He starts off with this:
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.
I found that pretty interesting, especially his premise that Clinton understood and executed a key political strategy when addressing issues with the voters:
1. Seize people with something emotionally compelling. (for example, privatizing social security or universal healthcare)
2. Lay out the alternatives posed by the candidates.
3. "Close the argument" with inspiration or outrage.
That style is so typically Clinton. I think that's why people connected with him.
Westen goes on to argue:
The dispassionate vision has guided much of the strategy that has reliably cost Democrats winnable elections over the past four decades, and it could do so again in 2008. It suggests that the way to convince voters is to offer them the portfolio of issues, policies, facts and figures that most appeals to their self-interest.But this vision flies in the face of everything we know about how the mind and brain actually work. It flies in the face of 40 years of social science research. And it flies in the face of modern American political history.
Then he gives his powerful example of what often has been Democrats' complaint about their Democratic candidates:
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. Consider the case of George W. Bush, whose life story telegraphed everything voters needed to know to make an informed decision about him: He had dodged the Vietnam-era draft while avidly supporting the war; he had drunk his way through much of his adulthood, even while he had young children at home; he had shown extraordinary incompetence in the business world; his campaign had smeared Sen. John McCain with stories about mental instability and an allegedly illegitimate baby to get Bush through the South Carolina primary in 2000; and he had mocked a fellow born-again Christian whom he put to death as governor of Texas. It was quite a story. The problem was that the Democrats wouldn't tell it.
I generally agree with most of Westen's observations and ideas on how Dems might better present themselves. Do you?
But I think the gist of what the author is trying to say is, given that unfortunate reality of emotion over fact, the Democrats need to learn how to couch and express the issues that are important to them (and hopefully to those they are appealing to) in a more emotional style (ref the John Edwards story versus the Chris Dodd story).
I think since we can't change the electorate's mode of evaluating candidates/issues, then the only rational alternative is to adapt to the mode of the listener (the voter).
Yes, with George Bush we've gotten not only bad government but a serious threat to our democracy. So Westen is saying that our candidates need to appeal better to the people they are hoping to represent....thus Hillary's attempt to let the public know more of the personal side of her.
Does that make sense? What do you think?
I find that all sad though. And it does not mean that we will end up with better government. Because Democrats are just as capable of running and electing incompetent or corrupt people as Republicans are. And just because someone evokes an emotional response in you doesn't qualify them for the position they seek. And just because a program is packed in a sleek way like "the Death Tax Repeal" does not make it good policy.
Honestly we could cut out a lot of the nonsense here by dropping the speeches, debates, and TV ads.
Instead put the candidates in a room where they are given a set of essay questions and three hours to work.
When they're finished correct the grammar -- or don't --and send the essays out for public review before folks go into the voting booth.
Don't attach a name or a photo, or any other identifier to the essay. Let people vote blindly on the basis of the person's answers.
Right there you'd have a snap shot into the way that a candidate thinks, which I suspect would give a more accurate view of who the person is. We'd cut out the middle men (and women) and marketing campaigns.
Perhaps we could even have a little multiple choice exam at the outset that would eliminate rankly unqualified candidates.
I realize that voter qualifications along these lines would be illegal; however, for presidential candidates, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. We could test it at the state level first. Those who voters who can't read could use scanners and hear what the answers are.
And no, I don't believe this will ever happen. But it strikes me as an interesting way to limit irrelevant factors.
We might end up with a guy or girl who looks like Quasimodo for a president. But honestly, who care what the president looks like, if he or she actually addresses the meat and potatoes issues that impact voters lives. Right now, the process seems to be inverted -- especially in the TV age.
One thing about this system is that it would force people to think about their votes. If the voters can't reason based on the candidates' answers, then odds are that their votes will be thrown in a completely random wash of votes. The candidate who makes the most sense to the largest number of voters wins.
Goodbye party labels. Goodbye influence peddling.
For better or worse the decision in the voting booth does seem to have greater similarities to a purchase, an emotional decision, than to a deliberative choice. At least as far as elections at the national level are concerned.
In an ideal world resumes would receive greater weight; however, that isn't the current reality that presidential candidates are dealing with. Over the long haul we'll probably need to make some adjustments in the electoral process to raise the bar; also if voters are simply more wise to the ways that candidates and candidacy are sold, they can cut through the b.s. and get to the core of who and what a candidate is about.
As far as not backing down -- I think there is obviously a lot of truth to this. However, candidates also need to know which battles merit a response. The Swiftboat attack went directly to John Kerry's strengths--he shouldn't have let this one slide. He could have used the attack to strengthen his position, and exploit an opening provided by the Bush campaign.
