Voting and the Politics of Fear
How Election Decisions Can Be Based on Genetics and Emotion
Oct 23, 2008
That's the message of a number of experts, who stress the role of emotion in determining how people vote.
In his book The Political Brain (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), Drew Westen observes that the vision of the human mind as dispassionate "bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work".
He cites a study in which partisan voters were presented with examples of clearly conflicting statements made by their candidates. Not only did the partisans deny that the statements were contradictory, but the network of neurons in their brains could be measured as rewarding them for doing so by "turning on" positive emotions. Westen's conclusion for party political campaigners was not to waste time attempting to change the opinion of those with firm political allegiances.
Moreover, because of the importance of "networks of association" to the human mind, (bundles of thoughts, feelings, images and ideas), the odds were stacked against even less "staunch" voters making a rational decision. Westen cites the example of the Pennsylvania coal miner, who according to public opinion polls "was not likely to place more weight on [issues such as job security and workplace safety] than on concerns about terrorism and violent crime, less immediately relevant to his family's wellbeing".
Genetics and Voter Choices
A study reported in the journal Science gives weight to the theory that physiological and personality traits have a strong influence on political leanings. The experiment tested the response of volunteers to frightening or unexpected stimuli (for example, the image of a large spider on someone's face, or a loud noise). "Those with 'markedly lower sensitivity to sudden noises and threatening visual images' tend to support liberal positions, while those with stronger responses tend to be more conservative". (Dominion Post, September 20 2008, from The Times). The study concludes that political leanings may be linked in part to differences in brain activity, possibly in the amygdala region, which processes fear and disgust.
Westen agrees that "the extent to which people self-identify as conservative is about forty per cent genetic".
Fear and Populism
One way political parties can exploit "brain wiring" is by tapping into voters' neural networks (which associate or clump together attitudes) with messages of fear. For example, populist parties or populist elements in mainstream parties direct resentment at particular racial or ethnic groups, or people such as immigrants or the media establishment. In his book Party Politics in New Zealand (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2005), Raymond Miller identifies New Zealand First and Pauline Hanson's Australia One Nation movement as populist parties.
In the 2008 election in New Zealand, the widespread debate around the potential king-making power of the Maori party (and National leader John Key's attempts to link Green Party influence with job losses) could be seen as exploiting populist fears. (Other Suite 101 articles related to the New Zealand election include Politics and Sport in New Zealand and Deal May Influence New Zealand Election ).
The Power of the Middle
So in any given election, is there any hope of a rational outcome? American trend analyst Mark Penn (Microtrends. New York: Hachette Books, 2007) notes the continued importance of the swing voter ("soccer moms" in the 1996 US elections) and the importance of the "centre" to political victories. Also, while American elites show an increasing interest in candidates' personalities (perhaps because the upper-class is more removed from bread-and-butter concerns), people on the street are becoming more informed.
According to Penn, the mass of voters are in a better position today than in previous elections to make choices that are based on an alert and educated analysis of substantive issues.
 |
