’)Writing in The New Republic (I know!), Drew Westen smartly explains why the Democrats – still obsessed with being the smartypants – are losing the Iraq debate. Still. (Westen’s book, The Political Brain, is one of several I’m reading right now. It’s pretty good.)
But even from a strictly political standpoint, the major problem with the strategic thinking that has guided Democrats since the new millennium is that, empirically, it doesn’t work. If the goal, as Rothenberg suggested (and others voiced to the press), was to avoid alienating swing voters, it was a dismal failure. As evidenced by the poll results on Independents immediately after the Iraq War vote in May, Democrats lost the center. And this kind of strategic thinking hasn’t worked since 2002. The only time Democrats have won since then was in 2006, when their candidates began ignoring the advice of party strategists and pollsters who told them to “take Iraq off the table” and instead made it the centerpiece of their campaigns.
If you think in conventional political terms, you can’t understand why a middle-of-the-road stand wouldn’t appeal to the middle of the political road (i.e., the center). But if you start instead by asking a psychological question–what do voters infer about you from your actions, and how are they likely to feel in light of those inferences?–the results have been completely predictable. What’s wrong with the conventional wisdom is that it assumes that people listen to the words of politicians rather than their deeds and demeanor. When, in May, Democrats offered rationalizations about not having the votes to override a veto, “strong words” about reservations about the Iraq appropriations bill with one hand while nevertheless voting for it with the other, comments to the media about not wanting to be accused of failing to support our troops with Memorial Day approaching, and most importantly, when they backed down after they had repeatedly stated their principled opposition to the war, they did nothing but to underscore the message Americans–appropriately–took away from the Iraq war vote in May, and will do again if Democrats continue to back down: that Democrats lack the courage of their convictions. Conventional political calculations leave out the most important messages our leaders send with their communications: meta-messages that convey what they are really doing or feeling.
This is one area where I feel the Clinton and Edwards campaigns are beating the pants off of Obama. If the presidential election was about the smartest guy in the race, President Gore would be handing off to President Kerry. But it isn’t. It’s a parody when Stephen Colbert talks about thinking with your gut, but the fact is most of us do.
This is one area where I feel the Clinton and Edwards campaigns are beating the pants off of Obama.
Example?
Why, because Edwards and Clinton say what they think voters want to hear?
HRC and Edwards are appealing to emotion. Obama is appealing to brains.
Which I think is part of the problem with politics and society in general, even though I understand your point. I’d much rather Americans get back to using their brains instead of their emotions…or, in an ideal situation, using the two in tandem. This isn’t going to happen if nobody has the strength to go against our continuing tendency to respond without thinking to sound-bites or catchphrases.
I understand you have to win, first. But how does one stop the cycle of our dumbed-down discourse if nobody’s willing to make the effort of elevating it?
It’s a common mistake people make to think that middle-of-the-road voters are middle-of-the-road voters because they have policy positions that are in the middle-of-the-road. The truth is that middle-of-the-road voters are middle-of-the-road voters because they don’t follow politics closely enough to have firmly defined policy positions. They just have their gut.
The undecided aren’t undecided because they haven’t found the candidate who pushes their particular issue. They are undecided because they don’t have any particular issue that drives their political activity.
Their not apathetic. They just don’t care enough about politics to have a strong opinion.
What they want is someone who will push them emotionally.
Soooo…HRC and Edwards are lifting plays from the GOP, and you think that’s a good thing?
I saw a report on MSNBC this morning about how Obama skipped the vote denouncing the MoveOn ad, not because he’s lazy or irresponsible as a Senator (as Contessa was implying), but clearly because he thinks it’s silly and a waste of the Senate’s time.
I would much rather prefer a candidate who treats my intelligence with respect and doesn’t talk down to me or appeal to my baser instincts.
The Fear platform is flawed, you’ve said so yourself. Why should I trust HRC or Edwards if they are going to continue to stand on it?
I would much rather prefer a candidate who treats my intelligence with respect and doesn’t talk down to me or appeal to my baser instincts.
Same. But if that candidate does so and loses, then he can’t do me any good, now can he? Political activism is not an exercise in self-expression. It is a means of using and taking power. If it does not accomplish those goals, you’re up the creek, no matter how good it might have made you feel about yourself.
I’d much prefer a candidate who treats my intelligence with respect AND appeals to BOTH my baser instincts AND my highest aspirations.
HRC and Edwards will never do that. But there’s still time for Obama – but it’s running out.
When I said after his keynote speech at the Democratic convention that I’d just seen a future president, it wasn’t my rational brain making that assessment. Problem is I haven’t seen that keynote speaker in a while.
“Soooo…HRC and Edwards are lifting plays from the GOP, and you think that’s a good thing?”
You have to win before you can make a change.
Sad but true.
“President” Kerry had a lower college GPA than President Bush….so your theory about the most intelligent candidate winning is at least half right….