On the other hand, the David Geffen fracas earlier in this primary season between Clinton and Obama struck me as a pretty petty battle. Clintonites seem to think that Clinton got the better of the exchange, Obamaites (of which I would count myself one -- I lean more in his direction) believed otherwise. Most people though didn't care one way or another.
As far as the overall brand is concerned, there is no substitute for good governance. Westen focuses primarily on the campaign side, but after elections there is another component. Part of Bush's problem right now stems from the fact that the people are starting to wise up to the fact that he was not "as advertised". A few of us may have caught onto this sooner than others, but the bottom line is; that as least as far as party interests are concerned, packaging and sleek marketing campaigns can only do so much.
"Good governance" can't come before you are elected and Westen's premise is that Dems need to change their method of talking to voters in order to get elected -- engaging voters' emotional side/response, versus Kerry's "store dummy" image and lack of "fire in the belly" about issues that matter to voters. That's overall what he is saying, I believe. And he's saying that history demonstrates that. I personally agree.
Bush has no problem....he's been elected twice!!! We're the one with the problem!!
And it's not that the minority of us have "caught on", it's the "unwashed" majority that need to be convinced.
Finally, in the real world packaging and sleek marketing is everything and Westen is saying that is what Democrats need to change.
1. Emotional pitches sell individual products. Yes, that's true generally, and something that we need to be aware of in 2008.
2. An emotional pitch loses its power and becomes ineffective if people don't trust the "brand" to begin with. This is the problem that Republicans are having currently. Even if they devise the most ingenious marketing campaign and thoroughly tested emotional appeals in 2008 they still are going to face some substantial hurdles based solely on the Republican brand.
How do we avoid the pitfalls of the second part of this issue?
Given the historic opening that George W. Bush has given the Democratic party, I think this is a question that folks should be considering -- especially activists.
Question #2 is a little bit outside of the scope of Westen's list of recommendations, but this still strikes me as a question worth asking.
How can we encourage more folks jump on the Democratic bandwagon?
Emotional appeals address a tactical question (e.g. how can we sell this candidate in this one election); "branding" deals with the longer term strategic question (e.g. how can we encourage people to vote for a particular brand again, and again).
The issues/values that have elected Democrats in the past are still there, real, and have been for many, many years. They are mostly family values: Social Security to ensure income for the elderly; Medicare to support healthcare for the elderly; the health insurance program for children of the working poor passed yesterday in the House (which Bush threatens to veto); Civil Rights for all Americans; the New Deal that put Americans back to work after the Depression; the Medical and Family Leave Act which protects workers' jobs when a family member becomes ill; and on and on and on.
The Democratic Party history is there and it's indisputable that Democrats are the ones who truly
-- support working class people,
-- have compassion for the poor (which any one of us could become at any time),
-- respect the elderly and want to ensure that they have food, shelter and healthcare (we will all be there someday, if we are lucky),
-- support working people through protective labor laws,
-- support cleaning the environment so that each of our children and loved ones can go through life without an unnecessary threat to our health.
So you ask "How can we encourage more folks jump on the Democratic bandwagon?" Talk specifically and passionately about what the Democratic Party has done for the person you might be trying to convince. Tell them why the programs that we support today are good for them and why the Democratic Party's history supports the way of life we enjoy today. Talk about future Democratic programs that the Democrats want to give the American public such as healthcare for all citizens not just for those who have the money to pay for it (are they any less than we are?).
Then you have the obligation to tell them how Republicans have always have fought against these programs and measures and how they still oppose them to this day, foolishly saying that people have all the resources to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!!! Give them examples of how, in many cases, that isn't necessarily so. But always talk about these things with passion, with feelings, with personal examples (Bill Clinton's Family and Medical Leave Act literally saved my mother and father's future together when they were both very sick at the same time and I had to take care of them and take time off from my job without losing it).
The facts about Democrats are there. Now we need to "get the fire in the belly" way of talking about them. Hey, we do it hear on RK....now we need to get other Democrats, our candidates, and our representatives to speak from the gut/heart.
The tactic will give us the long term solution.
BTW I'm glad you're a Dem!
I live in Spotsylvania County (on I-95 and bedroom community to DC) where not one person running for county office is running as a Democrat! There are lots of so called Independents are running. A full 16,000 people came out to vote for John Kerry and 13,000 for Jim Webb in Spotsylvania County.
Democrats live and vote in this county and others .... and they will come to the voting booths as they have shown .... if you attract them!
Show some backbone.
I think the times are changing in this respect.