|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 07/22/2007 6:19:06 PM PDT by neverdem
Consider this hypothetical:
A Democratic president is forced to take action after terrorists attack New York and Washington. It's clear that the terrorists' sponsors are based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But within 18 months, this Democrat decides to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack. In the next four years, he spends half a trillion dollars, sucking America deeper into a quagmire, stretching the military to the breaking point - while in Pakistan, the culprits remain free. Indeed, U.S. intelligence officials warn that the evildoer group in Pakistan has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability."
Imagine it's the eve of a national election. Any question how the GOP would respond?
They'd run TV ads mocking the Democrats as the party that has made America weaker. Their talking heads on Fox News would lament about how the Democrats are wrecking our proud military, can't be trusted to run a war, can't even choose the right war to fight. They'd crank out podcasts about how the party of George McGovern is wasting our precious blood and treasure while our true enemies plot to kill our kids in their suburban beds.
In short, the Republicans would craft a visceral message that aims for the gut and engages the emotions. Over the last 40 years, that has been the GOP's metier.
These days, however, the Republicans are stuck in neutral, because it's their own guy who has fought the wrong war and emboldened our enemies. Which gives the Democrats a rare opportunity to lash out at GOP national security failures, to aim for the gut and engage the emotions.
But that is not what Democrats do.
They are cerebral by nature. They dislike emotional appeals. They fear that if they get too pugnacious, some voters might get mad. But as clinical psychologist and political consultant Drew Westen argues in his new book The Political Brain, this fear of gut-level combat is a big reason the Democratic Party keeps losing national elections.
The '08 election will hinge on whether the Democrats, long saddled with a wimp image, can convince swing voters that Democratic candidates are better-qualified to fight our lethal enemies. This is a gut-level issue. Yet, quite predictably, Democrats have failed during the last two weeks to take full rhetorical advantage of the warnings, attributed to the intelligence community, about a "regenerated" al-Qaeda.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate (the consensus document of 16 spy agencies, released last Tuesday) concludes that al-Qaeda has reestablished its headquarters in Pakistan, reconstituted its top leadership, and has endeavored "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks" by taking advantage of Muslim anger at the U.S. occupation in Iraq, and by linking itself to the Iraqi offshoot of al-Qaeda - which didn't even exist before the occupation.
One of the NIE summaries was titled "Al-Qaeda better positioned to strike the West." And 11 days ago, a counterterrorism official familiar with the NIE document told the Associated Press that al-Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001."
Yet, in response, Democrats have barely registered a pulse. None of the '08 candidates, or national party leaders, or the congressional leaders, have gone for the gut GOP-style, with something like this:
Grainy slow-motion footage of Osama bin Laden and activity at his training camps. Cue ominous music.
"Six years after Sept. 11, this man still roams free - thanks to George W. Bush and his Republican allies. They promised they would be tough. They promised to protect us here at home. But instead they took their eye off the ball, spending $2 billion a week in a futile war half a world away from our real enemy, imperiling our brave servicemen and women, and emboldening those who would come here to kill us. America can no longer afford the party of weakness. Vote Democratic, as if your life depended on it."
Hyperbolic, yes - but right in sync with what Bush said last Nov. 6, on the eve of the congressional elections: "As you go to the polls, remember, we're at war. And if you want this country to do everything in its power to protect you and, at the same time, lay the foundation of peace for generations to come, vote Republican."
Westen, whose book is subtitled The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, would surely approve my hypothetical message. Westen is reportedly the flavor of the month in Democratic circles, at least among activists who don't mind being doused with cold water. This guy actually studies the brain as a scientist; he says that its emotional properties are "millions of years older" than its reasoning properties. Therefore, he argues, the Democrats should stop thinking they can win simply by appealing to the intellect. It's not only bad politics, it's bad neurology.
He writes: "The political brain is an emotional brain. It is not a dispassionate calculating machine. . . . Republicans have a keen eye for markets, and they have a near-monopoly in the marketplace of emotions. They have kept the government off our backs, tore down the wall, saved the flag, left no children behind, protected life, kept our marriages sacred, restored integrity to the Oval Office, spread democracy to the Middle East, and fought an unrelenting war on terror. The Democrats, by contrast, have continued to place their stock in the marketplace of ideas. And in so doing, they have been trading the wrong futures."
