(Please welcome in the comments author Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain, and Jim Himes, our Blue America candidate who is running against Chris Shays in CT-04 -- JH)
Two years ago, I was days away from giving a speech at the annual fundraising dinner for the affordable housing foundation that I lead in New York. I had prepared a list of our accomplishments and an explanation of our objectives. Then the story broke of Nixzmary Brown, the seven year old girl who was starved, chained and malnourished in her awful Brooklyn apartment until she was killed by a blow to her head by one of her abusive parents.
I have young children. It was a day or so before I could compose myself enough to reflect on the small ways in which decent affordable housing can help prevent the kind of outrage visited on Nixzmary. I threw away my speech and read the New York Times report of the murder to 400 people. I really didn’t know what else to say. I asked how that could happen, and whether we were doing all we could to prevent it. I don’t think I was conventionally articulate. But I was moved.
You could hear a pin drop. The brief story of Nixzmary’s short life touched (and outraged) nearly every deeply embedded emotion and value we have: fairness, protection of the weak, concern for children, personal responsibility. That evening changed the way people in that room thought about affordable housing, which is usually far less viscerally appealing to donors than hunger, education or healthcare. And visceral is what it is all about, according to Drew Westen’s fascinating new book, The Political Brain.
Westen, who is completely upfront about being a deeply committed Democrat, has written a devastating critique of the Democratic Party, its candidates and their consultants. It is the job of political parties and their candidates to literally and figuratively move voters, and Westen argues that voters are not primarily moved by facts but by appeals to deep seated values and emotions, what Westen calls “activating networks”.
He uses example after example to illustrate the Democratic penchant for being really smart but leaving people absolutely cold. Think Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry: smart as hell and yet they lost. He accuses Democrats of having a “dispassionate vision of the mind”, that is, assuming that people carefully and rationally weigh candidates’ policy proposals to determine which will maximize their individual utility. In fact, he argues, voting decisions are driven by a complicated interaction of values, emotions, images, analogies and oratory, in which logic is only a bit player. Bill Clinton, of course, is the Democratic exception that proves this rule.
Thus, when Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis whether he would favor the death penalty for someone who had raped and murdered his wife, Dukakis thought he was being probed on the merits of the death penalty. In fact, he was being asked a much more profound question: “Are you a man? Do you have a heart?” Dukakis’ answer told millions of Americans that the answer was no.
Westen, a clinical psychologist, is mercifully brief in his tour through the amygdala and brainstem, explaining just enough to satisfy the reader that he knows what he’s talking about when he says that three things determine how people vote. In order of importance, they are: their feelings toward the parties and their principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and their feelings toward particular policy positions. He is clear that Democrats come up woefully short on all but the third.
The Republicans get it intuitively and use emotions and simple narratives to hide the stunning inconsistencies in their stories (government should shrivel and die except when it transfers resources to oil and pharmaceutical companies or makes reproductive choices for women). Still confused about how George Bush became president?
The power of Westen’s analysis is most excitingly clear when he proposes responses that Democratic candidates might have made to their Republican tormentors. He cites a Bush-Gore debate in which Bush challenged Gore’s fundamental credibility. Gore’s response? “Look, Governor Bush, you have attacked my character and credibility and I am not going to respond in kind.”
Westen points out that one southern man had just challenged another southern man’s honor with no response. Game over, at least in the south. The alternative speech that Westen crafts for Gore has Gore calling Bush a drunk, a coward and crooked, in some of the most beautiful oratory I’ve ever seen. He concludes with:
Where I come from, we call someone who does those kinds of things a disgrace to his family, his state and his country. So, Governor, don’t you ever lecture me about character. And don’t you ever talk about me that way again front of my family or my fellow citizens.
I believe that Gore might still be President if he had used such a speech.
As resonant as the message of The Political Brain may be, it is also slightly uncomfortable. The Greeks, writing millennia ago, recognized politicians who “activate networks” and gave us a word for them: demagogues. Which, of course, is precisely Westen’s point; we Democrats may not like the fact that people choose leaders emotionally rather than rationally. Maybe someday we’ll evolve into Vulcans. But until we do, if we want to win, we had better get into the game.
Reading The Political Brain at the start of my campaign for Congress in CT-04 has been eye-opening. As a candidate, I’m thrilled that Dr. Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain and Professor of Psychology at Emory University, is joining us here tonight at the FDL Book Salon. What practical lessons can Blue America candidates learn from Dr. Westen’s research? Please join me in comments to welcome Dr. Westen to Firedoglake and to discuss his important work.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Welcome, Drew. Welcome, Jim. It’s great to have you both here today.
To commenters: please stay on topic for Book Salon. If you want to go OT feel free to do so on the previous thread.
Thanks to Dr. Westen and all of you for joining us today. Since I find myself on the pointy end of the spear these days, I’m here to tell you that we have an awful lot to learn from Dr. Westen’s ideas.
Well shut my mouth!
When I read that, I could smell the cornbread . . .
Welcome, Jim and Drew. Sorry to say I haven’t yet read the book, but I was just given a gift card from a local bookstore and I think I know what I’m going to do with it! I just have to see the rest of that speech.
Jim Himes @ 2
Thanks for being here, Jim. It was great to have you on Blue America last month. At the time you mentioned that you were reading The Political Brain, and it happened to be right when we were looking for someone to host the discussion. Given your practical experience in the matter, I think that worked out rather well.
Drew:
Wonderful book. Lindsay Goodman sent me a copy and I’m really enjoying it.
Welcome, Dr. Westin, and thanks, Jim, for introducing us to this fine work.
Dr. Westen,
Thanks very much for joining. It’s a pleasure to meet you virtually. Speaking as someone who instinctively believes in the power of dispassionate analysis, I learned a lot from your book. I also came across the David Brooks review in the New York Times today. Brooks seems grumpy about the partisanship, but also suggests that people respond, in the long run, to a recognizable description of the world and “policies likely to produce good results.” Any thoughts on his critique?
Jim, what did you find most eye-opening about the book as a candidate? Was there something that you read that made you go “That’s why this appeal is working” or “that’s what’s going wrong when I do X”?
Jim Himes @ 2
Jim, thanks for the kind words on the book, and Jane, thanks for having me.
thanks for coming to the lake gentlemam and welcome - the good doctor has said it perfectly - all brain - no heart at least thats my reading of it
The Republicans have become masters of political psychology..they have identified the buttons to push in our lizard brains and developed the catch phrases to push those buttons. It didn’t start with Lee Atwater but he sure refined the technique. I live in the South and it is very hard to convince people that they are being manipulated and voting against their self interest. “Deer Hunting with Jesus” is a description of what I see every day. How do we change the psychology?
Peterr @ 8
Three things really struck me: 1)the thesis, that you need to get to people through their values and emotions first, 2)the fact that it was a easy and humorous read (About not changing strategy/consultants after successive losses: “If Wittgenstein: The Musical isn’t a blockbuster, perhaps it’s best not to start producing the sequel”, and 3) the specatcular “alternative” responses Dr. Westen suggests to cold-rationalist responses from Democratic candidates.
Jim Himes @ 7
It sounds to me like Mr. Brooks was a bit emotionally over-wrought after reading the book.
I have not read the book, but from the description it sounds like Trial Advocacy 101, appeal to heart and the mind will follow. Most demos have no clue how to do this, with the exception of Edwards who was a trial lawyer. Obama almost gets it but does not follow up his rhetoric with actual substance.
