The Drama of Political Emotional Responses
You can't have it both ways. Chose reason, or choose the emotional response. Reason demands an intellectual discourse, a synthesis of ideas and facts, a reasonable choice. The emotional response eschews reason, succumbs to the fervour of faith. And wouldn't it seem natural to believe that as reasonably intelligent human beings most people would want to be in possession of political facts before they determine the manner in which they will vote; which candidate they will support?
Evidently not. Well, it must be that great beast, the vast majority of witless, under-educated people entitled to cast their vote, yet unschooled in politics and the manner in which an authentically responsible, integrity-driven and capable candidate can benefit their futures who are incapable of determining the dross from the sterling. Not so, evidently. Even well educated and literate individuals succumb to the allure of emotional messaging, eschewing facts and logic.
A recent publication, titled The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, has attempted to analyse voter behaviour by looking at cognitive psychology and brain research linking the manner in which the brain reacts to political messaging, as it enhances preferential political choices. Neuroimaging using MRIs to analyse brain stimulation in response to consistent and/or contradictory political statements has brought researchers to a greater understanding of what propels voters' decision-making.
People appear, inherently - levels of education and/or social standing and political leanings aside - to respond to a candidate or party skilled in evoking an emotional response. While social scientists may just be coming to this realization, it would appear that politicians themselves are well aware that the evocation of an emotional response is a more reliable method whereby potential voters can be attracted to a candidate, than the proffering of rational arguments.
Obviously, not all political candidates subscribe to the understanding that to engage people you appeal not to their intelligence, but to their emotions, first and foremost. The candidates who see themselves as seriously engaged - truly political in nature, convinced of their capabilities, their experience, their goals - want to place before the electorate facts and figures and reasonable conclusions. Trouble is, although the news media like to demand that political candidates deliver these necessary details, they're bored by hearing them just as the electorate is. Serious doesn't work.
Canadians heard it from the lips of a Conservative contender for prime minister from the knowledgeable lips of a former Canadian first minister, Kim Campbell, when she declared that an election campaign is no place to discuss important issues in great detail. Although that statement provoked a great outcry, she was right. People don't want to hear the nitty-gritty and oh-so-boring details of good governance; they want to be titillated and entertained by elevated and engaging sound bites that make them feel empowered.
Eligible voters, however well intentioned and well educated they may be, tend to develop their own rationalizations for rejecting information they have no intention of signing on to. Resulting in distorted reasoning; resulting in easy adaptability toward accepting high-flown rhetoric which in itself describes nothing concrete, but effectively makes those in hearing distance feel good about themselves and the candidate thus skilled in emoting.
The first goal of any candidate hoping to win a majority of voters' positive responses is to engage them on an emotional, not a practical level. To elevate the discourse in a kind of spiritual May pole of togetherness, dancing toward a promising future, leaving behind all the tired old dogmas and the failures, through a collective resolve to lift society into an inspiring, new direction - another sphere altogether.
From practicality to translucent ephemera; from reality to "vision". Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. Gotcha!
Evidently not. Well, it must be that great beast, the vast majority of witless, under-educated people entitled to cast their vote, yet unschooled in politics and the manner in which an authentically responsible, integrity-driven and capable candidate can benefit their futures who are incapable of determining the dross from the sterling. Not so, evidently. Even well educated and literate individuals succumb to the allure of emotional messaging, eschewing facts and logic.
A recent publication, titled The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, has attempted to analyse voter behaviour by looking at cognitive psychology and brain research linking the manner in which the brain reacts to political messaging, as it enhances preferential political choices. Neuroimaging using MRIs to analyse brain stimulation in response to consistent and/or contradictory political statements has brought researchers to a greater understanding of what propels voters' decision-making.
People appear, inherently - levels of education and/or social standing and political leanings aside - to respond to a candidate or party skilled in evoking an emotional response. While social scientists may just be coming to this realization, it would appear that politicians themselves are well aware that the evocation of an emotional response is a more reliable method whereby potential voters can be attracted to a candidate, than the proffering of rational arguments.
Obviously, not all political candidates subscribe to the understanding that to engage people you appeal not to their intelligence, but to their emotions, first and foremost. The candidates who see themselves as seriously engaged - truly political in nature, convinced of their capabilities, their experience, their goals - want to place before the electorate facts and figures and reasonable conclusions. Trouble is, although the news media like to demand that political candidates deliver these necessary details, they're bored by hearing them just as the electorate is. Serious doesn't work.
Canadians heard it from the lips of a Conservative contender for prime minister from the knowledgeable lips of a former Canadian first minister, Kim Campbell, when she declared that an election campaign is no place to discuss important issues in great detail. Although that statement provoked a great outcry, she was right. People don't want to hear the nitty-gritty and oh-so-boring details of good governance; they want to be titillated and entertained by elevated and engaging sound bites that make them feel empowered.
Eligible voters, however well intentioned and well educated they may be, tend to develop their own rationalizations for rejecting information they have no intention of signing on to. Resulting in distorted reasoning; resulting in easy adaptability toward accepting high-flown rhetoric which in itself describes nothing concrete, but effectively makes those in hearing distance feel good about themselves and the candidate thus skilled in emoting.
The first goal of any candidate hoping to win a majority of voters' positive responses is to engage them on an emotional, not a practical level. To elevate the discourse in a kind of spiritual May pole of togetherness, dancing toward a promising future, leaving behind all the tired old dogmas and the failures, through a collective resolve to lift society into an inspiring, new direction - another sphere altogether.
From practicality to translucent ephemera; from reality to "vision". Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. Gotcha!
Labels: Life's Like That, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home