Democrats are doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. Instead of listening to loser DC consultants who lack one scintilla of reality, Democrats should check out psychological studies which explain why Bush's strategy has succeeded in painting the Democrats into a corner of spineless amoeba devoid of progressive principles. dopper0189 recently highlighted studies which showed how Bush may be using political psychology to exploit voters' fear of death so that they elect goppies even when voters oppose their policies. These studies also provide a way to counteract Bush's death grip on America in a manner that permits Democrats to expand power in DC while standing on progressive principles. Anyone involved (hello Major Danby) in managing or advising Democratic candidates on policy or strategy issues may gain some great insight from understanding this work because this "game" won't end with Bush. For some of us, these studies validate our positions, but sometimes validation is a nice confidence booster.
1. The problem: Americans vote for goppies even though most Americans favor Democrats on substantive issues.
John B. Judis wrote an interesting article (How Political Psychology Explains Bush's Ghastly Success) about how Bush uses the "death grip" to scare Americans into voting against their own interests to support Bush/GOP. One case illustrates the success of this death grip. Judis compared voters' views by going "door to door in a white, working- class neighborhood of Martinsburg, West Virginia, a small blue-collar town in decline" in June 2004 and 5 months later. In June, voters were "disillusioned" with the Iraq War and "flagging economy," but days before the election most planned to vote for Bush. The voters backed Bush for two reasons: They supported Bush's cultural war (opposition to gay marriage and abortion) and believed Bush was winning the GWOT and making us safe even though the voters disagreed with Bush on the Iraq war, economy, universal health care, and other issues.
Judis was perplexed because a comparison of voters in NY and Martinsburg, West Virginia on gay marriage and terrorism showed an inverse relationship: Voters in NY had more reason to fear terrorism than in Martinsburg and "[i]f gay marriage were legalized, Martinsburg would be unlikely to host massive numbers of same-sex weddings; yet voters I talked to were haunted by the specter of gay marriage."
The conventional pundit theory of voting values rather than interests did not explain this inconsistency because many of Bush's voters elected Clinton in 1992 and 1996. What does explain voter preferences is the political psychology of "terror management theory" developed by Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski.
2. Bush's use of words or subliminal messages about 9/11 and terrorism is sufficient to trigger our universal fear of our own death, which evokes a worldview defense mechanism to cope with such anxieties by favoring conservative views while hardening the partisan divisiveness.
The "terror management theory" essentially provides that "the mere thought of one's mortality can trigger" a worldview defense or "range of emotions--from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores." The worldview defense also includes intolerance, religiosity, law and order preference, patriotism and people's views of "other races, religions and nations." While called a theory, it is supported by over 200 empirical studies by researchers in over 13 countries.
It is important to note that the worldview defense is triggered simply by raising the issue of your own death. There does not have to be any facts that your death is imminent – it is raising some issue of mortality that triggers the anxiety about your own death which then triggers the response of worldview defense. In one study, 22 Tucson municipal court judges were presented with a personality questionnaire. One group of the judges were presented with mortality questions which asked them to describe their emotions about their own death and what will happen when they are physically dead. The judges were then asked to set bail in the "hypothetical case of a prostitute whom the prosecutor claimed was a flight risk. The judges who did the mortality exercises set an average bail of $455. The control group that did not do the exercises set it at an average of $50."
In addition to the benefit of getting voters who oppose his policies to vote for him and GOP, the death grip has the added benefit of dividing rather than uniting our country into a land of more partisan squabbles: "The three even devised an experiment to show that, after doing the mortality exercises, conservatives took a much harsher view of liberals, and vice versa." Such political divisions make it harder for lawmakers to engage in true negotiations or compromises in the best interests of their country. Yet, the Democrats want to "negotiate" with Bush over executive privilege. Right.
Moreover, even subliminal or unconscious cues about one's own death may cause people to adopt the worldview defenses so beneficial to Bush and goppies:
To demonstrate this effect, Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski devised experiments using subliminal cues. They asked subjects to evaluate whether two words on a computer screen were related. One group of subjects had the word "death" flashed subliminally between the two words, while another group had the word "field" flashed. Afterward, neither group said they saw more than two words at a time. But, by using word-fragment completion tests--for instance, is "coff_ _" completed as "coffin" or "coffee"?--the psychologists were able to establish that the group which had "death" flashed before them, but not the control group, was unconsciously thinking about death. The psychologists then asked the groups to evaluate essays critical and supportive of the United States. Those who had "death" flashed before them had a much more negative view of the essay critical of the United States than those who had seen the word "field." They exhibited the same pattern of judgment as those who had done the mortality exercises but, unlike them, did not need an interval before making judgments. The psychologists still lacked a full explanation of how this worked, but they had shown that, in their words, "worldview defense in response to thoughts of death does not require any conscious awareness of such thoughts." Indeed, it worked best when these thoughts were unconscious.
