Allen West's sadly ironic take on progressivism

Newly minted Teabag Florida Congressman Allen West delivered a well-received harangue this weekend at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which featured more red meat than a slaughterhouse. His oratory contained the usual talking points required for any successful speech to a conservative audience: limited government, American Exceptionalism, and the evils of liberalism. As a bonus, West tossed in a completely ancillary quote from the Book of Isaiah. West’s speech was emblematic of the entire weekend hoedown there in Washington, where conservatives lied to themselves about wanting smaller government and more freedom. And anyone who thinks my cynicism on this front is unwarranted may examine other CPAC moments, such as the enthusiastic reception that Constitution-stepper-onner Dick Cheney received, as well as the hearty approbation heaped upon Ann Coulter when she insisted that more journalists should be in prison. Remember, the majority of self-described conservatives in this country are statists of the military/national security variety, and they don’t give a roaring rip about the Bill of Rights.

West, an African-American, had by far the most ironic remark of the weekend. As speaker number 4,318 to denounce the left at the conference, it wasn’t so much what he said, but the overall context in which his comments occurred:

The liberal progressive agenda offers no viable solutions for our republic…

Liberal progressivism evolved after our Constitution. It has been tried. It has repeatedly failed all over the world. So why would we think it can be successful here in our United States of America.

Here’s a black man, talking to a predominantly white audience, some of which no doubt have some sort of homage-to-the-confederacy bumper sticker on their Ford F-150s, and whose psychological constitution produces a conservative mindset—one that necessarily wishes to keep the status quo in principle, or return the society to an earlier and more idyllic epoch in American history. In either case, the conservatives throughout American history have been content to stand pat on a myriad of issues, while the liberal progressives against whom West is railing have sought to move the country forward politically, socially and economically. This is not to stay that conservatism has no merits, or that liberalism always fosters positive advancements, but for West to say that progressivism has failed “everywhere,” is to ignore that it was the progressives who had to drag his ideological predecessors, kicking and screaming, into ending slavery, desegregating public schools, and passing major pieces of civil rights legislation in the big bad federal government. “Liberal progressivism” has also done much more, such as enfranchising women, overhauling workplace standards for safety and wages, and providing social safety nets that most Americans will benefit from at some point in their lives, but I thought the achievements of progressivism vis-à-vis black rights might be particularly salient to West.

Or perhaps not. If we could send West back in time to a gathering of prominent conservatives in 1960, perhaps he would be glad to lecture that audience on the pernicious liberal progressivism of Martin Luther King Jr. and the burgeoning liberal judicial activism that has been ruling that states may not engage in racial discrimination. Perhaps West would also decry the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as an undue liberal progressive-inspired federal encroachment on states’ rights.

Or maybe we could send West further back in time to a gathering of conservatives in 1860. There he could slam the abolitionists and the liberal progressivism of Frederick Douglass and the threat represented by a candidate for president named Abraham Lincoln, whose sympathies clearly do not lie with the country’s well-established slaveholding gentry. West could cite the Tenth Amendment and the preachments of John Calhoun in justifying state nullification of federal law, despite that annoying little Supremacy Clause in Article VI in the Constitution.

Conservatives are free to cite Lincoln (as West did in his speech) and other patron saints of American politics, but this does not change the fact that many right-wingers—given their mindset that leads them to conservatism—surely would have hated Lincoln, MLK, and others who possessed untried ideas such as emancipation and equal rights for all. Indeed, both men were killed for this reason by people who preferred the status quo. Allen West insists that liberal progressivism has failed everywhere and that’s wrong. In a way, he represents how far we have come as a nation in the realm of race relations. I have no doubt that West has achieved what he has based on his own merits, but for him to assert that the same progressivism that knocked down the unjust racial barriers that stood in the way of him and his forbears, is a detriment and a failure, is sad and absurd.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Will All The Real Fascists Please Stand Up?