Jim Himes @ 7
I thought Brooks’ review of my book, which was quite a hatchet job, actually nicely illustrated many of the points the book makes. For example, he quotes me as having suggesting that Al Gore should have “interrupted” Bush and “exploded” that Bush was a drunk. One of my main arguments is that conservatives do just this kind of thing to Democrats: they use evocative language that sets off networks in our brains–in this case, turning what was actually a description of the way Gore could have counter-attacked Bush for his critique of Gore’s character into what sounds like the rants of a crazy, “wild-eyed liberal” calling for unbridled emotional appeals. If you hadn’t read the book, you’d think I was suggesting that we all just wildly emote and abandon all knowledge or data. Very similar to the way Bush accused Gore of saying he’d “invented” the Internet, when Gore had actually simply said he’d helped create it through his legislative and other work on technology, which is exactly what he had done.
Welcome to you both; thanks for hosting this conversation, Jane.
I wonder if Democrats also have a higher hill to climb, in that expressing emotion about our issues is often characterized negatively, and sometimes specifically unfairly, by TradMedia. Going to back to Ed Muskie, who defended his wife in falling snow and was called a crier (by VSP David Broder) and coming forward to Howard Dean’s technically re-edited scream — it seems Democrats, when showing emotion, are feminized or crazified. And that doesn’t even touch on the “shrill” pejorative used for many Democratic women politicians.
Have you thoughts, Dr Westen, about how Democrats can talk about our issues emotionally without being cast as emotional basket cases?
Why would NYT have Bobo review the book unless it wanted a hatchet job?
I haven’t read nor heard of this book, but the intro above is prescient and on target. The analysis makes me think of Lakoff.
The democrats need to act like a party with a clearly stated vision and a plan for getting from here to there.
At best they propose bigger thumbs to stick into holes in the dike. It seems as if this website has some better thinking than the belt boys with a D after their name.
Dr. Westen,
How do you respond to Brooks’ statement “it’s not necessary to dumb things down to appeal to emotions”. Is the appeal you talk about really “dumbing things down”?
So when the democrats go around the room giving their reasons for being democrats, everyone cites their family stories–like John Edwards–up from down, unions, real family values and all. It is always inspiring.
The Republicans have been totally effective in erasing all the history (in the public mind) of what the Democratic Party has stood for, at least in the past, and unless one comes from a Democratic family or is very political, the “independent” does not know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. “Which is Bush?,” they ask the voter registrar.
“Give them Issues, we can win if they know where we stand on the issues,” the Activist says.
We have so much to learn.
brooks is thinking of rove’s playbook
Drew Westen @ 15
I agree. He mischaracterized your work and conclusions. As I said, I think he was grumpy about the partisanship. I also don’t think you ever say that substance, facts and policies are unimportant, just that there must be much more . . . .
Very intriguing. As a person who *does* find well thought out responses appealing, I have nevertheless found the utility of appeals straight to the heart, however manipulative I might feel that it is. The Democratic party is the Tin Woodman, in search of a heart. (Does that make the Republicans the Scarecrow?!)
Thing about Gore is I think he’d say that now. He strikes me as someone who’s figured out the different ways to appeal to different groups of people (the loss of a political straightjacket seems to have helped, too).
Anyway, I’m off to investigate your book on amazon…
Hopefully, following the dem victories in 08- the bookstores will be flooded with books on what the fuck’s wrong with the goopers.
As I remember the 2000 campaign- people were actually upset that Gore was bullying poor Clusterfuck. In one debate Gore physically got in the simians face and towered over him as he berated the gov’s positions on one thing or another- and he was breathin fire when he accused him of usin “code words” in describing his choices for the supreme court…
I think the authors of this book saw another campaign than I did.
Dr. Westen: Why do you think the Media dwells on Osama not being black enough?
Democrats have allowed themselves to be morphed into acting like repub light and being seen as repub light.
It’s hard to even understand what they would do to really change things in this country.
I am so tired of politicians who parse words. Will this ever end? We had a nice example yesterday here.
Steve-AR @ 11
I live in the South, too, and what we almost never see from our Democratic politicians here is what we see from Republicans: attempts to draw out the implications of stands that most voters would fine horrifying if they thought about them. Your opponent believs that abortion is murdering babies, no ifs, ands, or buts? Then try saying this to rural Georgian or Virginian males: My opponent believes that if your 16-year-old daughter were raped, her only two choices should be to see the eyes of her rapist in her child every day for the rest of her life, or to give up her–and your–flesh and blood. He calls that morality. If you think that’s moral, God bless you, and vote for him. I think it’s immoral, to force your daughter to have her rapist’s baby while he chuckles in prison, wondering what his son is going to look like. My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, and if that’s his idea of family values, I’d hate to see him when he’s anti-family.
Jim Himes @ 19
As a preacher, much of what’s been said so far resonates strongly with my own craft.
In the Black church, when the preacher starts to get on a roll, members of the congregation will start to join in with words of encouragement, like “Amen!” or “Hallelujah!” and so on.
Those generally come toward the middle or end of the sermon, as the preacher is building to a climax. One of the standard responses at the beginning of a sermon, though, is “Make it plain, preacher!” In other words, “I see where you’re going — now flesh it out, paint it more vividly, lay it all out there so clearly that no one can miss it.”
That’s not dumbing down — that’s being clear, reaching not just the head but the heart as well.
Peterr: Sounds like the House of Commons too.
Imagine if we actually had a Democrat who could tell it like MLK, Jr. We really don’t have great speakers any more.
Thank you Jim and Drew for being here. I do agree that progressives need to do a better job connecting with voters’ emotions; however, we are progressive because we care about policy. The right has pushed the meme that we can’t care connect with people’s hearts. I hope we don’t reinforce that line without aknowledging that much of their success is due to dishonesty and dirty tricks.
Jim, good luck with your race. Chris Shays has gone really nuts and CT needs another Representative like you. I hope everyone goes to the Blue America page and contributes.
we dont have great speakers cuz they only speak in soundbites to be better transmitted to the great unwashed via teevee
Jane’s Assistant @ 31
Thanks! The campaign is going terrifically well. Better, now that I’ve absorbed Dr. Westen’s book. But I do have a real mountain to climb in the next 15 months, and will only win with support from all corners!
I think Keith Olbermann’s occasional “Special Comments” are perhaps a good example of public speaking that brings emotion to the party along with reason.
Here’s a selection from Bobo, for the Times Select impaired:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08.....ref=slogin
Peterr @ 28
I couldn’t agree more. We evolved to integrate reason and emotion, not to sacrifice one for the other. That’s what values are–complex amalgams of feelings and ideas, about what is and should be. Why should I care about poverty? (I’m a tenured professor, which means I’ll never be poor–okay, I won’t be rich, either, but I’m not going to starve.) And if I care, how do I get other people to care? It’s not by telling them that 47 million people don’t have health care. It’s by starting with a couple of examples that make their eyes well up or their heart rate jump with righteous indignation. Then they’ll listen to my argument about why it’s a problem and what we need to do about it. That’s not dumbing down. Emotions aren’t dumb, unless you think natural selection is dumb. They served our ancestors well for millions of years before we had “reason,” and personally, I’d hate to have to make decisions without them.
I’m praying he has a special comment tonight.
As I recall, Bush’s debate strategy in 2000 was “rope-a-dope”—crouch by the ropes and let the opponent beat the crap out of you- goin fer the sympathy vote. He was ANYTHING but aggressive- his articulation of “positions” was content nuetral.. he tried to say nothin at all- but appear affable.
Welcome gentlemen!
Dr. Westen, thanks so much for your work - helping wonks to speak “heart” is doing good work.
In the Pacific Northwest timber wars, “wilderness area with old growth forest” just didn’t do the job.
“Ancient Forests” moved hearts.
bg @ 30
That’s the whole point. I don’t remember his “I Have a Plan Speech.” I do remember “I have a Dream.” And forty years later, I can tell you what his dream was. If people don’t share your dreams, they won’t listen to your plans.
Jane Hamsher @ 35
Bobo Brooks is a jerk. Thank you Jane.
Ick to Shays. I’ll come and work for you… I’m in Westchester.
I’m there.
And of course Olberman has lots of minutes to tell the tale.
I suppose a “preacher” would have a lot of public speaking experience, so that would give an edge. And I know that campaigns do try to “hone” the message, and the candidate gives much the same speech over and over.
Is is possible today to have more variety in the way the message is delivered, more messages? Or is it that the campaign is “dumbed down” by practical/political exigency?
TeddySanFran @ 16
Welcome, Dr. Westen- from a fellow Emory person!
TeddySF asks a good question- but is seems your recommendations refer to engaging peoples emotions rather than reacting emotionally…
is this the case?
I think the only individuals who feel empowered these days are the religious right congregations.
The rest of the people are despondent and hardly see Washington doing anything for them… Voting… look at the choices we are often given.
Things move sooooooooooooooo slowly.
Peterr @ 34
I agree. As I recall, he was the first person on television to really take on the deliberate confusion created by eliding Iraq and Al Qaeda into “the war on terror”–after which Democrats finally followed suit. Before that, and before Ned Lamont showed that he could beat even a Democrat in a primary on an anti-war message, most Democratic candidates in 2006 were still either avoiding the war or taking pro-war positions in late summer 2006.
SanderO @ 42
Please do. As I speak to people in the district, and look at things like Shays’ press conference this week (when he refused to answer a blogger’s question because that blogger was a Democrat), it is clear that he has been in DC way too long. Please go to my web site to sign up to volunteer! We’ll have plenty of opportunities for folks from Westchester to be involved.
Thanks for the support, Sander0!
Drew Westen @ 46
Sadly, most Dem politicians are still reading from this script, even though polls clearly have Americans wanting out of the “war”.
Drew Westen @ 40
LOL, well said. And of course, Brooks’ review wasn’t meant as objective analysis; it’s meant to distort and scare people away from your book, since he perceives it as a threat to the GOP (in the blogosphere, we’re used to such “analyses” of the netroots).
That said, what does your book have to say about merging the rational appeal with an emotional one? How can Democrats broaden the way they communicate with voters without losing their less purely emotion-driven base?
Swopa says August 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm:
“That said, what does your book have to say about merging the rational appeal with an emotional one? How can Democrats broaden the way they communicate with voters without losing their less purely emotion-driven base?”
I am very interested in hearing the answer to that question. After all is said in done, the Democrats real true advantage in the recent Social Security debate is that we said 1 1 = 2 and that was correct. And Bush said 1 1 = 0, or 3, or i, as needed any particular day, along with an emotional appeal that made whatever number he need seem attractive.
Dr. Westen,
One of the key challenges I see on the trail, and which I think has implications for our nation and how deliberately we consider the use of force, is the fact that it is so easy to appeal to people’s fear and insecurity in the national security arena. Real national security, as opposed to the sham the Republicans have been peddling, consists of cooperation with Interpol, reforming our intelligence agencies, securing our ports, and, of course, reflecting our values. But that’s a dispassionate mouthful compared to “Gonna git him, dead or alive!” Calls to war seem to go straight to the reptilian brain and shut down much scope for rational thought.
Steven Rhodes (dusty59) @ 44
That’s right. “Emoting” doesn’t win votes or influence people (although right wing talk radio certainly does a lot of it). But if you think about the lexicon on the left, do you feel anything when you hear terms like “the environment” or “globalization” or even “job creation”? I don’t. And if you don’t feel it, neither will voters. The House Minority Leader here in Georgia (yes, sadly, the minority leader is a Democrat, because Democrats here are in the minority, but they won’t be if they start talking the way he’s starting to talk) recently said something to the effect of “I’m tired of talking about the environment. Let’s talk about the damned fish. I’m tired of not being able to eat the fish my son and I catch in the streams in this state.” That is far more emotionally compellign to rural Georgians–whose waters are being polluted by the Republicans they elect–than talking about “the environment,” which is not only bland but has, to the average Georgia voter, associations to tree-huggers and spotted owls. The failure to talk like this has lost Democrats rural areas all over America. This is exactly how you start telling a new story of what it means to be a Democrat to people who hunt and fish all over the country. It isn’t easy to hunt if the game are all dead. (Mudcat Saunders and Steve Jarding have written a great book about appealing to rural America, called Foxes in the Henhouse.)
Jim, I am signed on. Call me.
Swopa @ 49
I love how he speed reads Damasio and thus feels free to hold forth on neurobiology.
Wanker.
Actually attacking one’s opponent to his/her face usually doesn’t go over well…Reagan’s “Well there you go again” was perfect- jovial- not angry- but demeaning.
Bobo is such an idiot:
Actually, Reagan signed a secret document in November 1981 funding the contras which, when discovered, led to their being defunded by the Boland amendment. Calling them “freedom fighters” never secured contras any funding except secretly, and later illegally. It actually motivated Congress in 1982 to pass the most restrictive action regarding aid since the Vietnam cutoff, affecting all agencies.
It seems to be that republicans lie, or support liars, or cover for them. They need to be called out as what they are and they need to be shamed and humiliated for this type of behavior.
Why isn’t the public more outraged at such lying? Why?
Swopa @ 49
Great question. It means understanding the difference between an emotional appeal and a logical appeal. Bill Clinton was the master of emotional appeals, which have a particular structure or “syntax.” They usually start with something emotionally compelling–a story, a moral question facing the nation, something that makes you want to listen. They follow with a discussion of what the problem is, what the other side is doing or not doing about it, and what you’re going to do. That part can rely heavily on data. Then they “close the deal” with an appeal to emotion that makes you want to walk away doing something about it, and lets you know the candidate really cares about this. Empirically, appeals like those work, and they should work, because they appeal to a brain designed to use reason to figure out the means to ends–ends that are always highly emotion-laden.
Seems to me that the first key to winning the emotional war is to pick issues that people are emotional about…
Clusterfuck wasn’t winning much of the emotional debate until 9/11– then he had a big fear factor to work with..
On the social security issue- he badly lost the fear issue because he picked a threatening position- people wanted the status quo- not a pig in a poke.
Swopa @ 49
Jim said he read the book at the beginning of the campaign, so perhaps it is shaping his public speaking. I missed Jim’s Blue America chat a couple weeks ago (I was moving from CA to MO), but can see how Jim is merging emotion and reason in his answers to some of the questions.
For instance, when Jim was asked “If you are elected, what will you do specifically, to remove torture and disappearing people as the law of the United States,” part of his answer was this: “Like the internment of the Japanese and the insanity of the Red Scare, the use of torture and the blithe setting aside of basic human rights by this administration will forever be a blot on our history.”
The connection of internment with McCarthy with Guantanamo works well both emotionally and intellectually. Whether this came from reading the book or not, I’ll leave to Jim, but it certainly seems to be a good, fast example.
Drew Westen @ 52
Yeah I understand that their book does have some insight into southern rural voters, but there’s a lot of snake oil there too. Telling Democrats to put on NASCAR hats and everything will be okay is really a load of crap, there is a lot of tribal identification stuff going on there that cannot be faked by adopting symbols. But that’s what Mudcat is selling.
Dr. Westen, I haven’t yet read your book, but I am so grateful that you describe the brain structures - the physical basis - for subjective (emotional) assessments.
I’m a shrink, and I spend my free time helping eco-activists and the “anti-globalization” movement.
