The Republican Convention and the Politics of Emotion

[DrSmellThis]

Without thinking about who is right or wrong, it was really interesting how the simple ideas

of the Republican Party aroused passion so easily, as compared to the "nuanced multilayeredness" of Democratic

thinking. Many Americans will be rallied by the Republicans' speeches, which appealed to ideas that it is easy to

feel enthusiastic about. It even moved the patriot in me to listen to some of it. Of course, much of it was generic

patriotism, which no party owns. Nonetheless, the Republicans' appeals to patriotism seem more effective

emotionally. Arnold raised and exhibited an almost "-none OD like" level of this. I almost got a DIHL myself. (

Then I got a bit scared of his dictator-like presentation, but maybe he put on too much PI, or snorted some!)



I'd say that the Democrats have their work cut out for them, in terms of emotional appeal. The Republicans

have just flat out done better at this so far, IMHO. To win, Kerry needs to role model the emotions we need and want

to feel; and evoke them powerfully. He needs to be firey and passionate; sharp and clear headed to defeat the

incumbent.

Incumbency always enjoys the benefit of appealing to people's wish to strongly believe we are doing

great, of course. Then there is the fear of the unknown, which Kerry represents more than Bush as an incumbent

(Kerry should note here that there are also a few scary unknowns with Bush). They played that one up too. This is

already quite a bit of inherent emotional power the Republicans have. But there's more to it.

The Democrats are

a relatively complicated party in search of simple ideas and the strong passions that attach to them. If they want

to be successful, they need to meditate continuously until they get the same kind of emotional clarity the

Republicans seem to enjoy. It can't ride squarely on anger against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why? Anger isn't the

emotion of leadership, but is rather the emotion of the oppressed (The "help is on the way" slogan targeted this

issue, but fell short). It's a "beta emotion" if used too much. Conversely, fear is often evoked to great effect by

those in power.

Regarding emotional clarity, I think that the idea of "integrity" is fundamentally important for

Democrats. Integrity, personal and national, is a huge concept that seems to sum up much of what they talk about.

Integrity makes you feel comfortable with who you are, like you are a "good person". People need and yearn to feel

that. But Democrats also need to appeal better to the evocative ideas that already dominate the American emotional

palette; like freedom, democracy, security, reassurance, and hope. For example, they need a compelling idea of

"sustainable prosperity" to compete with "Reaganomics". I think sustainable prosperity results from the efficient

sharing of human and global resources, within communities wherein simple happiness and human potential are fostered.

I personally get lots of warm and fuzzy emotions thinking about that one. Peace is another wonderfully emotive idea.

A just war can only make sense, and be ultimately won, from within a compelling idea of peace.

"Prosperity",

"integrity" and "peace" are elegant political ideas that evoke deep, powerful feelings. Perhaps the Democrats should

consider using them more often. Then again, just because something feels good does not make it so.