Why the “heart” always wins…
Fascinating excerpts from “Dems, You Gotta Have Heart” by Drew Westen, written almost two years ago (emphasis mine):
*** Excerpts Begin ***
To understand why Democrats have had such a hard time winning the White House, consider two scenes from last week’s CNN/YouTube debate. First, Sen. Chris Dodd offered a highly precise response to a question about energy: “The 50-mile-per-gallon standard is something I’ve advocated by 2017.” Then former senator John Edwards told a moving story about a man who couldn’t speak for 50 years because of a severe cleft palate: “For five decades, James Lowe lived in the richest nation on the planet not able to talk because he couldn’t afford the procedure that would’ve allowed him to talk.”
Which appeal was more compelling? Which one grabbed you in the gut?
For much of the last 40 years, Democrats have ignored their guts and searched for the best facts and figures. But the most compelling fact is that during those 40 years, only one Democrat has been reelected to the presidency. Bill Clinton was also the only Democrat who intuitively understood that the best appeals seize people with something emotionally compelling, lay out the alternatives posed by the candidates and “close the argument” with inspiration or outrage.
…
If the other side is trashing you and you say nothing or back down, you cede to your adversaries the neural networks that constitute public opinion. People vote largely with their passions, and if you jam their emotional radar, you prevent them from making emotionally informed decisions.
…
Data from thousands of voters surveyed since the late 1940s suggest that voters tend to ask four questions (in this order) that determine how they vote:
· How do I feel about the candidates’ parties and their principles?
· How does this candidate make me feel?
· How do I feel about this candidate’s personal characteristics, such as integrity, leadership and empathy?
· How do I feel about this candidate’s stands on issues that matter to me?
Candidates who focus toward the top of this hierarchy and work their way down generally win. They drink from the wellsprings of partisan sentiments, which account for more than 80 percent of votes. They tell emotionally compelling stories about who they are and what they believe in.
*** End of Excerpts ***
Drew Westen is a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” This article was written in July 2007
Please note that all rights (including copyright) rest with the The Washington Post Company.
Also read: Winning Hearts and Minds: Why Rational Appeals Are Irrational If Your Goal is Winning Elections
*** UPDATE ***
I am traveling until the 10th of July with very limited internet access. There will be some delay before I am able to respond to (and moderate) comments.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
***
Pl. note that if you do not enter your email address while leaving a comment, it is very likely to get stuck in the moderation/spam queue.
To avoid this, pl. enter a valid email address OR use this email address instead: satyacomment AT gmail.com
Email addresses are not published on the site.
Based on my observations in real life, this is not surprising at all. Voting based on rational or logical analysis is vastly over-rated and not backed by facts. Most people do vote based on partisanship, and then rationalize their choice to appear as if the decision was made in a logical manner and theirs was the best choice.
Your excellent post has been back-linked in
hinduonline.blogspot.com/
I certainly agree that reason is a slave to passion, but the author’s example is deeply flawed. Where is any merit in a statement like “The 50-mile-per-gallon standard is something I’ve advocated by 2017.†appealing unless accompanied by more arguments?
I don’t really know whether democrats did indeed kept searching for “best facts and figures”. The example she gives disincentivizes my believing that, because she should have fetched more convincing ones if she wanted to put across that claim. Moreover, her bias is so stridently apparent when she unnecessarily adds the “highly” to supplement the “precise” ( the statement is precise indeed, but why would anyone write “highly” )?
And why only Clinton, what about Obama? His speeches are all feel good fluff.
On a side note, how come so many Indians are supporting democrats inspite of the fact that Obama INSULTED INDIA on republic day by greeting us with “US is the best ally India can have” – does that sound like a greeting or a pejorative snub? He sought to interfere on Kashmir before he got elected. When he tried to talk about his experiences with Desis he treated Indians and Pakistanis under the same bracket and took to South Asian type fundaes. What about the statement about taxing companies outsourcing to Bangalore?