In LA in the late 90’s, an articulate mom watched her kid disappear in a cloud of spray as he ambled onto his school campus.
She freaked - appropriately - and being photogenic and affluent and having media savvy, the story hit the press. Frightened angry mom told LAUSD to fix it - School Board (in good faith) formed committee, and a pesticide policy came out of it.
Physicians for Social Responibility in LA got asked to play, and I got to join the committee. As the token, MD, my real role was translator.
“Teratogenesis” means “baby with birth defect”.
“Endocrine disruptor” means “your testicles get smaller”
I know I’ve got the emotive tone when the guys unconsciously cross their legs. Guys being slower, this ususally happens well after women have involuntarily placed their hands over thier wombs.
Changing jargon into direct emotive imagery made the subjective decisons for us.
Oh yeah - the committee? It started with Monsanto reps coming - and ended with the nation’s second largest school distict adopting a pest control policy based on the precautionary principle.
Monasanto and their cancer-causing Roundup lost big time.
And we did it by staying out of the weeds of factual minutae, while providing broad popular themes in emotionally powerful phrases.
Duh.
If a bunch of activists (mostly unpaid) can do this over and over at the local level, what’s wrong with the learning curve on the national strategy level?
I’ve scanned medline for “cockatil weenies” and “hippocampal damage” , but nothing comes up. ;)
This speech - The New Vision
The speech I want the Democratic nominee to give
By Theodore C. Sorensen
Accomplished so much of what Democrats should be saying, imo.
Recently a guy tried to mug me, after a fashion, as I walked home in far north Manhattan. He rode up behind me on a bike, and called out “Mister! mister!” When I finally turned around, he barked, “Gimme my five dollars! You took my five dollars!” I was momentarily stunned, not by his aggressive posture (adrenalin was taking care of me by then), but by the utter lack of logic of his statement. I’d never seen him before in my life, and he’d immediately entered into a position relative to me that allowed him to act on his perceived, tho’ completely fabricated, slight. He was high on something, and left me alone after I refused to talk to him.
However, had I entered into any attempt at discourse, I would have been the one at a disadvantage. I recount all this because I think (and pardon me if I’m wrong) that this incident is analogous to the way the Republicans go about debate: the structure of their bloviation is inherently outside logic, and any attempt to address it on its own merits is doomed to failure; only a counterattack in the same vein will have an effect.
I’ve read that a rational response to an irrational situation is itself irrational; ’s’time for the Dems to stop gettin’ mugged and to use ridiculousness to their own ends.
The unspoken appeal for whites of marginal and middle income to vote Republican, is that even if they get screwed, the n****** and brown people get it worse. That is very hard to counter because it is rarely admitted. The pleasure is still evident when welfare is mentioned..just think of the faux outrage of seeing Blacks getting water from a flooded mini-mart or looting a trailer..vs no out-rage at the looting of billions of dollars.
Enjoyed your presentation at Yearlykos and am the person who asked how to talk about Immigration.
The side bar is that I am in Arizona and am not sure if bringing up racism out front would actually work here. There is a lot of overt “hate the brown people” including ballot measures, wingnut radio hosts who advocate shooting them as they cross the border and a radical county sheriff who does racial profiling.
How can we have a discussion about undocumented workers and immigration in this environment?
Hello, Dr. Western. I haven’t read your book yet though it sounds like your presenting a similar message to Being Right is Not Enough Can you give a preview of how your points differ?
Also, can you comment on the different activating energies of fear vs the communal emotions and how that may or may not present a challenge for Democrats?
SanderO @ 57
They’re not outraged because we don’t make them outraged. Consider the usual dispassionate Democratic appeal: “The President should stop asserting executive privilege for Karl Rove or offering to have him testify without an oath or a transcript, because without a transcript, it’s just a he-said/she-said.” That’s all totally true. Now try this: “Mr President, just what is it about ’so help me God’ that you find so offensive.” What does that make you picture? Karl Rove with one hand on the Bible and the other hand up in the air. And what does it make you realize? That the only reason that president doesn’t want that is because he doesn’t want Rove to have to tell the truth. In a country that is 85% religious (and frankly, even for a devout atheist), that’s a far more effective appeal, because it makes your mind go exactly where it ought to go– that this man wants to lie–and it puts it in a values idiom that makes that a real problem.
Jane Hamsher @ 61
It seems the Right can get away with that type of phony identification better than the Left.
Dukakis/Tank, Kerry/shotgun & hunting jacket were lampooned wildly by the Right and MSM, while Bush/flightsuit was really only attacked by lefty bloggers. Oh, and it gave Matthews a bigger boner than Bush had.
Hello Dr, Western and Jim Himes;
I am an affiordable housing advocate who has yet to get to first base.with my goals www.clih.net Recently a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund was suggested to Congress. It would provide capital for qualified projects. Has it got any legs? One huge issue is the under-funding of section 8 housing vouchers. The HUD cuts have been devastating to the poor families of America. Homelessness is now a chronic problem in America. But the even greater problem is that the rental housing stock is rapidly shrinking as small investors flip rentals into ownership. No one is building multi-family housing on a scale that was done in the 50s and 60s. Liability on complexes prevents investment groups that used to form Limited Partnerships to build these units, Low income units have historically gotten a bad name from poor management as well (NIMBYS).
The IRS is not very helpful approving non profit status as well. Any comments?
forgot to thank Dr. Weston for coming here.
I am big on boldy making case, finding way to make it first, not backing down until you have made a real effort to argue what you believe. The DLC and corporate types are still, it seemss to me, worrying about how should we say this or that, trying to be over strategic, and gaming, meta-gaming the voters’ response.
I think that is poison. It comes across as shifty, and unstrustworthy. Who trusts those people anyway? We don’t, independents don’t, busy working people voters’ don’t.
But there is a commonality with you in trying to think through how the message is perceived.
How do you distinguish your appraoch from the DLC type approach? You are both saying we need to ‘prethink’ how people will receive the message?
Dr Westen, what’s your opinion of ridicule? Getting folks to laugh at the stupidity and utter mendacity of the GOP is a potent weapon, I believe. And I think laughter endears the audience to the person who made them laugh — Reagan’s “There you go again” being a great example of belittling a man without denigrating the Presidency.
Would Democrats do well to mock more heartily than we do?
kirk murphy @ 62
Wonderful examples. The problem you describe, though, is at every level in progressive politics. Campaigns will work out all the right positions on “the issues” but not figure out that “habeas corpus” means nothing to the average person. Talk about how your kids coudl disappear next summer when they go to Europe and be whisked away and tortured by any state that wanted to. Why? Becuase that’s the new rule we established. That’s what habeas corpus means–and that’s what the Military Commissions Act passed last year, with the complicity of fearful Democrats (who should have called it No Rights Left Behind) legalized. Similarly, funders who are themselves successful businesspeople will put a fortune into progressive think tanks but virtually nothing into messaging–i.e., how to talk about all the ideas developed in those think tanks. But in their lives as business people, they’d never have a research and development budget of 80 billion dollars and no marketing budget.
Drew Westen @ 52
Thanks Dr.W., I guess that sometimes “bringing it home” could even require a properly executed verbal slap-down…. I’d missed what Porter said, but it sounds great. He could also add many of us are tired of not being able to breath!
It looks interesting here with the Thug party very much in disarray (can’t pass a budget with a Republican House and Governor!)
Why don’t the dems use guys like Al Sharpton to open up on them. He’s not running for anything these days, but he thinks fast on his feet and can tell it like it is.
We need some real fire and brimstone to fire people up. If the dems want to appeal to the “people” then stop catering to Wall Street and listening to Madison Avenue.
