Via Sullivan, great post by Conor Friedersdorf on what he sees as the futility of the politics of anger. He's certainly right about the idea that many hard-core partisans believe that their side would win if only they were as ruthless and passionate as those on the other side.
It's easy to see why this happens. First of all, there's a major media bias in favor of overestimating the importance of any kind of campaign tactics and strategies. After all, reporters want their stories to be on the front page, and TV correspondents want their stories to appear on TV. They therefore have a bias in favor of believing that the events of the campaign -- speeches, ads, attacks -- are important to the outcome of the campaign, even though in fact most of those events have little to do with election results (particularly in general election campaigns). Moreover, reporters should be covering the day-to-day events, which are often (at least in my view) just good stories, even if they don't effect the election outcome. But in order to get the good stories, reporters need to talk to the campaign operatives who generate them -- and those campaign operatives have a professional bias and interest in believing that their work matters. Indeed, they have a bias in favor of doing splashy things such as irresponsible, over-the-top attacks. If you run a quiet, by-the-books campaign and win, odds are the candidate will get the credit. If you do something flashy, then the operatives are more likely to be noticed. And attacks are especially good for that, because (generally) candidates are only too happy to farm out the "credit" for vicious attacks to the paid help.
So the 1988 campaign becomes all about how Lee Atwater ruthlessly used the Willie Horton ad to take down an overly meek Michael Dukakis, and the 2004 campaign becomes all about how Karl Rove ruthlessly took down an overly passive John Kerry with the Swift Boat stuff. The vicious attacks in the other direction (say, George H.W. Bush implying that Bill Clinton was a dupe for the Soviets, or Jimmy Carter attacking Ronald Reagan as a warmonger) are forgotten, because no one thinks that they worked -- even though there's precious little evidence that the winning attacks "worked", either. We remember the attacks that worked, and then when our side fails to win, we chalk it up to insufficient toughness, to not being willing to be as nasty as the other guys.
To put it another way, people like to believe that agency matters -- that is, they constantly underemphasize structural factors such as the effect of the economy on elections or the difficulty in winning Congressional votes beyond a party's strength in Congress. When one's side doesn't win, it's easy to believe that either they didn't really want to win, or in the sports cliche, they didn't want to win badly enough. Yelling and screaming is a good way to avoid that particular accusation, even though rationally there's really no case that extreme demonstrations of emotion are likely to be helpful.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm not even angry.
ReplyDeleteI'm being so sincere right now.
Even though you broke my heart.
And killed me.
And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!
Now these points of data make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time.
So I'm GLaD. I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are still alive.
Unfortunately, I think that anger is a long, long thread in American discourse, from the vicious partisan press of the 1800s to the cultural animosity of the Civil War/Jim Crowe/Civil Rights movement, to the kinda shocking number of very angry men who've attained high office (or at least been nominated).
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm saying, "There's no such thing as an original sin."
Agreed there's too much made in electoral outcome terms of rage-inducing political attacks that appear to "work". And you identify the dynamics of why those attacks seem outsized in their effectiveness and encourage operatives and media to focus on them.
ReplyDeleteBut Conor, in cherry-picking JournoList to show that "the Left" is angry too, disingenuously ignores the main-streaming of rage on the Right that he's been tracking in his running critique of talk radio etc.
When the Right mainstreams via presidential politics the exclusionary mindset that stirs up rage and legitimates it, we've changed the discourse and the zone of politically possible within which those who manage to be elected are going to operate once they're in office.
In any Western polity other than the US I'd fit comfortably somewhere on the center-right. But I've been a DFH or not a Real American ever since Nixon and Agnew exploited cultural anxieties, even though I'm a WASP from the Heart of America (TM). At some point, anger and disgust is an appropriate public response to Atwater-clones, even if it's only for the purpose of creating some solidarity among the large swaths of the population who are treated as the "enemy within". And given our media dynamics, angry conflict and fighting back against calumny also appear to be the most (only?) effective method for getting one's positions heard or even simple facts communicated.
Anger, disgust and fear are powerful mobilizers of both one's supporters and opponents. The trick with messaging is to not only mobilize one's base but enlarge the group of possible converts without overly strengthening the opponent beyond its base. That typically requires a mixture of "hardball" and high-mindedness, negative and affirmative messages.
Since the Right's politico-infotainment complex isn't going to give up its core of cultural rage, Conor is in effect calling for unilateral disarmament from the center leftward. His own cool appeals to reason against the Mark Levins of the world may be the correct approach to fighting the extremist noise machine within the Right. His "apostacy" from no-enemies-on-the-Right attracts plenty of attention.
(1/2... con't)
Agreed there's too much made in electoral outcome terms of rage-inducing political attacks that appear to "work". And you identify the dynamics of why those attacks seem outsized in their effectiveness and encourage operatives and media to focus on them.
