The Impact of Emotion on Politics

In “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”, Dr. Drew Westen presents a compelling case that Democrats would be far more effective if they were passionate advocates of progressive principles.  Every Democrat would benefit from reading Weston’s book, because most of them are oblivious to the negative impact their rigid and dispassionate over-reliance on tedious fact-based arguments has on millions of Americans.  Instead of engaging them and inspiring them with passionate advocacy, Democrats bore them and render them vulnerable to the emotion-based rhetoric of Republicans. 

Weston’s appeal for passionate political advocacy should be heeded by the Netroots as well, and by all progressives, because the emotional reactions of Americans to candidates and issues influence them far more than they admit.  Average voters are inclined to react on an emotional level to a political message, and consequently tend to “think” about a candidate or issues in emotional terms, not in terms of their actual position on policies and issues.  Republicans have understood this for years and have ruthlessly exploited it.  Most of their messaging reeks of emotion-based manipulation, and Democrats have not had a clue how to respond effectively.  The Netroots hasn’t been much better.

The consequences have been brutal.

Republican fearmongering empowered Bush to attack and occupy Iraq.  There was no factual justification for invasion, but Bush and his Republican hacks didn’t need any facts.  They understood the power of fear and the thirst of many Americans for vengeance against “the enemy” in the emotional aftermath of 9/11.  As they targeted Iraq, they probably enjoyed watching the futile efforts of progressive bloggers and Democrats as we relied on factual arguments against invading, despite years of political and electoral evidence confirming beyond any doubt that when it comes to politics, millions of Americans don’t give a flying fuck about facts.

They just think they do.

There was no factual justification for invading Iraq and there’s no factual justification for keeping our troops there, yet we’re still getting our asses kicked by Bush and his propaganda peddlers, just like we got our asses kicked in 2002-2003.  Factual arguments didn’t prevent the invasion and factual arguments are not going to bring our troops home.  Anyone who still thinks that factual arguments alone can overcome BushCo’s relentless propaganda and emotional “support the troops” mantra has not been paying attention. 

In order to end this rampage of the war profiteers, by the war profiteers, and for the war profiteers, progressives need to use emotion-based communication to a much greater extent, but in a positive way.  Negative emotion-based politics can and should be countered by positive emotion-based politics.  Average Americans tend to be influenced by emotion-based political discussions much more than they are by discussions infused with tedious recitations of facts.  So we have to start connecting with them on an emotional level, with passionate intensity, with pride in ourselves, and with compelling advocacy about what we stand for as progressives. 

In depth policy analyses are necessary on blogs, but so are passionate essays, frustration-venting rants, and free-wheeling thread arguments about new approaches to Netroots activism.  It can be a struggle to get lurkers and casual readers to become active participants because all too often, they get bored into dazed indifference by the same old disputes about the same old problems.  We need to present information, we need to keep trying to achieve consensus and solidarity, but we also need to inspire lurkers and casual readers into actively joining us in this fight for America’s future.

Be passionate.  Be proud.  Be tough.  Come out swinging in your blog posts.  Light up Docudharma, defy the Kos Kops over at Orange R’ Us and then do it again.  Shake the foundations of the Netroots, generate new ideas, challenge the complacent, confront the Dem establishment apologists, demand effectiveness from ActBlue and PFAW and MoveOn (Hi Armando!).  Write letters-to-the-editor, call in to political talk shows, tell your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers to wake the hell up and join a progressive blog. 

Tell America who we are, what we stand for, and why we’re speaking out.  Do it with confidence in the progressive ideals you believe in, do it with pride in yourselves, do it with passionate intensity, for the sake of our children and in remembrance of what America used to be.  That America is not gone forever, but it will be if we don’t take back our government next year and begin restoring our shattered democracy at every level, from the smallest towns to that Neo-Con Clusterfuck on the Potomac that used to be the capital of the United States of America.

14 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Rusty1776 on September 27, 2007 at 01:34
      Author
    • Armando on September 27, 2007 at 03:02

    But I will have to retort emotionally after the debate.

  1. I agree with what you have said, Rusty. 

    When you think about it, the most effective leaders, such as JFK, Martin Luther King, etc. were, indeed, passionate and emotional ones.  (Of course, so was Hitler!  I just threw that in — but it does demonstate the effectiveness of emotions as a tool in reaching people, whether being used for good or bad!)

    We certainly have enough issues to be emotional about and we should just use those emotions!

    Thanks, Rusty!

Comments have been disabled.