The Emotional Element
How is it, after all, that the word liberal acquired the negative connotation it has today? The answer is that the Republicans created that negative connotation by repeatedly expressing scorn and derision whenever they used the word to describe their Democratic opponents. They could have called us anything back in the 1980’s, like ‘lollipops’, but the key thing was that they uttered scorn and derision whenever they used the term. They’d show disgust for anyone who would be foolish enough to be such a person.
Whenever politicians express strongly felt emotions, Swing Voters tend to grant them a greater measure of authenticity. After all, why else would these people be so upset? Republican strategists know this better than anyone else. Just wait. During the last few weeks of October, Republican strategists will be sitting on their hands, looking forward eagerly to any excuses the Democrats provide for them to launch a dramatic phony outrage performance that will help them to finally define Barack Obama in a negative light. Remember what happened after the third Kerry-Bush debate four years ago?
The big story Swing Voters saw on TV the next day was that the Cheneys were really angry that Kerry had committed the despicable sin of calling their daughter a lesbian on national TV. What turned this into a home run for the Republicans was Kerry’s unfortunate response; a written statement that sounded a lot like an apology. The overall impression this gave to Swing Voters was that Kerry had apparently done some 'dirty politicking.' Then, after the Cheneys apparently called him on it, he offered [what sounded like] a weak apology and then tried to change the subject. "Let's get back to the issues."
At a time when it was crucial for Kerry to build momentum after a solid debate performance, his advisors ended up losing the post-debate spin. They lost it because they didn’t understand how crucial Kerry’s response would be and they didn’t understand how a candidate absolutely must respond to an Angry Outrage Performance if she wants to win.
Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win the image campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day. John Kerry should have responded emotionally by calling for a televised press conference, and then using the spotlight to ridicule the Cheneys’ transparently phony performance. That is the kind of response the typical Swing Voter would expect to see from a candidate who is absolutely, positively innocent of the charges that were made by his opponent.
In his initial remarks to the press, Kerry should have smiled broadly, shaken his head, and express mild but sincere amusement at the Cheneys’ performance. (Remember Ronald Reagan?) With good-humored stabs of ridicule he should have reviewed the many times that the Cheneys had, themselves, mentioned their daughter’s lesbianism to the public. After dismissing the phony outrage with a smile on his face, Kerry would then have had an opportunity to explain how this incident provides yet another illustration of manipulative strategies that the Republicans employ to win elections. He could have taken the time to explain what the Cheneys were doing and most especially why they were doing it.
You see, Swing Voters need to have someone spell it out to them how the Republicans use phony emotional outbursts to make insinuations that simply are not true. They need to see why the Republicans are a threat to them.
There are other Image Campaign lessons to be learned from the 2004 election. Consider the 'image bytes' that swing voters saw when they watched nightly news reports on the President’s campaign. There was George Bush doing his standup comic routine, making jokes and laughing at Kerry & The Democrats, regaling his adoring fans. This staging was intentional, meant to reinforce particular group images: The Democrats = pathetic vs. The Republicans = good. Note that when the Republicans laugh at the Democrats, they don't do it in a way that simply shows that they have a good sense of humor. They laugh in a way that communicates their contempt for Democrats, in a way that identifies the Democrats as targets worthy of ridicule.
On a subtle but important level, the question that the Republicans ask Swing Voters every election cycle is which group would they rather associate themselves with? (Didn’t McCain say that this year’s election is a contest of personalities?) When Swing Voters realize [on an intuitive level] that they have a choice of group affiliation, certain kinds of visuals begin to have an impact on them. If they hear one group mocking another group, their initial instinct is to not associate themselves with the group they heard ridiculed. Republicans understand this. They are, after all, The Popular Crowd you saw (or were a member of) in high school. In the end, all Republican political campaigns are simply an extension of the in-group/out-group dynamics you witnessed every day in high school.
.
The Fear Factor
In the final weeks of the 2004 campaign, many Democrats complained that the Republicans were using fear tactics to win the election. I thought it was an odd sort of criticism to be voicing, given that political campaigns have always been a contest between competing sets of fears. Even when we are motivated by hope, the key emotion that inspires us to act with a sense of urgency is our fear of losing the thing we are hoping for. Indeed, people are optimally motivated to support a political campaign when they are inspired by fear of a lost opportunity. Fear is the one emotion that is strong enough to motivate people---who have never voted before---to get off their duffs and go out and vote.
If your big thing is GOTV, always keep this in mind.
