Psychology Blogs and Politics: Strange Bedfellows?

As a training psychotherapist, one thing I'm particularly interested in is the way people feel about things. So I'm going to ask that oh so clichéd therapist question: how do you feel? How do you feel about our recent election results? Elation? Outrage? Pride? Excitement? Skepticism? Disappointment? Hopefulness? Sick and tired of the whole thing? Perhaps you just feel indifferent. Well, indifference is a feeling, too. Whatever they are, I'm pretty sure you are having some feelings one way or another. Elections generate emotions; and typically strong ones. If not, somebody's not doing their job very well.

Feelings decide elections. This is the argument made by Drew Westen in his book The Political Brain. Westen, a clinical psychologist, has accumulated extensive evidence from history, behavioral psychology experiments, and neurobiology in an effort to understand what makes voters tick. When it comes to politics, we often hope voters will be little information processing machines, taking in all the available data on the issues, weighing the evidence of every side, and computing a well-thought out, rational voting choice. When it comes to actual voting behavior, we tend to be anything but "fair and balanced". As Westen points out, people vote with their guts. Psychology, among other things, explores perception, feeling, and behavior. Politicians who want to stand a chance of getting elected had better be effective at shaping their public perception in order to arouse a positive emotional response in voters, who will be guided by those emotions in the behavior of voting. In plain English, candidates (and/or their political party) better look good in a way that makes you feel good about them so that your vote turns out good for them.

There are tons of different methods that candidates use to be emotionally appealing, and psychologists have studied methods like these for decades. One way is the "we are so much alike!" approach. A basic human motivation is the need to belong (a topic Roy Baumeister has written about extensively). Generally, we tend to feel greater belonging with people we perceive as similar to us in some way. Presidential candidates go out of their way to try and seem like just "one of us folks". We have seen them go bowling, chug beers, or strap on hunting rifles. They have talked about being a hockey mom, understanding Joe Six-Pack, or growing up in a working class family from Scranton. They use phrases like "we are all God's children".  Sometimes our brains notice very subtle similarity signals which we are attracted to, without even consciously thinking about them. In conversations, for instance, two people will often unconsciously match body postures during times of increased understanding or connection. If a campaign team is smart, they will capitalize on these associations. Following a victory speech where President-Elect Obama spoke about ending partisan divisions and looked to earn the support of Sen. McCain's supporters, did you notice the ubiquitous presence of the color red in the Obama family wardrobe? Many people have certainly paid much attention to Mrs. Obama's dress.

Wait a second...throughout campaigns, it seems as if Democrats more often wear blue while Republicans more often wear red.

 

 

Has Barack Obama pulled a Joe Lieberman on us and switched parties??  No.  Still, with as much care as is put into candidate wardrobe decisions, it is hard for me to believe that such a colorful selection was entirely incidental. It's possible it was a subtle effort to seek out Republican voters and implicitly say "we can share your values, too" which seemed to have complemented the speech like an instrumental score contributes to the tone of a film.

Candidates work hard to shape your perception of their opponents.  One of the ways we deal with our motivation to belong is that we strengthen our sense of belonging in a group by asserting how we are dissimilar to (and sometimes how much we don't like) some other group. Behavioral studies illustrate how groups become extremely united when they have a common enemy. Candidates tap into this concept through saying their opponents are "not at all like us!" or "they don't share our values!". Social class is an extremely divisive issue, and attacks on this front were frequent throughout the campaign for this very reason. Sen. McCain was frequently accused of being "out of touch" with the American people. Much was made of his not knowing how many houses he had (seven, for those of you counting at home), as if to accuse him of how little he would care about the plight and values of middle class voters. While Gov. Palin was trying to be a good ole' hockey mom, she was slammed for having on a $150,000 wardrobe. The McCain campaign attempted to label President-elect Obama as a Hollywood celebrity. Of course, having a stadium arena convention speech with a Greek column backdrop and explosive pyrotechnics didn't exactly help to counter that image. Democrats are often branded as "Ivy league liberal elites" even as Republicans come from similar educational and wealthy pedigrees: last I checked, both Kerry and Bush went to Yale. Accusations of President-elect Obama's "otherness" were perhaps particularly disturbing as they seemed tinged with fear-mongering racist overtones. The New Yorker magazine stirred up controversy in publishing a cover attempting to satirize the politics of fear. Other examples include his being called "that one" during one of the debates, insinuations about his middle name (Hussein), and McCain ads stating that "Obama worked with terrorist Bill Ayers" (suggesting not just a relationship with a terrorist, but a statement sufficiently vague enough to imply that they worked together concocting terrible terrorist plots).

In terms of crafting a candidate's perception in the public eye, humor is an extremely powerful weapon. People like funny. Self-deprecating humor is a way of reclaiming ownership of a personal attack launched by someone else. In pathological forms, some individuals end up feeling very badly about themselves because they are so on guard against slights to their self-esteem that they use self-deprecating humor in a fixated, defensive way, attacking themselves on all fronts before someone else gets a chance to. In politics, this form of humor can allow one to take the venom out of their opponent's attacks by turning it on oneself. Sen. McCain, for example, was extremely effective in his use of Saturday Night Live appearances. One major criticism of Sen. McCain's candidacy was his age. In one SNL skit, Sen. McCain addresses the nation to say: "What should we be looking for in our next president?....Someone who is very, very, very old." He later goes on to conclude that "I have the oldness to protect America." Both candidates scored some major likeability points for brief comedy routines at the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner in October. Sen. McCain quipped that "Joe the Plumber" actually moved up in the tax bracket after contracting with a wealthy couple to plumb all seven of their homes. For his part, President-elect Obama poked fun at his Greek column grandiosity, joked that the name Barack is actually Swahili for "that one" and jested that his middle name is actually Steve.

A strong election campaign involves the crafting of an emotionally rich and meaningful narrative (so does psychotherapy, for that matter). To accomplish this, politicians can and probably do learn much from studying psychology. Psychologists also learn much through studying the process of politics. It's true bipartisanship. To the extent that elections involve careful attention to perception, emotions, and behavior, then politics and psychology are intimately intertwined. One might just say that the two often go palling around with each other.

_________________________________ 

On a closing note, welcome to The Shrink Tank blog. Our central focus will be on the practice and science of psychotherapy. We will explore the psychotherapy experience, common treatment issues, research findings, and the culture of working in this field. From time to time, we'll venture out to looking at psychology and psychotherapy concepts as seen outside the consulting room. I hope the journey will be informative, thought-provoking, and fun. Check back often, but for today's session, our time is up.

 Please feel free to comment below, or send email to jareddefifePT@gmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that while this blog includes anecdotes originally based on true events, several changes have been made to protect the identity of those involved.  In addition, in several instances the individuals described are in fact composite characters created from experiences working with numerous patients and colleagues dealing with the same or similar issues. These steps are taken to protect client confidentiality in accordance with both ethical and legal guidelines.

This blog and any questions answered on it or through the email jareddefifept@gmail.com in no way implies or states any professional and/or therapeutic relationship between Dr. Jared DeFife and the readers of the blog. The Shrink Tank blog is not a form of psychotherapy, counseling, or a mental health treatment or therapy of any kind, nor should it be used as a substitute for psychotherapy or other appropriate and necessary mental health treatments and services. This blog will not prevent, cure, or treat any kind of medical, psychiatric, or psychological illness or problem. The Shrink Tank blog is not an emergency or clinical service of any kind. In no event shall Jared DeFife be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages) resulting from the use of this blog, whether based on warranty, contract, tort, or any other legal theory.