In Politics, Aim for the Heart, Not the Head

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It was originally from the Washington Post, but it was posted on a Republican Web site.

http://www.bentongop.org/blog/ranchitod/1439

....

Given the enormous proliferation of policy questions today, surfing the emotional wave nowadays may be even more important than it was in 1935. George E. Marcus, president of the International Society of Political Psychology, said modern research confirms that unless political ads evoke emotional responses, they don’t have much effect. Voters, he explained, need to be emotionally primed in some way before they will pay attention.

The research is of importance to politicians for obvious reasons -- and partly explains the enduring attraction of negative advertising -- but it is also important to voters, because it suggests that the reason candidates seem appealing often has little to do with their ideas. Political campaigns are won and lost at a more emotional and subtle level.

The District’s Democratic mayoral primary, for instance, turned on which candidate seemed freshest and most energetic. By that measure, Fenty, 35, bested a field of same-old, same-old insiders, including his nearest rival, Linda W. Cropp, 58.

But why should that issue have been the one that voters cared about? Why not maturity and experience, in which case Cropp may have looked like the natural winner?

The success of the Fenty campaign, several political psychologists said, was in making energy the central emotive issue in the campaign. Once it was the top item on the agenda, Fenty had to win. (Besides being amid a whirlwind of activity, the candidate made sure he said the words “energy” and “energized” every chance he got. Reporters followed Fenty’s lead, attaching the adjective “energetic” to news reports about his campaign.)

The Fenty machine essentially took advantage of what the Allentown study found: It is comparatively difficult to persuade anyone to change their mind on an issue. What works much better, because it influences people at an emotional and subtle level, is to get people to focus on a different issue -- the one where the candidate is the strongest.

“The agenda-setting effect is what we are talking about,” said Nicholas A. Valentino, a political psychologist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. “The ability of a candidate not to tell people how to feel about an issue, but which issue they should focus on -- that is the struggle of most modern campaign managers.”

“Campaigns have been much more successful at shifting people’s attentions to different issues rather than shifting people’s positions,” he added.

A political scientist who lives in the District, Lee Sigelman, pointed out that as Fenty put the question of energy at the top of the agenda, Cropp tried to strike back with ads painting Fenty as inexperienced.

But it was too late. As many politicians before her have realized, no one notices when the first nimble candidate changes the agenda. It’s always the candidates who come late to the agenda wars who look like they are trying to manipulate voters.

[Peikko 1,575]

So you are arguing that manipulation is ok as long as the intentions are good?

To that I say, hogwash, again.

I honestly believe that allowing this to continue unchallenged and unchecked is scandelous. This is probably one of the biggest threats to the political process and yet, rather than shouting 'foul' you would rather everyone learned the 'tricks of the trade'?

Essentially, it's what I said, the politicians are less and less interested in working to persuade the electorate that they have policies and goals, and how they aim to achieve them, and more on more on the 'feel good factor'. Allowing them to get away with this is to weaken everything that democracy stands for. Shame on them and shame on anyone who thinks this is ok.

We already know that he who has the biggest electoral purse is probably the one who is going to win. Democracy? Bah, humbug!

[Jenn! 918]

I know there are many people who have little interest in politics, and the only things that spark some interest are specific illustrations that cause some emotional reaction. Should these people be less involved in the political process?

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

the public needs to become informed and aware of these tactics so they are not as effective...those that are swayed one way or another for emotional reasons need educate themselves, on both the facts of the issue and what sorts of manipulation politicians will try to use to sway their opinion, so that they are not as easily convinced for superficial reasons

Edited October 11, 2007 by babybluesusie

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you are arguing that manipulation is ok as long as the intentions are good?

To that I say, hogwash, again.

I honestly believe that allowing this to continue unchallenged and unchecked is scandelous. This is probably one of the biggest threats to the political process and yet, rather than shouting 'foul' you would rather everyone learned the 'tricks of the trade'?

Essentially, it's what I said, the politicians are less and less interested in working to persuade the electorate that they have policies and goals, and how they aim to achieve them, and more on more on the 'feel good factor'. Allowing them to get away with this is to weaken everything that democracy stands for. Shame on them and shame on anyone who thinks this is ok.

We already know that he who has the biggest electoral purse is probably the one who is going to win. Democracy? Bah, humbug!

I think it's a matter of understanding human behavior and while I might agree that at some point it could be manipulative, in general it's purpose is to persuade. Most people react negatively when someone tries to manipulate them and the politic strategists are well aware of that. You are perfect example of that.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think there is an acceptable line but it was crossed a long time ago. It's ok for a politician to use illustrations to make a point, but not ok to simply raise an emotional response in order to push through a policy or argument.

I am a strong believer that more people, not less should be involved in the political process, but if it comes down to sheep baaing to a common chorus then there is no political process for them to become involved in. More emphasis must be paid to what politicians are really saying they will do, their aims and policies. Less time needs to be spent on whether they look good in a suit, can trot out a few platitudes and whether their laugh is genuine.

The public should demand a lot from politicians, they are there because they want to be, so it shouldn't be too hard for them to actually present the arguments in a way that people can understand them, rather than simply saying, "well, they don't understand the issues anyway, so let's show them a puppy and tell them how cute it is and that by supporting me, all the cute little puppies will be saved"