« "24" – The Bad and the Ugly (and Maybe One Good Thing) | Main | Do something patriotic with your Thursday »

June 20, 2007

Democrats Appeal Too Much to the Intellect

Drew Westen has written a very interesting editorial in which he basically argues that the reason Democrats have not won the White House as often as Republicans over the past 40 years is that they have been appealing to voters minds, rather than to their emotions. That charge would come as a shock to right-wingers who believe absolutely that the opposite is the case. But Weston isn't so much talking about emotion-based versus intellect-based beliefs as he is about how a candidate presents himself (or herself). The winning candidate will be the one who is the most likable. It's actually more of a personality contest than a contest of ability.

Westen is a scientist and is a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University. Interestingly, I recently linked to a report about one of his studies on the psychology of political debate and campaigns. That study showed that partisans make decisions regardless of the facts, without engaging the rational portion of the brain, and that they get a thrill out of ignoring the reasonable arguments of their opponents. Based on his lengthy work demonstrating the disengagement of reason in political debate, Westen has concluded that if you misread the nuances of what people are feeling, "you lose elections."

According to Westen, polls asking voters about their beliefs on the issues won't tell you what you need to know. "[T]he best predictors of voting behavior are voters' feelings toward the parties and their candidates." Westen compares in detail the highly effective, emotive nature of Bill Clinton's advertising to the ineffective nature of John Kerry's advertising (which worked only to reinforce the negative emotions toward his privileged upbringing) and to the emotionally appealing campaigning of the anti-intellectual George W. Bush (whose privileged background was in many ways similar to Kerry's). And the difference is striking.

Westen's theory explains the popularity of Barack Obama, who "feels" good; the struggles of Hillary Clinton, who doesn't; the warm fuzzies for John Edwards; the difficulties of Al Gore, who comes off as stiff and intellectual; the instant success of Fred Thompson, with his red pickup truck and faux cowboy persona; the failure of John McCain, with his increasingly sour face and nervous demeanor; the lukewarm reaction to the multiple straight-laced, uptight, angry white conservatives; and the popularity of Rudy Giuliani, a guy you'd really enjoy partying with.

As I look down the list of candidates through the how-do-they-make-people-feel lens, I'm guessing Obama could beat any other candidate in the general election, but I fear he won't get the opportunity because Bill Clinton, the king of feeling good, is helping his wife re-create herself to win over the hearts of the left in the primary. But Hillary carries too much negative emotional baggage to overcome it in the general election. That's why, unless Westen's advice is heeded, I think the Republican candidate – likely Thompson – will win.

Posted by Becky at June 20, 2007 02:25 PM