Can’t we find some kick ass populists?
Thanks for stopping by, Dr. W; I will be picking up a copy of your book soon. Seeing your proposed responses to Republican taunts makes me want to contribute to YOUR campaign.
Dr Westen
Kerry was so weak in his response to the initial Swiftboating that, in my opinion, he never recovered. It is the conventional wisdom that he did that because his “handlers” felt that was the best strategy. To compound that, his dopey “reporting for duty” act at the convention seemed to me to be the last nail in his coffin. Do you think these political handlers have taken your work to heart?
wesgpc @ 70
You’re asking about the difference between trying to reach someone and trying to manipulate someone.
Trying to reach someone means finding a “partly common language” (to borrow from poet Adrienne Rich) to be able to connect — heart and head — with that other person. “We are in this together” is the message.
Trying to manipulate someone is to treat the other person not as a person, but as a tool, a thing, an object to be used.
Peterr @ 60
Jim, that connection was terrific. It creates an association betweeen two things that may not be associated in people’s minds, which leads people to feel toward one some of what they feel toward the other. It’s the same thing you and every Democrat running against a moderate Republican will need to do in 2008–and what led to a new Senator in Rhode Island in 2006: connect every Republican incumbent with George W. Bush. The reality is that Bush couldn’t have done what he did if the Republican Congress for five years didn’t give him everything he asked for, and if the people of Connecticut allow the GOP to have a majority in the House again–even with a relatively moderate Republican from their state–we will have the same policies. It doesn’t matter if one or two Shays defect on an issue here and there. If your values are fundamentally not Bush’s, you shoudln’t vote for someone who will all people who share Bush’s values to set the agenda, decide who sits on committees, decide which gay-baiting laws get put on the docket, etc.
lf @ 64
Ha! I was in Bridgeport today (in Jim’s district) talking to voters about the upcoming very contested Democratic mayoral primary in that city. (My Left Nutmeg is teaming up with an alternative weekly newspaper here to sponsor our own version of a YouTube “People-Powered Debate” for the primary, so I got into a lot of very interesting conversations with voters on the street that we were filming “man on the street” video questions for the debate.)
One guy said that politics in his city reminds him of a scene in The Princess Bride, when Wesley is trying to rescue Buttercup from the kidnapper, who holds a knife to her throat and protests indignantly, “You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen!”
(Sorry Dr Westen - lopped my question off the comment above).
When it comes to “globalization”, the structure the term describes is “transnational corporations override your nation, your health and your local laws and customs.”
Yep - doens’t flow trippingly from the tongue for me, either.
“anti-globalization” - the current catch all term for preserving local wealth and well-being at the expense of corporate profit - just sucks.
“Hi, do you want to support our anti-blank movement?”
Nope. That subjective part wants to feel gooood - not “anti”.
“pro-local” hasn’t worked - sounds too much like surf wars/turf battles.
anything with “community” fuels endless debate over who and what is the community - all for a really weak concept.
So - after my eight years of fruitless effort - I’d be tickled if you and anyone you know wants to find the visceral affirming empowering symonym for “anti-globalization”.
People are dying for an answer….
to bring this salon to my level of understanding.. i think dems have great instincts but have been afraid to express anything that smacks of compassion cuz they dont want to be labeled as tax n spenders… wanting a nanny state… coddling welfare recipients…weak on defense…just a whole host of charges they get smacked with…
wesgpc @ 71
I think the biggest mistake Democrats in Congress make is to forget that their actions overshadow their words. You can’t hold hearings on Alberto Gonzales and then give him the right to wire-tap you and check your emails. We have no “brand” on the left because people don’t know where we stand on anything. What was our position on guns after Virginia Tech? What’s our position on warrantless eavesdropping,given that we just passed a law allowing it? What’s our position on Iraq, given that we just capitulated to the President and gave him everything we wanted? Half the battle of establishing what it means to be a Democrat is to use emotionally compelling language to describe our values and the “issues” that flow from them. The other half is to demonstrate in action that we mean what we say. Our party has done neither in the last decade.
Peterr says: August 26th, 2007 at 3:09 pm:
I get your point. What is manipulation and what is being honest but saying it “the right way” can be hard to distinguish, though. I doubt ALL sincere consultant types think they are manipulating.
Drew Westen @ 58
That’s very good advice. As a follow-up — and to underscore a point others here seem to be making as well — how much does it hurt Democrats that the GOP can bypass the logic/data part of the appeal and go straight for the gut?
I wrote a post here Thursday about how Republicans have consciously “developed an entire worldview based on undermining the value of ideas and trying to understand policy issues. Instead, a candidate’s “gut feelings” and regular-guyness are seen as the most important qualifications for leadership.” What do you think Democrats can or should do about that?
You should definitely tell the people of Conn that Shays won’t answer questions from Democrats.
yep–The FISA vote says–”I was just bullshitting for many months about the evils of this AG and this practice of tapping without wires- it was just political bullshit- so elect me.
oops - missed your response, Dr. Westen.
Love the analogy between successful marketing and successful messaging.
BTW, functional MRI scans (that don’t require radioactivity) are now used in the marketing/ad industry to test their concepts.
I keep waiting for Soros or some big donor to establish the progressive neuroimaging foundation - find the most successfully emotive way to get our accurate message across.
To play to emotions effectively- the main thing is to know where the emotions lie…thinking that you can make a few speeches and cause the nation to do an emotional 180 is silly.
Welcome Jim and Drew … what a great topic and such good info!
I’ve put in an order for the book - and can’t wait to read it. It seems to me that not only do our candidates blow it by now speaking with heart as well as head, but many of the policy issues we face are only addressed in ways that miss the humane, real people experience involved.
For example, we were discussing the growing push amongst faux liberals for the partition of Iraq last week - and as we talked about what that would really mean (more families displaced, forcing people to move yet again, splitting families who are both Sunni and Shia for example) the horror of the idea became clearer. So much sounds great if we talk only in “heady” ways … listening to the heart as well is so important.
Dr. Westen,
I don’t know if you followed “The West Wing” when it was on, but there was a great episode entitled “Let Bartlet Be Bartlet” that played out this discussion. It keeps coming back to me as the comments come rolling in.
Drew Westen says August 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm:
“I think the biggest mistake Democrats in Congress make is to forget that their actions overshadow their words.”
Thanks. Sorry I didn’t know this book was coming up so haven’t had time to read it. If walk that walk is part of your advice, I am all for it.
Not for faint of heart, though. Truman’s advisors wanted him to be very cautious and careful in 1948, and think very few of the Dem old guard would go against that advice today.
That kind of honesty is also difficult when there are disagreements, which Dems have a lot of, since not so regimented as reactionaries.
Jim - I was born and raised in Bridgeport - and have family in the area. I’ll be recruiting them to support you asap.
kirk murphy @ 81
This one will definitely require some work… The closest I’ve heard to something at the level of a slogan (and although these are useful, my point is not to reduce every complex issue to a slogan) is something like, “I’m for fair trade, not free trade.” The advantage of that is that it activates the value of fairness, and it makes clear that you’re not against moving into the 21st century, you’re against moving all 21st century jobs out of this country and over to another one with 19th century working conditions. That’s not a bad way to describe it in long-hand… The language of corporate responsibility is also not a bad one: That we’ll treat corporations that do well by Americans well.
Siun @ 92
Thanks, Siun. Please ask them to get in contact. We need to build an army!
Dr. Weston, thanks for coming — my copy of your book still on the “Hold” shelf of my local bookstore, so am not up to speed.
Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in cognition in general, and glad to see this topic more widely discussed.
First, I think that Jane is very much on target with respect to the issue of a lot of ‘tribal identity’ going on. That’s one layer of what happens.