The Führer 2.0

The fact that a despicable man like Adolf Hitler was able to brainwash the majority of the German populace into buying his twisted worldview is a fact that still seems unbelievable over 70 years later. An analysis of the unique political and social factors present in Germany at the time is not sufficient to explain how the masses were so vulnerable to Hitler’s advances. For that we must also take psychological factors into account. Research suggests that there is a certain type of character structure, called the authoritarian personality, which makes one particularly prone to being submissive to authority. If it were not for the prevalence of this type of character in Nazi Germany, Hitler may never have assumed power in the first place. This is the same type of personality that we see displayed in many conservatives today. In contemporary American politics, the influence of this personality type wreaks untold havoc, effectively acting as a silent killer of democratic progress.

The authoritarian personality was first studied shortly after WWII in the early 1950’s by psychologists at UC Berkley. These researchers found that the authoritarian personality typically consisted of nine specific character traits: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception (desire for status quo), superstition and stereotypy, power and ‘toughness,’ destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sexuality (sexual repression).” Although the validity of some of these specific traits have been debated over the years (i.e., they have not all been found to correlate highly with each other), it is now well accepted that authoritarians are generally people “who readily submit to the established authorities in society, attack others in their name, and are highly conventional.” The parallel here with extreme right-wingers in this country should be clear enough. An ironic example of authoritarian “conservatives” can be witnessed in the fans of Glenn Beck (i.e., the Obama is Hitler crowd); these folks represent a perfect example of potential Nazis in training. If cultural and political forces were tweaked in the right way, these are the characters that would jump at the opportunity to be cogs in the machine of any fascist dictator.

Many liberals assume that a lack of intelligence is primarily to blame for the conservative or authoritarian proneness to self-imposed slavery. The question is: what specific aspect of intelligence do they lack? Because there are many different facets of intelligence, there are no doubt plenty of half-retarded conservatives that can nonetheless display any amount of competency within various areas of expertise. Where conservatives do show evidence of mild to severe mental retardation, however, is in their lack of critical thinking skills and inability to tolerate ambiguity (i.e., creative problem solving). In other words, they tend to think in absolutistic, black and white terms. This closed-minded way of approaching the world makes the authoritarian character prone to things like excessive religiosity and/or patriotism. The common denominator for these conservatives is the excessive drive to submit to a grand authority figure. Questions of morals, for example, are either perceived to be absolutely dictated by the laws of men or by an almighty god; in either case, there is always an ultimate authority figure that dictates right from wrong. It is this lack of tolerance for ambiguity and the concomitant lack of self agency that makes many a conservative comparable to a childish thumb-sucker in constant need of a father figure to control their every whim. This, my friends, is real stupidity. And this is conservatism in the good old US of A.

It seems to me that the authoritarian’s inability to tolerate ambiguity (anti-intraception) is the most damaging character trait of all. This marked discomfort with uncertainty is what drives conservatives to cowardly strive for maintaining the status-quo, which to them is comfortable because it seems objective and real. Holding onto the status-quo negates the “need to seek subjective thought or imaginative resolution to problems. The solution is thought to be written somewhere in the policies and rules of the organization; if not the authoritarian can turn to a higher authority such as a superstition or myth. If the solution is not written, it is the job of the authority to decide, not the submissive.” It is this masochistic submission of will prompted by the fear of uncertainty that spawns virtually all of the other traits of the poisonous authoritarian/conservative personality.

The conservative mind’s special proneness to fearing uncertainty is also supported by an abundance of evidence suggesting that conservative ideologies serve to allay fears of death. By submitting their will to authorities, these characters can effectively bypass the experience of being alone in an uncertain and dangerous world. In effect, the drive toward conservatism can be boiled down to representing a defense against these basic existential fears. Of course, these are fears that every one of us grapples with just by virtue of being a fragile human being destined to be devoured by meal worms. Conservatives, however, represent the extreme end of this fear spectrum; they are the most fearful and cowardly among us. A horrendous example of a state ruled by such fear was witnessed in Nazi Germany. If it were not for those of us on the opposite end of the fear spectrum (e.g., progressives) to buffer the power of these cowardly conservative souls, we would all surely be fucked.

Franklin Deleano Roosevelt once said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” In a sense, this is certainly a wise and true statement, for it is fear that spawns most of the evil perpetrated by our species. But fear itself only wreaks havoc when it is manifested by the human animal, so perhaps progressives should embrace and accept a healthy fear of those authoritarians among us who unknowingly have too much of it. Maybe we should start to get more paranoid à la Glenn Beck and find some charismatic personalities to go around ranting on popular news shows about the scourge of conservatism that is attempting to ruin our fine country. Only instead of pretending to be an academic by writing on a chalkboard and drawing insanely illogical conclusions in order to spread fear, the progressive paranoid could be a real academic that rants about the actual evidence which suggests that conservatives truly are the cancer eating away at our society.

So go out there and be afraid. Be very afraid. (Beck starts 1:00 in.)



Note

In this essay I have taken liberties with the use of generalization. Not all “conservatives” can be said to have authoritarian personalities. In fact, what I would consider real conservatives (e.g., Ron Paul) can often display the polar opposite traits of the authoritarian. The ones I am referring to are mostly those on the more extreme end of the social conservative spectrum (e.g., people who habitually watch Fox News, religious fundamentalists, George W Bush fetishists, etc). Furthermore, the fact that those with authoritarian personalities happen to exist primarily within the conservative and Republican camps in this country is not to say that these types always fall to the “right” of the political spectrum. Historically, authoritarian types have just as easily been swayed by Stalin’s brand of communism, for example. So yes, super “lefty” communists with authoritarian personalities can also be authority-humping assclowns. Again, it is the unique combination of contemporary social and political forces in this country that make these types gravitate towards the Grand Old Party.

~Wolf

Subliminal Messages In Political Campaigns (The Political Brain Part 2)

The art of persuasion ain't always this pretty.

Evidence clearly supports that subliminal messages can affect our feelings and behaviors despite the popular belief that such a thing is little more than hocus-pocus. Neuroscience research, for example, shows that images presented subliminally (i.e., so quickly that the person cannot report seeing it) can lead to activation of the emotional processing center of the brain, known as the amygdala. This suggests that we have “an emotion system that is constantly processing emotionally relevant information faster than we can consciously register it” (Westen, 58). Consequently, subliminal messages can serve as vehicles from which information can be transmitted to our unconscious mind, which can then influence our behavior. Most of us have come to expect, for example, that this type of manipulation is often used in product advertisements. However, if political campaigns blatantly made use of subliminal messaging that would certainly raise some serious ethical concerns. Unfortunately, ethics and politics do not often go hand and hand.

The boldest example of the apparently intentional use of subliminal messaging in a political campaign was witnessed in an ad run in 2000 by the Republican National Committee to elect George W. Bush. “The ad was ostensibly about Al Gore’s prescription drug plan for seniors, but toward the end of the ad, whose theme was ‘The Gore prescription plan: Bureaucrats decide,’ the word RATS appeared in large, bold letters for a fraction of a second while the narrator uttered the phrase, “Bureaucrats decide” (58). In response to the charge of intentional subliminal messaging, the Bush campaign chalked the message up to a possible error in ad production; they further downplayed the charges by essentially stating that such subliminal appeals do not work. Psychologists Drew Westen and Joel Weinberger (2007) were skeptical of this claim and thus decided to investigate whether or not the subliminally displayed RATS could affect perceptions of an anonymous candidate in research subjects. They found that subjects who received the RATS prime before viewing a photo of an anonymous candidate had significantly more negative perceptions (ratings) of the candidate than those who did not receive the prime. In light of this evidence, it is certainly hard to believe that the creators of this campaign ad were naïve to the subliminal message's power to manipulate the unconscious minds of voters.