ReplyDeleteBut Conor, in cherry-picking JournoList to show that "the Left" is angry too, disingenuously ignores the main-streaming of rage on the Right that he's been tracking in his running critique of talk radio etc.
When the Right mainstreams via presidential politics the exclusionary mindset that stirs up rage and legitimates it, we've changed the discourse and the zone of politically possible within which those who manage to be elected are going to operate once they're in office.
In any Western polity other than the US I'd fit comfortably somewhere on the center-right. But I've been a DFH or not a Real American ever since Nixon and Agnew exploited cultural anxieties, even though I'm a WASP from the Heart of America (TM). At some point, anger and disgust is an appropriate public response to Atwater-clones, even if it's only for the purpose of creating some solidarity among the large swaths of the population who are treated as the "enemy within". And given our media dynamics, angry conflict and fighting back against calumny also appear to be the most (only?) effective method for getting one's positions heard or even simple facts communicated.
Anger, disgust and fear are powerful mobilizers of both one's supporters and opponents. The trick with messaging is to not only mobilize one's base but enlarge the group of possible converts without overly strengthening the opponent beyond its base. That typically requires a mixture of "hardball" and high-mindedness, negative and affirmative messages.
Since the Right's politico-infotainment complex isn't going to give up its core of cultural rage, Conor is in effect calling for unilateral disarmament from the center leftward. His own cool appeals to reason against the Mark Levins of the world may be the correct approach to fighting the extremist noise machine within the Right. His "apostacy" from no-enemies-on-the-Right attracts plenty of attention.
(1/2... con't)
[Sorry for duplicate posts -- blogspot doing queer things]
ReplyDelete(con't... 2/2)
But I see no reason to think that what works for Conor would work for anyone to his left. We have ample proof from polling that high-minded appeals to reason by non-Real Americans don't get very far in a world of death panels, Arizona crime waves, Ground Zero mosques, global cooling, and a socialist President who is destroying the Constitution, intends to nationalize the economy, is encouraging a wave of Mexicans to invade and drop their babies, and has already raised taxes.
I certainly don't want to be affiliated with political groups that reward ratfuckers with positions of power -- the Nixon-Agnew-Atwater legacy to the GOP as epitomized by Rove and the old College Republicans crowd. It was the proposed ratfucking which was objectionable to Spencer's "go after guys like Barnes" outburst, not his anger at the media clown show.
But I also don't want to be affiliated with groups that can't treat screaming Constitution-clutching mosque opponents with the disdain they deserve. The fact the screamers should be free to spew hate-mongering nonsense doesn't make what they believe legitimate. And their beliefs should be treated as illegitimate - epitomizing rank ignorance and corrosive anti-Constitutional values. And that means treating them with mockery and, yes, even rage.
I don't like anger. It makes me extremely uncomfortable. I prefer careful analysis, and I adore footnotes. But that's not the environment in which politics happens. Whether it offends us or not, it's a form of battle. It's full of conflict. And even if we don't go ballistic and rely instead on mockery and snark, even the gentlest political satire has some anger at its roots to be effective.
I agree that partisans will often be wrong when they blame election losses on insufficient emotional noise from their candidates. But they aren't wrong when they demand that their candidates and office-holders demonstrate stand up against what they oppose. Though I wish it were otherwise, anger is an important tool in the communication kit.
nadezhda: I believe you and Bernstein disagree over the value of rage: he concluded with "[y]elling and screaming is a good way to avoid that particular accusation, even though rationally there's really no case that extreme demonstrations of emotion are likely to be helpful" but you say "[a]nger, disgust and fear are powerful mobilizers of .. one's supporters" Do we have data on which of these statements is true?
ReplyDeleteeven though rationally there's really no case that extreme demonstrations of emotion are likely to be helpful.
ReplyDeleteIs the average consumer of inflammatory partisan rhetoric trying to change things? I don't listen to right wing radio often, but when I do, it seems like the host is always suggesting that the country is pretty much doomed, having been overrun with socialists. That audience is not looking to influence elections, they're looking to vent.
Seems to me that partisan media is not designed to influence anything external, but rather to validate something internal in the consumer. Partisanship provides emotional clarity, and the more inflammatory the rhetoric, the greater the clarity.
FWIW, I'm not much of a partisan, but I can nevertheless relate to that desire for clarity. For example, I listened to Bernstein's A Woman in Charge on a trip awhile ago and came away extremely impressed with what Hillary Clinton achieved with her life. Problem is, I never really liked her. Now when she enters my consciousness, its unpleasant, because I sort of like her, and I sort of don't.
Clarity is a good thing. It shouldn't be surprising that the majority of folks crave it.
@Anonymous -- I'll let JB speak for himself. But I doubt that he thinks that anger isn't a potential political mobilizer (both for supporters and opponents). We've got plenty of studies that show no matter how much goo-goos like me wring their hands over negative advertising, it's an extremely effective way of getting messages across that "stick". And we've got an historical phenomenon called "revolutions" where anger is demonstrably powerful at mobilization.