3. Bush's use of the death grip as a political weapon against the Democrats.
In October 2001, the American Psychological Association asked Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski to write a book to explain how their "terror management theory" would apply to the public's reaction to 9/11. Their book, In the Wake of 9/11, "recounted more than a decade of experiments and speculated on how the public's reaction to the attack-- including heightened religiosity, patriotism, and support for both Bush and his evangelical swagger--could be explained as worldview defense."
Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski tested their 9/11 Bush theory by experiments conducted to see if "reminders of September 11 functioned as mortality reminders." The study showed that simply flashing subliminally "911" or "WTC" was a sufficient reminder of 9/11 to awaken unconscious thoughts about death.
No citation is needed to the numerous times Bush has whipped out the words 9/11, terror, terrorists etc. These studies show that the impact from simply using these words is to make people unconsciously think about their own deaths, and that alone may cause many to support Bush/GOP even though those same Americans oppose Bush/GOP policies on issues that may have more impact on their daily lives, such as universal healthcare, global warming, the economy, etc.
Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski did another study to show that after Bush triggered mortality fears by playing the 9/11 card, he then pranced around as the great protector that would help Americans to overcome the fears that Bush created:
They then explored whether Bush's popularity in the years after September 11 stemmed in part from Americans' need for a charismatic figure who could help them overcome these thoughts. Bush's appeal, the psychologists speculated, lay "in his image as a protective shield against death, armed with high-tech weaponry, patriotic rhetoric, and the resolute invocation of doing God's will to rid the world of evil.'"
Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski then tested Bush's appeal directly by providing one group of Rutgers students with mortality exercises while the other group did not have mortality exercises. Then, the students read a favorable essay about Bush which included this paragraph:
Personally I endorse the actions of President Bush and the members of his administration who have taken bold action in Iraq. I appreciate our President's wisdom regarding the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power and his Homeland Security Policy is a source of great comfort to me. ... We need to stand behind our President and not be distracted by citizens who are less than patriotic. Ever since the attack on our country on September 11, 2001, Mr. Bush has been a source of strength and inspiration to us all.
The scary result showed that both liberal and conservative students who did the mortality exercises favored this statement.
Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski conducted another study in September 2004 to determine if mortality exercises could influence their choice of candidate for the upcoming presidential election. The study showed that Bush only needed to play his terror card to win over Sen. Kerry:
The control group that completed a personality survey, but did not do the mortality exercises, predictably favored Kerry by four to one. But the students who did the mortality exercises favored Bush by more than two to one. This strongly suggested that Bush's popularity was sustained by mortality reminders. The psychologists concluded in a paper published after the election that the government terror warnings, the release of Osama bin Laden's video on October 29, and the Bush campaign's reiteration of the terrorist threat (Cheney on election eve: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again") were integral to Bush's victory over Kerry. "From a terror management perspective," they wrote, "the United States' electorate was exposed to a wide-ranging multidimensional mortality salience induction."
In addition to voters favoring our "great protector," the use of 9/11 card or the death grip also "broadened the appeal" of conservative social issues that became the campaign focus for GOP candidates:
In their experiments, Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski make a good case that mortality reminders from September 11 enhanced Bush's popularity through November 2004. But, on the basis of their research, it is possible to draw even broader conclusions about U.S. politics after September 11. Mortality reminders not only enhanced the appeal of Bush's political style but also deepened and broadened the appeal of the conservative social positions that Republicans had been running on.
For instance, because worldview defense increases hostility toward other races, religions, nations, and political systems, it helps explain the rage toward France and Germany that erupted prior to the Iraq war, as well as the recent spike in hostility toward illegal immigrants. Also central to worldview defense is the protection of tradition against social experimentation, of community values against individual prerogatives--as was evident in the Tucson experiment with the judges--and of religious dictates against secular norms. For many conservatives, this means opposition to abortion and gay marriage. This may well explain why family values became more salient in 2004--a year in which voters were supposed to be unusually focused on foreign policy--than it had been from 1992 through 2000. Indeed, from 2001 to 2004, polls show an increase in opposition to abortion and gay marriage, along with a growing religiosity. According to Gallup, the percentage of voters who believed abortion should be "illegal in all circumstances" rose from 17 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2002 and would still be at 19 percent in 2004. Even church attendance by atheists, according to one poll, increased from 3 to 10 percent from August to November 2001.