The aforementioned example clearly exemplifies the use of a highly unethical political marketing strategy. Most appeals to subliminal messaging used in political campaigns, however, are not nearly as blatant as this. The subtle art of persuasion does indeed wear many hats. Generally, effective campaign ads involve communicating explicit (conscious) messages in addition to implicit (unconscious) ones. One of the best examples of the use of both types of communication was displayed in the infamous Willie Horton ad from the 1988 presidential race, which was “run by a political action committee with close ties to then-Vice President George H Bush” (Westen, 63). The ad subsequently made headlines because of the racist undertones that oozed throughout it. Check it out:


As Westen (65) points out, this ad conveyed both an explicit and implicit message; the explicit message that “Dukakis is soft on crime” and the implicit message that “Dukakis lets scary black men endanger your safety.” Conservatives would surely argue that Westen’s claim that the ad conveys implicit racism is a bunch of bologna, and they would likely further point out that such charges are endemic to the pussyfooting philosophies espoused by “bleeding-heart liberals.” Once again, however, conservatives would be wrong. Research shows that even the subliminal presentation of black faces to whites activates the amygdala, and that implicit racial appeals are more effective than explicit ones because they don’t raise people’s conscious attitude towards racism (65). That’s the funny thing about implicit racism: it’s not fully conscious. This is how, for example, a white Rush Limbaugh fan that sort of gets along with the inoffensive Negro at work can allow himself to feel justified in taking offense to the very concept of implicit racism; again, he is not consciously identified with being a racist!

The Willie Horton ad clearly demonstrates a powerful example of how white people in particular can easily be influenced by implicit racism, especially when they are made to be frightened of dangerous, mean-looking, Negro rapists. The fairly obvious racial undertones in this ad make it clear why it was not officially endorsed by Bush's campaign team. The official Bush ad aired the following day:



The symbolism and implicit fear induced in this ad was executed perfectly, playing beautifully to the emotional center of the viewer’s brain. It also appears that the timing of this ad was strategically planned; airing only one day after the Horton ad had sparked massive media attention, which included testimonies from some of Horton's victims. Again, the carefully orchestrated implicit messages that were laid out in the “Horton” and “Revolving Door” ads are what made them so effective. A similar ad campaign designed to deliver only the explicit message that Dukakis was soft on crime would not have been nearly as effective. Indeed, survey data showed that “anxiety about a possible Dukakis presidency skyrocketed” in the months following the airing of these ads (67).

For shits and giggles, let’s now analyze two recent campaign attack-ads that appear to be much more focused on communicating explicitly negative messages about the opponents, and thus are likely much less effective than the aforementioned examples. These ads are both from the recent Martha Coakley Vs. Scott Brown race for the U.S. senate. The first one is not an actual campaign ad, but instead one created by a lunatic, presumably a born-again Christian fan of former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling. The second one is an actual campaign ad from Martha Coakley’s camp.





Although the amateur ad was clearly ludicrous and made by a total ignoramus, both ads may be equally ineffective in that they only appeal to those who already favor the candidate and thus already agree with the ad's message. In other words, the most important votes to win an election i.e., the swing votes, will largely be unaffected by such ads. As I already commented on in a previous post, Martha Coakley was virtually impotent when it came to appealing to the amygdalas (emotions) of the swing voters in Massachusetts. Scott Brown was clearly more skilled in this arena, as witnessed by his more effective weaving together of an emotionally-laden narrative about his campaign, one which more effectively resonated with swing voters.

Subliminal or implicit messages are clearly important to successful political campaigns, whether they are blatantly used in secret as in George W. Bush’s 2000 attack ad, or used more subtly as witnessed in his father’s effective 1988 campaign ads. As Drew Westen makes clear in his book, it seems that the Republicans on average are more skilled at using these techniques than Democrats. An analysis of the political brain thus proves that Democrats need to approach their campaigns with more emotional intelligence.

References

Westen, Drew. The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation. Public Affairs: New York, 2007.

Weinberger, J., &Westen, D. (2007). RATS, we should have used Clinton. Manuscript under revision.

The Irrationality Of Rational Politics (The Political Brain Part 1)

Neuroscience and psychology research prove that voters do not appeal to reason and logic when choosing a candidate. Republicans fail to be surprised.

