It’s not surprising that America’s politics is partisan.
After all the very essence of a two-party system is a two-sided contest pitting
one group against the other. The evolution of our political parties hasn’t been
constant or rational but it’s unquestionably highly driven by basic human
motivations. We can hardly be shocked that a social enterprise is influenced,
if not dictated by, the factors that control so much of what individuals do.
You may want to believe that our politics and our political parties reflect the
contest between different ideas for how to move society forward and fulfill the
social contract that established our nation. So, does this mean that the public
is inevitably doomed to being divided and opposed to the ‘other’ side? While
that is what appears to be the case today, it isn’t necessary nor is it clearly
true even today.
Now in establishing our nation, it should be noted that
there were not two political parties as we would think of them today but there
were two-perspectives on a variety of issues that fought over the structure,
design and implementation of government. In the end, there were compromises on
how to accommodate and reconcile the different views. This was done however
without any definitive political party-based organizations or allegiances to
ideologies blessed by those non-existent parties.
Regardless the seeds for parties were sown and quickly grew.
This was as much due to how government was structured and required to operate
as it was to basic human-nature. If you consider the idea of having three
separate branches of government than getting anything done is going to
necessitate getting a cohort of individuals to coalesce on agreeing to take an
action. With the requirement to team-up you are going to join with a group that
helps you, that you don’t have fundamental conflicts with, and that gives you a
sense of belonging. Add to this that as a group you have more power and
resources that can enable you to win small and big contests then a ‘party’ is
created. A consequence of Party was the ‘them’ versus ‘us’ phenomenon; nothing
new in human politics but initiating an evolutionary force shaping American
politics.
Along with a ‘them versus us’ narrative were the emotional
levers that politicians and political parties choose to employ. If you’re unfamiliar with the emotional
levers used in politics, I am sure you are aware of them in general.
Politicians play on our emotions constantly, and they have done so from the
beginning. Included in the emotional repertoire that politics will seek to
exploit are: fear, hate, anger, greed, envy, desire, pride, vanity, revenge, popularity/belonging,
sex/gender/appeal, and status/image; just to name a few. These are all basic
human experiences that direct, motivate and guide a huge amount of our
thinking, decisions and actions. It is for that reason that politicians use
them, they work. That is, they work on you; that doesn’t mean that they work
for you and your interests only on your behavior.
You may have learned in school that our Founding Fathers
used some of these in their campaigns for themselves or against their
opponents. You are probably more personally aware of some of these factors
being used during elections that you have witnessed or participated in. You
will surely experience them in upcoming elections. Why? Because the work! They
even work again and again, from one generation to the next. Consider how long
the ‘communism’ threat has been around, played by politicians and dictating the
direction of campaigns, politicians and voters. This is hardly a rare example
of emotional messaging being used to achieve a political advantage. America has
lived through the politics of: communism/democracy, nationalism/globalism,
climate change/not, environment/industry, racism/equality, sexism/equality,
welfare/safety net/personal responsibility, universal healthcare/pay-as-you-go
healthcare, gun-rights/gun-violence/gun-control, tax system:
flat/progressive/corporate/individual/this way/that way, national
security/immigration, trade: domestic/international/global, and …
If these issues, problems or societal questions need to be
answered, and they do; then given that a partisan government and political process
is intimately involved, the politicians must choose how to gain support for
their position(s) and sufficient voters to elect them over their opponents. One
dimension of that choice is how to present the issue to those voters you need
to win over, or more easily to choose to adopt the views your voters will
respond to emotionally and have that determine your positions. And this is where the emotional factors come
it. They are easy to use, and emotions are effective if you can connect them to
the public’s (your voters’) general situation, concerns and local social views.
Conveniently, you can use different emotional levers on separate issues with unique
voter groups.
The ‘emotional’ voter could be considered an unused term for
the ‘one-issue’ voters. By appealing to those aspects of their lives that evoke
an emotional response, the politicians don’t have to do the heavy-lifting of
informing or explaining their policies and positions. If the politician gets a
connecting emotional response they have the voter. So, if I tell you that you’re
being robbed by the ‘government’ to give your hard-earned money to people that
didn’t earn it and that evokes some anger, hate, fear, or other emotion and as
a politician you ‘promise’ to stop it, you have that voter on your side. You
don’t have to prove your claim if the response comes first.
Now every voter isn’t an emotional voter, but you don’t need
every voter to be. You just need enough to tip the scales. Add to this that
some voters are ‘emotional’ regarding their political party itself. They have
always been a member of the “Party”, their father and grandfather were, their brothers
and sisters are, their neighbors and friends are, and they are a ‘loyal’
supporter of the “Party’s” ideological principles. This could as easily be an
emotional determinant as a reasoned determinant. Being a member of the tribe,
the community, the family is important and it may even be necessary to be able
to succeed in the local environment.
So, is it any wonder that our Political Parties spend huge
sums on negative campaign ads? The negative focus is nothing more than using the
emotional dimension of an issue or situation to gain your support, because it’s
easy. It’s certainly easier than providing a sound, reasoned, and fact-based
explanation of what an issue is, what it’s underlying causal factors are, what
your policies for addressing the issue are, and why those are the right
policies and ones that will work. Even stating what you need to do instead of an
emotional ad is more difficult than saying play to their ‘emotions’: fear,
hate, anger, …
This describes the virulent and volatile divide that we see
in our politics; playing to the crowd. Oddly, it doesn’t explain the closeness
of the partisan divide; unless that divide is basically just random, that is
each voter is little more than a chip drawn from a pool which is statistically
50 / 50. There’s a better explanation than that but you’ll have to await the “What
Does the Divisive Polarized Partisan Divide Mean? Perhaps Not What You Think” article
to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment