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