Political Psychology 101-The Politics of Clarity

In 2003 an excellent article was written called Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. The article was written by several psychologists. They surveyed over 50 years of results of psychological studies to determine what traits political conservatives shared. They found that political conservatives were people who didn't like ambiguity, were tolerant of inequality, wanted cognitive closure, responded to appeals based on threat of loss, and were not open to new experiences. They went on to postulate that political conservatives were receiving psychological benefits from the way they voted. Voting for conservative candidates was not just being done because it was in their own self-interest, it was being done because, for want of a better ten, it "made them feel good about themselves."

If you stop and think for a moment about the above paragraph, it is easy to see why conservatives responded to Bush's 2004 campaign. One thing that Bush isn't is ambiguous. As he once said "I know what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right." Bush also apparently doesn't question his decisions once they are made, and, in fact, there is little evidence that he engages in any intellectual curiosity about the impact of his decisions while he is making them. He gives his supporters both cognitive closure and no ambiguity when he uses phrases like bringing bin Laden back "dead or alive" or telling the insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on."

Contrast his certainty with the ambiguity of a lot of liberals. It sometimes seems that liberals want to talk every problem to death, that they can find a lot of reasons why the other side has good arguments, and they seem to take special pleasure in recognizing the other sides point of view. In short, they don't portray an image of decisiveness, but rather one of indecisiveness.

When John Kerry said in 2004 that he had voted for the Iraqi war budget before he voted against it, the election was lost. In a country that leans more to the right than to the left, such a statement wasn't going to come across as studied and nuanced, it was going to come across as trying to have it both ways. It looked like he didn't have the courage of his convictions.

What we need are for liberal Democrats running for office to do the following:

1. Articulate clearly and unambiguously what they stand for;
2. Be non-apologetic about what they stand for;
3. Be forceful in pushing for the adoption of their positions; and
4. Be unapologetic about pursuing power.

All of this doesn't mean that you have to be rude, or uncivil, or personally disagreeable. It is possible, contrary to what wingnuts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh believe, to disagree with someone without be personally insulting. What it does mean, though, is that you have to know what you believe and unapologetically want to advance your beliefs. It means that you have to be unapologetic about the pursuit of political power.

A political campaign isn't a debate, it isn't a lesson in civics, or a lesson in campaigning. A political campaign is about winning so your side can accomplish certain objectives. Its way past time for liberal Democrats to understand that the only purpose of a political campaign is to get and keep power. If you don't want the power, don't run for the office. If you don't know what you will do with power, don't run for office.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC will be glad to send you this article on request. Please send your email address to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org and put "political article" in the subject line. MCDAC hereby gives permission to use the above without attribution.