However, as someone with a lot of reading research in my background, plus a number of years working with minimally literate American adults (mostly male), I think that there’s an additional layer — involving adult literacy in a very complex world. The unspoken, Dirty Little Secret Never Discussed is that many Americans don’t actually read all that well.
I have not yet found any overlaps in research studies that overlap between reading research and political behavior, but I’d definitely be interested in whether you’ve observed this, or considered it.
From what I’ve observered, it’s those individuals least able to navigate the Information Age who are the most susceptible to the depradations of a Karl Rove style GOP.
My hunch is that as public policy became more and more laden with big, weighty, hard-to-read, unpronounceable words like ‘carbon cycling’ and ‘globalization’, many of these folks just kind of ‘gave up’ on linking political activity to their own well being, and settled back to watch it as a form of ‘entertainment’. However, I’ve never found any studies that focus on this nexis.
As ‘entertainment’, wouldn’t poor readers be EVEN MORE suspectible to needing information in ’story form’?
And if that’s the case, then the Dems seem to be literally ‘leaving behind’ people who are skilled, talented, great people — but simply don’t have strong linguistic skills.
(Background note: I draw some of my assumptions from Gardner’s “Frames of Mind” — and the concept of Multiple Intelligences — because these are not stupid people I’m talking about. I’ve worked with people who have exceptional social abilities, spatial abillities, and other kinds of ‘thinking’. But they really run into barriers when they are asked to read or write. The people that I have in mind don’t do well on linguistic-verbal tasks. Because so much of ‘politics’ is linguistic, they are left out of the policy discussions, policy processes — after all, those ‘laws’ are all LINGUISTIC creations.)
Am I totally out beyond Pluto in my line of thinking….?
Which brings to mind
-what does your research say about dealing with intra-party disagreements? No one pretends to agree here on everything and we are more ideologically than party as a whole, I think… maybe…
Problem is that it is very easy, once you start talking like a Republican, to become as stupid as they are. There is truth to the idea that “the medium is the message.” And the Republican message is derision, belittlement and mockery.
I don’t want a Democrat who acts as stupid as a Republican.
But I do want a tough Democrat who can say “F— you.” (Figuratively-speaking.) That’s why I liked it when Obama referred to criticism of something he said as “ridiculous.”
I don’t think that Dukakis had to belittle or mock Shaw’s question but simply answer it directly and not some implication of the question.
Dr. Westen —
I’m interested to hear more about your thoughts on how Democrats should address the immigration issue.
You mention in your book that Hispanic voters began to move toward the Republicans out of greater appreciation for the military, as they became more prosperous, and out of appreciation for Bush speaking their language…but were then taken aback by the Republican party’s rampant xenophobia in the “debate” about immigration reform (p. 102).
Chris Shays is clearly moving to make immigration his #1 issue next year (to deflect from his untenable positions on the Iraq War). He’s to the right of Bush on this one, favoring full amnesty for all illegal immigrants — allowing them to work and pay taxes — but absolutely barring any path to citizenship, essentially creating a permanent underclass of workers who can never vote. He’s directly appealing to fear in justifying this position — fear that a path to legalization will result in tens of millions more immigrants pouring into our communities and stealing our jobs, etc.
Democrats have a sound reason-based appeal on immigration, but fall short of conservative/anti-immigrant emotion and fear-based appeals. What thoughts do you have on how Democrats can be more effective in talking about immigration using emotional appeals?
Yes!
Bush got a lot of mileage out of his “Ah don’t read no books- ah trusts mah gut an Jesus” line..
wesgpc @ 92
The problem with our politics is that we have too many Democrats who are of faint hearts. The irony is that the data are crystal clear: People prefer candidates with conviction, even if the conviction isn’t always theirs. Democrats repeatedly get themselves into trouble when they vote for bills they don’t believe in, usually hemming and hawing as they do it, which just cues people that they don’t really believe what they’re voting for and makes them look dishonest as well as lacking in courage. If you can’t defend the Constitution in a compelling way, you need to read how Jefferson and others did it to their incredulous countrymen before we had over 200 years of documentation that defending it is a matter of life and death–not to matter liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
dipper @ 86
Or, more pointedly, Shays won’t answer questions from constituents unless they’re Republicans.
Apparently Shays is one of those polarizing partisans that Lieberman has warned us all about.
readeroftealeaves - that’s fascinating … I certainly have not thought of that but I do see so many people just feeling that politics does not impact their lives and literacy sure might be a factor. The reference to Gardner is great - I love his work.
People know intuitively the law of experts “For every expert, there’s an equal and opposite expert”.
Goopers take advantage of this to downplay the significance of technical evidence about nearly anything.
Part of straight-talk is getting rid of namby-pamby terms like “stakeholder.” (That particular term is a way of elevating people who have some remote “interest” in an issue into people who should be “at the table” and brings everyone to the same level. You hear it a lot in local land-use issues. It’s phony.)
Unfortunately a lot of liberal/progressive thinking is built around such soothing language which seeks to obscure real differences. So we are kinda trapped by our own BS.
lf @ 64
I’d recommend Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit for understanding this method of “argument.” While he doesn’t really have any suggestions about how to counter it, he at least helps you recognize it so you don’t waste time trying to respond with rational argument.
rwcole @ 89
rw, it’s not the emotions that do a 180.
the “fact” associated with the emotion is switched 180.
“Happy Meals make me smile”
Dog shit is crap. (revulsion).
McDonald’s Happy Meals are stuffed with toxic crap.
“Happy Meals make me puke”.
rw, the
audiencetargets have their own emotional flavors - “happy” and “disgusted” are already there.“Fear” is already there, too.
Hence the last six years.
The messagers’ art is to link the chosen emotion in the target with the chosen associated “fact”.
Pavlov linked food and bells. (hunger)
The GOP links Democrats with minorities. (goal: fear)
Corporations link “the enviornment” with “job loss” (goal: fear)
The emotions are aleady there - just present the fact you want to link to the hunger when you ring the bell.
Soon, you’ll have ‘em salivating for more.
Jim, I’ve been lurking. Just want to thank you for running! Did you know that Shays not only said “the surge is working”, but he also asserted that many Democrats were unhappy about that. Sheesh.
I hope you’ll ask Congressman Shays how he can claim to be so bi-partisan, yet continually criticize Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority according to Republican talking points…
Anyway, I again thank you.
DMS @ 98
Democrats should watch the reruns over and over of Jim Webb’s response to Bush’s 2007 State of the Union Address. Webb is hardly a leftist, but the force of his response had nothing to do with how left or right he was. It was that he told it like it is, and showed the American people that a Democrat can be a tough sonofabitch. His response also included a great example of wedding reason and emotion, when he told of how when he was in college, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker did. Now it’s 400 times. He didn’t have to say the next sentence: That’s not right. That’s a great use of data in the context of an emotionally compelling argument.
Drew–
Thanks for your book. One of my biggest beefs with Democrats is that we so often make strictly intellectual arguments as if that’s the way people work.
Can’t wait to read your book!
Kirk
Yeah- that’s what I was sayin. You have to KNOW how people are feeling about the issues before you can make use of those emotions politically.
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 96
There mav be some things here that will interest you Promoting Critical Practice in Adult Education: New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 102
Goopers who play up “the surge is working” are taking a dead end position- if things continue to go to hell- as they surely will- they’re screwed.
TrueBlueCT @ 108
Ditto.
