritarian Followers
Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM PDT
Senator Obama has shown a remarkable capacity to change perceptions of him among persons initially inclined to vote for someone else.* Partly this is due to his character and message. Partly this is due to the massive funds at his disposal for advertising, which came from an unprecedented number of individual donors. Partly it may be due to the unfairness of some of the attacks upon him, the campaign of religious innuendo, the misleading of voters about their registration status, etc.--a backlash against "dirty politics."
But the Obama campaign has not been able to seal the deal with certain traditional Democratic constituencies–most notably "inherently conservative" white, blue-collar workers. I think I can offer a couple of research-blessed reasons why.
If you will tolerate a generalization, such voters contain a relatively high percentage of authoritarian followers. (See http://www.theauthoritarians.com) Psychological experiments have given us a pretty good fix on the way authoritarians think. The findings explain why it is so easy to get them to vote against their own economic interests by the time-dishonored tactic of guilt by association–the tactic of slurring someone by drawing an unfair connection between him and an unsavory someone else.
Authoritarian followers are stunningly ethnocentric, meaning they strongly tend to divide the world into their in-group and various out-groups. They believe in associating with their in-group, and avoiding the out-groups, as much as possible. Some of them have even been told since childhood that being friends with "others," or even being seen talking with "outsiders" is scandalous and a sin. The message is clear: Stick with your own kind.
So when profoundly ethnocentric people hear that a political candidate is associated in some way with a crook, a radical, a fanatic, it’s the most natural thing in the world for them to conclude that the politician is himself a crook, a radical, a fanatic. Why else would the politician associate with such people? "Isn’t everybody like me, sticking with the folks who are like me?" It really doesn’t matter how weak the association is (as between Obama and the former "Weathermen"), or whether Obama’s whole political career shows he does not agree with his pastor’s outlandish pronouncements. "If he’s in that church," the authoritarian thinks, "he must agree with everything the pastor preaches. Lord knows I do, in my church."
The ethnocentrism of authoritarian followers also inclines them to reject Obama on racial grounds. Authoritarians rank among the most prejudiced people in society. But they will usually not respond to overtly bigoted appeals, which go against the American way. So they instead look for a justification for voting according to their prejudices, and the guilt-by-association tactic does this well. They readily believe the slur because it lets them do what they want to do anyway.
So the natural question is, what can one do to change this?
Anyone who tells you he has a sure cure for a life-time of ingrained biased thinking habits should be viewed with suspicion. It’s not going to be easy, and it’s undoubtedly smarter to reunite the Democratic party, and appeal to independents and fed-up Republicans, than to try to convert people who have a deep, irrational dislike for you.
But since it’s a long shot to start with, it would be interesting to do some experiments in the upcoming presidential campaign to see what might work with authoritarian followers, rather than simply writing them off. Can a candidate get such people to see him more as a member of their in-group by stressing the similarities in what they believe? Authoritarian followers are usually hungry for confirmation of their beliefs, and Obama would seem to have some advantages over McCain on this score.
Or would appeals to deeply held beliefs, such as "the American way," move some? Example: "See me, not as a black man, but an American. We’re all the same in this country. I’m just an American who wants to change the things that are so wrong now."
A third approach might proceed from the fact that authoritarian followers resonate to strong leaders, and Obama exudes a charismatic strength, vigor and determination in his drive to open up the political structure.
Fourth, authoritarian followers are usually highly fearful. Policies and platforms that will allay their fears, rather than stoke them as the Republicans often do, could work. At the minimum, one could point out such fear-mongering tactics for what they are.
As a fifth approach, one could give the gander his sauce, making valid, fair connections between Senator McCain and unsavory characters whose support he welcomes, and whose programs he endorses, such as the POTUS and the V-POTUS.
What other ideas can Kossacks come up with?
* I am one of these. On March 16, I posted a diary that listed the things that bothered me most about Senators Clinton and Obama. In the weeks since, Obama’s and Clinton’s actions have convinced me that Obama is much to be preferred. (Uh, this does not change the Superdelegate count one bit. And yes, I realize that I am fearlessly aligning myself with the winning team at the end of the game, but I am going to do it anyway.)
Permalink | 27 comments