Gut Instinct
One of Josh Marshall’s readers writes in to criticize this latest storyline about Bush’s guard service because he feels it does not address the real issues in the campaign and will not persuade undecided voters. I hear this a lot — the whole Vietnam thing is allegedly a distraction from what is really important and Kerry has brought all this trivia on by emphasizing his wartime experience.
I disagree. Campaigns run on several levels only one of which is to reach people with an explicit message in the hopes that they will make the rational decision of voting for your candidate. There are complicated tactical and strategic matters that are just as important (and I would argue more important in this campaign) than telling voters you have a better plan.
The first reason is tactical in that every day Bush and his campaign staff have to defend themselves against these charges is a day they are not getting their message heard. The staff is distracted and worried, they have to weigh all of their statements carefully, the campaign takes on a seige mentality and they make mistakes. It’s not a particularly elevating aspect of politics, but it’s effective and necessary.
Another reason is that undecided swing voters just don’t make decisions based upon the rational assessment that Bush has been a terrible president. Most voters have a complicated range of reasons why they vote the way they do, from tribal identity to personal likeability and reasoned discussion of the issues is way down the list. But, as this very interesting and widely read article says, undecided swing voters are the most susceptible to personality impressions and marketing manipulation:
The advice to the political professionals is: Don’t assume that your candidate’s positions are going to make the difference. “In a competitive political climate,” as one article explains, “informed citizens may vote for a candidate based on issues. However, uninformed or undecided voters will often choose the candidate whose name and packaging are most memorable.
Using reason to reach these voters is a waste of time. In this close election, most people have, for whatever reason, made a decision and are sticking to it. Therefore, the two bases must be mobilized and the undecideds must be reached on a marketing or entertainment level.
The article goes on to discuss the various theories to explain why the electorate as a whole is so dismally uninformed and whether that can translate into any coherent political philosphy. The theory that makes the most sense is that people use shortcuts, or hueristics, that give them a fairly accurate assessment of the candidates and the issues even while they are not specifically informed about the details.
Voters use what Samuel Popkin, one of the proponents of this third theory, calls “low-information rationality”—in other words, gut reasoning—to reach political decisions; and this intuitive form of judgment proves a good enough substitute for its high-information counterpart in reflecting what people want.
These little dramas in campaigns, which seem to be about everything but what we informed voters believe are the essential issues, actually serve as character and issues proxies for the electorate to come to its gut reasoning. Therefore, the Vietnam drama was a way of illustrating the contrast between the high achieving Kerry and the screw-up son of privilege. This was a man who did his duty without complaint but was not afraid to later challenge the orthodoxy that was leading the country into ruin. This picture provides a gut reason for people to vote for Kerry over the privileged playboy who doesn’t seem to realize that he’s made a mistake.
And, on another level the campaign controversy itself works as a proxy for each man’s will to win. In that fight, George Bush has shown repeatedly that he is determined, most recently when he winked and nodded at what is now a notorious smear campaign. In this proxy fight, it is important that Kerry be seen as giving as good as he gets. “If you wimp out when George W. Bush attacks you, what will you do if there’s another terrorist attack?” This is not particularly rational, but for many, it is a short cut to figuring out if Kerry is willing to be tough on terrorism. In this sense, the picture of Bush becomes uneasily contradictory and vague, while Kerry is sharply and consistently tough, both in his past and in the present.
Finally, this argument brings to a final head a long standing metanarrative that has been killing Democrats ever since the Vietnam war— our perceived weakness on national security. Just as Clinton had to work very hard to convince the nation that a Democrat was capable of managing the economy (after decades of relentless negative propaganda) Kerry is having to work very hard to reverse a successful decades long effort to portray Democrats as a bunch of hippies who would stick a daisy in the barrel of bin Laden’s Uzi rather than stop him from blowing up Chicago. By exorcizing the Vietnam ghost, perhaps we will actually be able to leave it behind once and for all by killing the shopworn image of Democrats as flower children.
In a long term strategic sense, then, Kerry’s history is vital to changing that narrative. His experience in Vietnam and afterward merges that narrative into a more realistic vision of Democratic national security that people can absorb and understand in their gut.
And finally, let us not forget the care and feeding of the press corpse. Stories of the murky mysterious past are far more interesting to them than stale policy arguments and they are far more likely to frame the debate in a simple way that people can understand if you give them the frame to do it. Feed that beast or they’ll continue to slurp the spoonfed GOP diet of “Democrats are immoral, spendthrift cowards.”
It would be wise for Democrats to accept that in order to win and have the power to implement the policies we care so much about, we have to be ready to construct a narrative that will instruct the public through their emotions and their gut instincts rather than through an intellectual engagement on the issues alone. It doesn’t have to be dishonest and it doesn’t have to be dirty. What it has to be is authentically connected to what you really want to do and it has to be executed in a way that respects the instincts of the populace.
Clinton said over and over again that the American people almost always get it right. I don’t know how true that is, but it’s the right thing to say. Knowing the public’s propensity for gut political decisions we should give them what they need to make the right one. In that sense, Vietnam works. As sick as all of us informed types may be of hearing about it, it gives Kerry the proper image and frame from which to make his pitch that Democrats have the right stuff to lead this nation in a time of great national insecurity.