TrueBlueCT @ 106
TrueBlueCT,
Great to hear from you. Couldn’t agree more. Shays has a truly bizzare relationship with the concept of partisanship. In his lexicon, timelines are “partisan” and therefore not acceptable. In the same breath, he won’t answer a question from a constituent because that constituent is a Democrat. I’m not the clinical psychologist on this chat, but the phrase “cognitive dissonance” comes to mind.
kirk murphy @ 87
I missed it too, and it is a great comparison.
I see a great deal of concern with appearing manipulative… I think it’s a mis-characterization. Utilizing what is known about how people & groups generally respond to things is not evil per se. The intent matters.
e.g. using what’s known to sell more tobacco products to children is pretty evil- using it to sell cars, while sometimes annoying, is not.
Drew Westen @ 108
Drew–
I call those “testosterone moments”, (gonna get killed by the women here.)
A disappointment I had with Ned Lamont was that he neverhad that one stick-in-your head moment against Lieberman, despite many chances to call him out.
People respect tough. That’s the lesson I’ve drawn from Hackett, Tester, McCaskill, Webb, etc.
Drew Westen @ 94
Drew Westen @ 108
Here’s a post-SOTU post I did on this speech, for folks who want to follow up. Re-reading it now, in light how it track with this discussion, is very interesting.
Barbara Boxer’s many tough Senate floor speeches about the Irak Occupation can just as easily be called estrogen moments, imho. Nancy Pelosi’s calling all the children up to the House rostrum as she took the gavel could be called an estrogen moment.
Symbols matter. Webb was great, but he’s not the only model for our party.
Maybe the key is to always hit back and hit back harder than your opponent.
Of course we liberals do have substantive differences; I hear a lot of people who are unable to hold simultaneously these two ideas in their minds:
• There is a real problem from Radical Islam.
• GW Bush & the Republicans are incompetent to deal with it.
Part of the problem Democrats have is a large part of the base really doesn’t believe the former and thinks any criticism of Islam in any manner is “racist.” (That’s my observation from so many blogs.) So they can’t attack Bush by attacking his competence because so many really believe that Osama bin Ladin et al is a problem of our own American making.
My real gripe against Bush is that he has f—ed up the fight against radical Islam. The very idea of being in Iraq is absurd because it diverts us. But I am afraid that that opinion is not a popular one among my fellow Democrats who really do give off a simpering air. The rap in Bush is that he has failed and has actually endangered the nation. Democrats can’t seem to voice that aggressively because (and I am thinking, as one prominent example of Glenn Greenwald who in many ways I greatly respect) they think that they are being racist to see a problem in Islam.
Thanks, I will watch Webb. I am not familiar with him.
DMS @ 122
Anti-Iraq War Senator who ascribes to Bush’s view of the Vietnam War.
uh, DMS -
“radical Islam” is a phrase which appears to slander a noble faith.
We can speak of the state of Israel’s policies - and those of Hamas - in political terms which do not deride any faith.
Pray join us in doing so.
Maura @ 99
On issues like immigration, you have to pull apart for people–and make them consciously aware of–the multiple influences on their feelings and attitudes. On immigration, for example, I’d always start by defanging the right: begin by stating a truism, that the first and most important job of government is to protect its people, and that starts with securing its borders. Now you have the ears of Independents pricked, who are thinking, “wait, this is a Democrat speaking?” Then you defang a second time: “And if you’re going to come to this country you’re going to learn to speak English…” but you complete it, having now kept the attention of everyone in the center, with a progressive narrative: “…because if you don’t, your kids will never know the American Dream, because you can’t make it in this country if you don’t speak our language.” Now that you’ve established your credibility and starting pulling apart the multiple reasons for people’s harsh feelings on immigration, you can start telling an even more progressive story, by reminding people that if they are feeling hate as they think about immigration, that’s their prejudice, not their values, because we all readily feel hate or contempt toward people who don’t look and sound like us. That’s part of being human. But how would you feel to know that what you’re feeling is what other people felt when your parents, grand-parents, or great-grand-parents came to this country seeking nothing more than what we all want, a better life for ourselves and our children? Would you have wanted people to approach them with the hate to which we’re all so readily prey? That’s just the start, but it’s a way of talking that elicits people’s better angels, which are always their conscious values.
osama bin forgotten was our fair-haired boy - now what exactly set him off….hmmmm?
I have to go, but thanks, Drew Westen and Jim Himes, for coming by today!
It’s called Leadership. The part of our brain that responds to leadership is the part that will respond to a call to jump out of the trenches and charge the enemy. No one will rationally do something that raises the odds of his or her being killed. You do it in response to a call. Leadership makes us want to do things we would not otherwise do.
That’s why it’s so dangerous, and that’s why we put so many safeguards into our system, so that it won’t be abused the way Hitler abused Germany’s system.
The Democrats have been hurting for leaders since LBJ self-destructed. The last inspiring speaker we had was Kennedy. As a politician, nobody stands up to Clinton, but he was not a leader. If he had been he would have gotten more loyalty from the Democratic Congress in 1993, and he would have forced Establishment Washington to come to terms with him rather than ruin him, as they came close to doing.
I hope this isn’t OT, but what bothers me most about Hillary isn’t her war stand, which is pandering, but the apparent lack of that quality, leadership. It’s a rhetorical quality that persuades people to go the ten extra miles.
TrueBlueCT @ 117
No question. People want, more than anything else, two things from their leaders: strength (to protect them and their families) and warmth (to know they’ll care about their welfare). Being able to take a swing at someone in a campaign when it’s well-deserved conveys a message of strength that affects the way voters feel about you on national security even if the swing you took was on some other topic. It’s a “meta-message” about who you are and what you’re made of. Nancy Pelosi did it well in the 2006 election when she stopped talking about the “culture of corruption” (which had no emotional traction” and starting talking about how we had to “drain the swamp.” Now that’s aggressive, and that’s visceral. “Culture of corruption” sounds like the title of an anthropological text on the Bongo-Bongo of subsaharan Africa or something in Morocco.
Teddy and whoEver said
the Estrogen Moment is going to kill me here.
You know what you are saying, and you say it anyway.
I’d rather have an estrogen moment than have to live with….
Oh, nevermind.
gender sterotyping in certain parts of US society, and media-politics in particular, have gone beyond offensive to surreal, infantile and dangerously dysfunctional. Would be a nice to find effective way to change that. Any advice would be appreciated on that.
We can just generically say ‘hormone’ moments?
Drew,
The key to making a good presentation, IMO, is to be interested in what you’re presenting and to let (not force) your words convey why you’re so interested.
Audiences, I’ve found, will tie in very naturally.
DMS @ 119
Very well put. This shouldn’t be so hard. Most groups, be they racial, ethnic or religious have their radical fringe. Unfortunately, the radical fringe gets the ratings, especially when accompanied by full motion graphics and ominous back music. To win, we Democrats need to show that we understand that there is a real threat from radical Islam, that we will seek mainstream Islamic countries as partners in addressing that threat, and that the current administration has made the problem much worse, not better.
KEITH!!!!
wesgpc @ 130
Well, Kirk at 123.
That’s exactly the kind of sucking-up –
“radical Islam” is a phrase which appears to slander a noble faith.”
– on which I call BS. (I am with Hitchens; I tolerate religion but I don’t respect it.)
And to the point, nothing wrong with calling Timothy McVey an example of “Radical Christianity.” (I think he was, wasn’t he? And if not then substitute some other kook.)
Radical is an adjective. It modifies Christianity. It doesn’t mean that all Christians are radical nuts. To call that Jewish guy who bombed the mosque (years ago) an example of “Radical Judaism” doesn’t knock Jews.
What you said is a perfect example of the problem of lack of straight-talk….worrying more about offending than communicating.
Candidate Himes, thanks for your time and for stepping up to bring progressive views to the future ex-Rep Shays’ district, and for bringing us Dr. Westen.
Dr Westen, thanks for your work and your time today.
(ps -
hi fdelves!
…the above linky for Jim’s campaign is hinky….somehow an fdl/wp url was grafted on to the valid linky….
thanks…)
I don’t have a working d*ck moment.
Be very careful what you say here.
Remember, it’s only the fat chicks who say looks don’t matter.
wesgpc @ 131
I wish we had gender neutral language to get at what we mean when we say that what Democrats need to show the American people is that we have “balls.” “Ovaries” doesn’t quite convey the same message, even though some of our politicians on the left who know how to throw a punch the best are women. So whoever comes up with that magic term deserves should get the an award for conveying something our language has trouble evocatively conveying. Interestingly, though, testosterone levels are associated with aggression. But both men and women have testosterone…
I think we’re out of time. But thanks, Jane, for having Jim and me on. And Jim, if you’re still out there, knock ‘em dead!
kirk murphy @ 137
This link to the Himes for Congress site should work, I hope…
Sorry Drew, for the Estogen Coments from our Male friends (term used loosely).
(whispering) Smart guys know that’s a dumb thing to say here.
Thanks, Jane and Drew, for being a part of this. I really enjoyed Drew’s book, and think that those who would participate in the taking back of our country would do well to absorb its lessons. Thanks also to all the participants–let’s get this country back on track!
Sounds like this was a fun book to write!
Damn! Too late to the party.
But thank you both for coming and for your valuable insights.
Good luck in the campaign.
Not sure I get demi’s point, joke…
My point: how to counter media nonsense? That is not a joke what you see being said on TV, re stereotyping of both men and women. I think it has become a dangerous means of political manipulation.
thanks, Dr. Weston.
a real learning experience - thanks to dr westen…and here’s hoping you’re successful jim in taking that conn seat…
Fighting radical Islam requires:
1) Finding and eliminating those who are involved in killing to enforce their political views.
2) Keeping others from joining the radicals through sane policy in the middle east.
Drew Westen @ 140
Thanks, Dr. Westen, for a great conversation!
wesgpc @ 146
Does anyone know what network Keith is on (NBC?)and what time PST?
New thread….
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....t/#respond
FYI, Jane is upstairs
Redshift @ 106
I’ve read the wee tome and that’s kinda what I was trying to get at: Dems need to see the difference between
1)the utter irrationality of bullshit and of self-fabricated situations, which do warrant dismissal, and
2)the kind of not-necessarily-logical-but-still-even-though-emotionally-charged-and-tangential-to-the-argument-at-hand-having-some-bearing-on-the-debate-type comments like the one by Bush that occasioned Gore’s (ill-considered) dismissal and to which Dr. Weston wrote a posssible rebuttal.
As difficult as it may be, seems like the Dems need to stoop to the Republican level on this facet of politics if they’re to have better success. Swallow the pride and start speakin’ the language.
Dr. Westin, here ismy question for you. During the 1990s, I felt the sole person in a position of authority who was making any effort to connect to me was the late, deeply missed, Paul Wellstone. I think Paul was the only national political leader on the left who “got” what you are trying to say and used that to mobilize the public to support what he was trying to accomplish. While he was respected by his colleagues in the Senate from what I can tell, his fellow Democrats seemed to avoid him like the plague outside of the Capitol and tended to denounce his rhetoric even when they agreed with his postitions. What do you think caused this ass backwards behavior and how can we prevent up and coming progressives from suffering the same pattern being undermined if they follow your advice and start speaking from their heart as well as their brain?
Thanks so much for being here today Drew and Jim, we really appreciate your time and thank you for sharing your thoughts. It was a very interesting theoretical/practical tag team.
I’m going to buy your book. I published some work on emotions and rational choice along the same lines in economics about ten years ago — it was new then, somewhat old now, and I didn’t follow it up as the material was tangential to my primary research, and I am getting on in years.
I think your analysis is dead on, and without the neuro-science, it is what I’ve been arguing for ten years if not more. I think the Dems mistakenly bought into the median voter model of winning elections. 50 percent plus 1. So they take public opinion as given, poll it to find out where it is, and try to position themselves to get over that 50 percent threshold. The alternative is to move the median closer to where the bulk of your votes are to begin with.
Salesmanship.
The Republican Party is a business-oriented party, and modern business is 3 parts marketing and one part production. They have the expertise and experience. The Dems really got rolled up on this. Why they didn’t react after the job Atwater did on Dukakis still amazes me. I was on vacation listening to the radio and watching his 20 point lead after the Convention evaporate in two weeks of mid-August. Same thing happened to Gore. I was visiting Italy at the time, and could feel the sap draining from his campaign in mid to late October. As to Kerry, after he got effectively Swift-boated, it was always wishful thinking to believe he might win.
damn, typed too slow
tbsa @ 152
He’s on right now. NBC
DMS, I am unconcerned with offending boors such as Hitchens, and quite unconcerned with offending you - the values you express are beneath my contempt.
Neither Rodger Ailes nor religious bigots provide my phrasing, much less determine my values or behavior.
Those incapable of precise speech are incapable of precise thought, as you so helpfully illustrate.
Catholic Worker would be “radical Catholics” for some. For others, Opus Dei would be “radical Catholics”.
“Radical Islam” provides neither definition nor explanation. As you apparently find even common tolerance to be radical, I rather doubt your definition of “radical” would be sufficiently precise or coherent to merit further inquiry.
After over a decade of my helping EarthFirst! and the non-violent forest defense movement and serving as organizing medic for the ‘99 IMF/WB and DNC protests, your concern trolling
is consistent with the baseline ignorance evinced in your comments.
Now off for the brain bleach.
But DMS, don’t feel too bad - you do get one thing right.
You make a great acolyte for Scotchens.
A blithering image of the man himself.
DMS @ 135
Here’s a headline McNerney et al. ought to check out:
National Guard Troops Cheer Call for Withdrawal From Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....4570.shtml
That’s much better, Kirk at 161.
Phony piety is not believable.
Dr. Westin, I just ordered your book, and as soon as possible, I’ll go back to Amazon and add another review… trying to keep in mind your lessons about blending emotion with reason. ;~)
demi, you missed the point of my point entirely.
i was responding (120) to the falsehood in the statement above mine about a “testosterone moment” (TrueBlueCT in 117)
if you think i am mocking women when i speak about Boxer and Pelosi’s estrogen moments, then you haven’t paid attention to my writing here. i would have thought that was clear from my comment, that Webb is not the only model Democrats have to follow.
sorry if i offended you, but your comments in this thread, which was limited to the book salon, really bothered me.
…and I’ll watch my spelling, too! [Westen]
In my opinion, he’s got a good point about the emotional nature of the brain, but his response neglects the rather complex nature of emotional responses.
The key is not to give in entirely to emotional appeals, but instead to use them in measured, well considered ways. He’s right that we need to hit back emotionally, but we need to avoid exciting too much negative reaction, at the same time.
We have only to look at the way Bush and the Republican have alienated the public and angered them to see the dark side of playing with people’s emotions.
The general thesis is certainly true- almost tautologically so. The example of what Gore should have said is badly flawed. I have no idea how the general thesis is to be applied.
Re: estrogen v testosterone moments…
Hormonal moments still too clinical; gut check is more accurate but brings up other images best left unbidden…
So, how about a “true grit” moment? That really says the same thing, and could be applied to either men or women, and it doesn’t hurt that it evokes the movie… as well as the pioneer spirit of what used to be important about being an American.
Excellent all round. I’m still reading Dr. Westens book. Somewhere in the area of some acurate predictions. It’s a good read.