In the months after September 11, most Americans were caught up in the same reaction to the tragedy--and that included adulation for Bush, even among many Democrats. But over the next few years, faced with two elections, Bush had to maintain his popularity; and he did so by constantly reviving memories of that dark day. As the 2002 election approached, voters turned their attention to the recession, as well as Enron and other scandals--all to the Democrats' favor. At that point, Bush, who had stood aside in the November 2001 gubernatorial elections that Democrats won, sought to base the 2002 election on terrorism. Bush and Karl Rove used the full arsenal of scare tactics to evoke fears of another September 11. The result was that the electorate became sharply polarized between conservatives and liberals and between Republicans and Democrats, while those caught in the middle tended to side with the Republicans--exactly as the psychologists' experiments might have predicted.
4. How Democrats can neutralize GOP candidates who want to continue the Bush fear mongering to win elections.
The mortality exercises show that the death card or 9/11 card has a reduced impact when people are shown that Bush is not "father-protector." When people are shown that Bush is not the great protector, then people think rationally about 9/11 with "thought and skepticism." This means that the 9/11 card is neutered somewhat because the people act more on a rational basis which reduces the influence of unconscious anxieties. As Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski stated: "The best antidote to this problem may be to monitor and take pains to resist any efforts by candidates to capitalize on fear-mongering."
Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski even explain what political issues have acted as an antidote to Bush's 9/11 card: Iraq War, Bush/GOP corruption, and Bush's mismanagement of Katrina:
After the 2004 election, public fears about 9/11 were displaced by the Iraq War, the corruption scandals plaguing Bush and GOP, and Bush's mismanagement of Katrina, which "tarnished his image as a father-protector. Says Solomon, 'Bush became less of a useful object to unload non-conscious anxieties about death.'"
The impact of war, corruption and Katrina on Americans is not just to reintroduce rational thought into the minds of voters, but such issues also tend to reduce public support for conservative social issues:
The reduction of mortality salience is evident not just in growing public dissatisfaction with Bush, but in reduced support for conservative social causes. The average annual percentage of those believing abortion should be illegal dropped from 19 percent in 2004 to 15 percent in 2006, and the percentage believing it should be legal "under any circumstances" rose from 24 to 30 percent. The postSeptember 11 outburst of religiosity also began to abate, particularly among the young. These changes in public sentiment, which reflected the diminished psychological impact of September 11, help explain the Democratic triumph of 2006.
If Democrats want to expand their power in DC in order to undo Bush's messes, one key part of their strategy may be to listen to Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski rather than the loser DC consultants. Knock out Bush's "father-protector" myth by showing how Democrats would provide actual security while Bush has only succeeded in making the US less safe. Turkana wrote an excellent diary on the nonpartisan, comprehensive Terrorism Index report prepared by the Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress. Bush was a loser in nearly every national security policy, including domestic surveillance, Guantánamo Bay prison for "terrorists," energy policies, so-called Middle East peace process, rendition of terrorist suspects, torture and the Iraq War. The truth of this report wipes out the myth that Bush is keeping us safe.
Don't stop with national security. Kossacks have been writing for some time about the many reasons that various Congressional oversight measures were needed to save our Democracy. Even if the DC Democrats don't give a twit about democracy, we know they want to be re-elected. Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski show how the 9/11 card does not just affect the public's perception on which party is better for national security, but also produces favorability for conservative social issues. This is a false favorability in the sense that some people favor the anti-gay marriage platforms as a response to relieve anxiety about death. However, the result is that even though the public agrees with Democrats on most substantive issues, they may vote for GOP candidates who play the conservative cultural card because that card is seen as the measure to reduce anxiety about death raised by the 9/11 card.
One way to tear those cards into pieces is to conduct meaningful oversight on corruption and power abuses by Bush and the GOP, end the Iraq War and provide actual assistance to Katrina victims. This requires effective, nonwhimpy, leadership oversight with subpoenas that have the teeth of inherent contempt. If Democrats need a roadmap, TheAngryRepublican has kindly provided "100 Examples of GOP Corruption, Lies, and Ignorance (Part 1)":
And here are the lies in part 2:
If the Bush cabal and corrupt GOP lawmakers and officials don't comply with subpoenas, then use inherent contempt. If inherent contempt does not work, put impeachment back on the table for Gonzo, Bush and Cheney.
At this point, the feckless Democrats with their whiny excuses for not using constitutional powers to protect our Democracy are at risk of losing their very base. If the Democrats don’t take effective action now, they may find less financial support for their campaigns, less people willing to make the calls or go door-to-door, and less people willing to buy the usual campaign push that voting for Democrats is in their best interest. How can it be, when the Democrats roll over continuously whenever Bush tells them to jump.