ReplyDeleteRather, I read JB's argument - and I'd agree - that election results are usually overdetermined by big objective factors (recent economic performance, demography etc) apart from style of candidate discourse or dramatic incidents stage-managed by political handlers and their media enablers.
Obama (or any decent Dem candidate with a professional campaign organization) was highly likely to win in 2008 regardless of campaign style. Hopey-changey did a fine job of mobiilzation, and the Dem base was emotionally satisfied with snark (anger presented satrically) rather than screaming rage. If anything, the demented rage on the Right (brithers, palling around with terrorists, Real Americans, etc), although it energized the GOP base, turned off a (marginal number of) convertibles (see the polls that suggest Palin was a net negative for McCain) and added to mobilization (enthusiasm reflected in turn-out levels) of their Dem opponents. That had a modest positive impact on Obama's margin of victory but was irrelevant to whether he won or lost.
So JB is suggesting to partisans, give your candidates a break. Don't obsess about micro-tactics or not being "tough" or partisan enough. Don't demand political performance art that makes you feel good but is likely to just further polarize political discourse.
My comments are directed at the non-election consequences of angry speech. How can we respond effectively to spittle-flecked extremism about events, policies, and people who are symbolic representations of policies, in an environment where discourse is already severely degraded and the media thrives on emotional, dramatic conflict.
And there, I think anger is one tool (among many) that should be deployed. In delegitimizing stunts like Breibart keeps pulling, we can cooly pick apart his techniques at agitprop. We can shake our heads and shame him, in sorrow more than anger. Or we can get overtly outraged. I expect a multivocal response is going to be more effective than a univocal appeal to cool reason, and rage will have its place.
My remarks about anger mobilization weren't aimed at elections, where I think rage is, usually on net, at best neutral and often counter-productive.
I think one element that often gets forgotten is that some people take politics very seriously. They understand that the actions taken by the government directly affect people's lives in every way--from what kind of education their children get, to whether they live or die.
ReplyDeleteWhen you're dealing with governing an entity that decides if your Grandmother has a pension, if your water is poisoned, and if your enlisted cousin is going to be sent overseas to his death, you can be forgiven if you become emotionally involved.
Silly anger is just that. Getting bent out of shape because Obama went on The View or because MoveOn said some bad things about a General is just pointless. Getting angry about a party denying medical coverage to first responders, though, is markedly less silly (although, perhaps, just as useless).
I think the comments on Friedersdorf's post are more insightful than the original post, which misses the point entirely. The crazies never get their way, but they make more moderate versions of the same position more likely to win.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Minutemen are never going to get the U.S. government to deport 12 million immigrants. But they inspire the Arizona law that has becomes the key policy battleground in this debate, and they make it virtually impossible for anyone to pass comprehensive immigration reform (John McCain has abandoned the legislation he authored just a couple years ago).
Similarly, the crazies in the right wing media are never going to convince a majority of Americans that Obama is a secret communist Muslim anti-Christ agent who was born in Kenya. But they make it easier for non-crazies to doubt Obama's policies or believe that his Presidency is failing.
The crazies were on the left 40 years ago; the pendulum has swung.
@Kal -- Getting angry about a party denying medical coverage to first responders, though, is markedly less silly (although, perhaps, just as useless).
ReplyDeleteGreat example. No, I don't think Weiner throwing a tantrum on the House floor was useless. It was almost certainly the only way to get media coverage that could break through and capture attention beyond the Hill and local NY. If he had adopted a cool tone it would never have made it beyond CSPAN to a YouTube moment or a CNN soundbite.
Whether it accomplishes anything other than getting the issue on the media agenda will depend on a lot of things, including how effective he or others are able to modulate their tone as they pursue the merits of their argument. All rage, all the time is only preaching to the choir -- the tribal "clarity" for partisans that CSH described.
Jonathan, do you not think the Swift Boat attacks played an important role in the 2004 results? With the war so raw, I always that that was one election that didn't turn primarily on economics. I also thought that Kerry ran a good campaign after Sept. 1, but it *was* agonizing to watch the Swift Boat assault go largely unanswered through that long summer.
ReplyDeleteASP,
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't really think it affected the election results much if any. The Swift Boat stuff did give something for those who were going to oppose Kerry anyway something personal about the candidates to hang their hat on, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone could show there was more to it than that. Agonizing for Democrats, sure, but that doesn't make it actually matter very much.
As far as the war(s) mattering in 2004...the thing is that up through 2004 the war in Iraq was at least moderately popular (or at least not very unpopular), and people thought that Bush was doing a good job vs. terrorism overall. I do think (and totally talking through my hat now, without looking at any evidence) that Iraq was part of why Bush didn't win big in 2004, but a lot of marginal voters were probably pushed to Bush, not away from him, because of national security stuff (and that's about Bush, not about the challenger).
Quick look finds these polls - the overall approve/disapprove of Iraq is far down:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4