Scott Brown’s recent victory over Martha Coakley for the U.S. senate seat in Massachusetts is reminiscent of George W Bush’s two “victories” over equally impotent Democrats; both cases clearly demonstrate that voters do not appeal to logic and reason when selecting a candidate. In his book The Political Brain, renowned psychologist Drew Westen cites evidence from the fields of psychology and neuroscience indicating that “what passes for reasoning in politics is more often rationalization, motivated by efforts to ‘reason’ to emotionally satisfying conclusions” (xi). In other words, people usually rely on their emotional (gut) feeling about a candidate rather than actually giving a shit about what the person is going to do in office. This is how our brain works in relation to most things in our world. We like things based on our gut feelings about them, which are largely derived from the implicit (unconscious) activation of various bundles of thoughts and images, known as associative networks (3). The ability to strategically play to these associative networks is crucial to any successful political campaign. Unfortunately, recent history shows that the GOP is much more skilled at this game than the Democrats.

Whether they realize it or not, Republicans seem to have a more accurate understanding of how the brain actually works. They seem to have figured out intuitively what “the philosopher David Hume recognized three centuries ago: that reason is a slave to emotion.” Democrats, on the other hand, display an “irrational emotional commitment to rationality—one that renders them, ironically, impervious to both scientific evidence on how the political mind and brain work and to an accurate diagnosis of why their campaigns repeatedly fail” (15). This almost exclusive reliance on rationality leads Democrats to focus their campaign strategies on what actually appear to be quite insignificant things like “facts, figures, policy statements, costs and benefits, and appeals to intellect and expertise.” It is unfortunate that appeals to reason and intellect are insufficient to move voters, but this reality must be accepted by Democrats if they hope to win elections this fall. They should also familiarize themselves with the strategies Westen outlines in his book that describe how candidates can speak more to the emotional rather than the logical brain of voters.

Dr. Westen’s (among loads of other) research clearly demonstrates the overwhelming power of implicit associative networks. For example, in focus groups, the vast majority of people support universal health care plans, but only when the term itself is not explicitly referred to. When the exact same plan is then revealed to fall under the universal health umbrella, almost nobody supports it. Westen explains how this is due to the successful branding by the GOP of the term universal health care itself. For most Americans, simply hearing that term alone primes the implicit negative associations of “big and personal clinics, socialized medicine, and the idea of being separated from your doctor.” Westen advocates that Democrats do away with this term altogether in their public discourse for this very reason.

Another example of where Republicans have been extremely successful at employing negative branding strategies is in the association of Democrats with liberal elites, or ivory tower intellectuals that cannot possibly be in tune with mainstream America. So how exactly can Democrats combat this already successful branding of them by the GOP? Well, the most important thing a candidate can do is win over the (emotional) hearts and minds of the people. This is done most effectively when they are able to communicate a sense of passion through weaving together a coherent and emotion-laden narrative that plays on specific positive networks of association and/or directly combats negative associations.

The associative network that leads people to perceive Democrats as weak on national defense is yet another glaring example of a successful brand-job by the GOP, an association that Obama consistently concerns himself with trying to refute. Unfortunately, as it stands now, more or less maintaining the status-quo with national defense seems the only way that Obama and other Democrats feel they can quell this nasty association of them with big blubbering vaginas. If Democratic strategists paid more attention to Westen’s work, however, candidates might begin to counter this type of branding that all too often contributes to them losing elections.

In the following clip, Dr. Westen gives an example of what Democrats should have been saying all along in response to the claim that they do not support the troops (by favoring withdrawal). His example demonstrates how the Democrats should be stealing from the GOP playbook in order to win over the hearts and minds of the public by using passionate speech which appeals to the emotional rather than reasoning faculties of the brain.



References

Westen, Drew. The Political Brain: The Role Of Emotion In Deciding The Fate Of The Nation. Public Affairs: New York, 2007.

~Wolf