Victory goes to those who fight, even if they sometimes fight dirty. As Westen points out, Republicans make hyperbolic arguments, with few worries about offending voters, because, on balance, "voters prefer candidates who are clear on what they believe, even if it is not what [the voters] believe." (Witness Newt Gingrich, a notorious bomb-thrower while serving in the House minority; he wound up building a movement.)
Westen says the Democrats need not even fear alienating voters; with the political wind at their backs in 2008, he says, they are well-positioned to craft a visceral tough-on-terror message "by using Republicans' words and idioms against them."
Can the Democrats aim for the gut? We'll see. They might bear in mind what Adlai Stevenson said in 1956. The Democratic candidate was leaving a rally when a woman told him, "Every thinking person will be voting for you." He replied: "Madame, that is not enough. I need a majority."
To read the July 2007 summary of the National Intelligence Estimate, go to: http://go.philly.
com/natintell
See his blog at http://go.philly.com/polman - and watch for excerpts in the daily Commentary Page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Find this article at: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070722_The_American_Debate___Democrats_rare_chance_to_go_for_gut.html |
|
|
|
| Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
They are cerebral by nature. They dislike emotional appeals.
I thought you'd enjoy a chuckle.
The Democrats, by contrast, have continued to place their stock in the marketplace of ideas.
Just about blew Pepsi out of my nose and all over the keyboard on that one.
I do enjoy an occasional trip to the Twilight Zone.
Right. Here's what Demokratz do.
ROTFLMAO!! What planet did this creature blow in from? Catch the course of this narrative:
A Democratic president is forced to take action after terrorists attack New York and Washington. It's clear that the terrorists' sponsors are based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But within 18 months, this Democrat decides to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack. In the next four years, he spends half a trillion dollars, sucking America deeper into a quagmire, stretching the military to the breaking point - while in Pakistan, the culprits remain free.
Notice what's missing? Yeah, that little tear the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan thing. The claim that Bush ignored al Qaeda while pursuing his own nefarious ends in Iraq is transparently dishonest and probably the single most aching bit of hypocrisy and outright lying in current American politics.
It's easily dispensed with. Does the author desire that we begin a military offensive in Pakistan? What's his plan?
Dead silence.
I read the first few sentences and didn’t go any further...any mention in the article that the vast majority that these “cerebral” rats who don’t like emotional appeals got on the floor of the senate/house in 11/02 and oerwhelming voted what they had been saying the previous six years???
that hussien was a terrorist as was iraq and they had to be removed???
dems are ball-less...no guts...I mean look how absolutely weak kneed toon was...
"The '08 election will hinge on whether the Democrats, long saddled with a wimp image, can convince swing voters that Democratic candidates are better-qualified to fight our lethal enemies."
Wow, not only hits the bong, but drinks the water, too. What a loon. Talk about bizarro world.
You’ve got to think a guy named Dick Polman probably has some deep-seated issues.
The Dems might talk tough, but in the end that is all they will do. Pakistan is a tricky situation—especially since that country has nuclear weapons.
“In short, the Republicans would craft a visceral message that aims for the gut and engages the emotions. Over the last 40 years, that has been the GOP’s metier.”
Really? I find we Conservatives to be a bit unimaginative while only dealing in the FACTS of each matter and what is best for America as each crisis comes along.
Silly me. :)
LOL!
To call this article silly would be to give it more gravity than it deserves.
Oh, you’re exactly right about that. My point is simply that those who are smirking that Bush isn’t doing enough about Pakistan have neither the desire for him to do so or any intention or plan of doing so themselves. Criticism doesn’t get any cheaper than that.
"Democratic candidates are better-qualified to fight our lethal enemies."
are they going to fight themselves then?
BTTT
Nope, Dim’s are wimps, it’s one of life’s few certainties.
I read down to that part and quit. I saw arianna huffington on TV for a minute this afternoon. The word “cerebral” did not pop into my head.
Looks like another eight years in the White House for the GOP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.