The ultimate truth of political competition is that Swing Voters always vote for the candidate/party that they fear the least. The problem with fear is not that politicians use it to inspire voters; the problem is that some politicians create fears that are irrational or unjustified or exaggerated. When such fears are used to intentionally mislead citizens into voting against their own best interests, then the use of fear is unethical, if not downright evil. In contrast, if the fear that politicians inspire is legitimate---if their intention is to alert voters to an actually existing danger that they have the power to protect themselves from---then the use of fear is truly virtuous.
What Democrats need to understand clearly is that Swing Voters can be persuaded to fear either party. Right now, thanks to Republican duplicity and the seeming emotional blindness of Democratic politicians, far too many Swing Voters fear The Democrats more than they fear The Republicans. They will come to identify with the Democratic Party if/when they come to realize that it is The Republicans whom they ought to fear, not the Democrats. It is the Republicans who are not like them, who are simply looking for yet another opportunity to play them for fools.
Some Democrats think it is better to emphasize anger rather than fear, but I have to point out that the anger approach can backfire in a big way. We do not want to be characterized as Angry People who are always angry [in a threatening sort of way]. Voters need to see that behind our anger is a real fear for the well-being of the American People and for America’s reputation around the world. We should never hesitate to express our fear of McCain/Palin, but we need to make it clear in our tone that our fear is appropriate and that our anger is controlled & justified.
Think of the many times when Republicans have accused Democrats of 'hating America' or of 'hating George Bush' [and now, of course, it will be 'hating Sarah Palin'). They make this charge to evoke an image of people who are imagined to be inherently angry and who are therefore a threat to 'us normal people.' But now think of how that image would change if---when we are accused of hating---we respond by saying no, it is fear that we feel. It is our best defense.
We want the Swing Voters to see us as people who fear the Republicans, but we also want them to see that we are also brave enough to take on the threat. Like the sergeant said to the private in the foxhole, "Everyone’s afraid, son. But we can’t let that fear stop us. We still have a mission to carry out." Yes, we are afraid of them but we also have the courage to take on that threat. We just know that we must oppose evil when we see it. Verbalize fear. Show courage.
This how political parties are branded. With emotion. It's nice that Democrats can be so objective and fair, but it is not so nice that they continue to lose to cunning politicians who make the Swing Voters afraid to identify with the Good Guys through their manipulations of emotions. The emotion we should want the Swing Voters to feel when they think of Republicans is fear. It is the appropriate emotion for them to feel when they think of the Republican Party.
The battle between the Republicans and Democrats for political power is more than just an intellectual exercise. Right now, I stand to benefit greatly (along with the vast majority of Swing Voters) if Barack Obama is able to achieve all that he seeks as President. I and they also stand to suffer greatly if John McCain and Palin were to win in November. That is why I am calling on my fellow Democrats to fully embrace the use of Fear in this year's campaign. Too much is at stake. We must alert the American people to the great threat that faces them: the emotionally dishonest efforts by McCain and Rove and Palin to destroy the Swing Voters' perceptions of Obama with phony displays of emotion. They need to know they are being manipulated.
They have got to see our fear if we are going to be able to cut through Republican manipulations. I’m not recommending that we engage in cynical manipulation like the Republicans. I’m just saying that we need to fully communicate our fear of the Republicans with some passion, so that the Swing Voters understand that we are not just playing politics. Go ahead; tell the misguided Republicans you know that you are afraid of the Republican’s willingness to distort the truth in order to get elected. Model your fear for them to see. Then let them see your courage and determination. You are serving a worthy cause. You must act to help people who are in need. Our hope is simply too precious to us. If we cannot fear the loss of our hope, then we truly are doomed.
It sometimes seems as though Democrats are inherently reluctant to criticize the Republicans with strong language because that is just the sort of thing that the Mean Cheerleader (Sarah Palin?) always did to the nerdy over-achiever (Barack?) in high school. They know it is wrong to isolate those who are not members of their group. So they naturally feel inspired to model the kind of respect for their opponents that they think everyone is entitled to.
But Democrats really need to start asking themselves if they don't actually have a moral obligation to alert America’s Swing Voters to the great threat they are facing: the willful efforts that the Republicans make to misrepresent the truth about the Democrats. After all, when the Republicans manipulate Swing Voters with expressions of ridicule for imaginary defects, they are acting to deprive the Swing Voters of the better life they would have if the Democrats were in charge of the government.
If we don’t believe that then we should just hand over the government to the Republicans and STHU.
Nontrivial Pursuits
.
Comments are closed on this story.