The Mind and the Obama Magic

Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views on issues -- even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain.

But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be "moving to the Right." There are at least three possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. The third is that he thinks that nuanced positions don't have the effect of the moving to the right.

Let's start with the first possibility -- expediency, the one assumed by most observers.

The Political Expediency Argument

The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the "center." Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tri-partite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will "take away" the other side's issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it.

First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called "character," as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters' values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you -- and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was).

Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.

Obama introduced himself to the primary voters not as a policy wonk, but as a person of character, who announced his values, said what he believed (no pussyfooting), communicated beautifully and powerfully, and gave examples of his good judgment -- he was someone you could trust and identify with. That was a major part of the Obama magic. If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. The Obama magic will be in danger of fading.

Let us now turn to the second reason. There are two major modes of thought in American politics -- conservative and progressive, what I've called "strict" and "nurturant." We all grow up with brains exposed to both and capable of using both, but usually in different areas of life. Some people are conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic policy, or conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues -- or the reverse. There is no left-to-right linear spectrum; all kinds of combinations occur. I've called such folks "biconceptuals." Brainwise, they show a common situation called "mutual inhibition," where two modes of thought are possible but the activation of one inhibits the other. The more you activate a conservative mode of thought, the more you inhibit the progressive mode of thought -- and the more likely it is that the conservative mode of thought will spread to other issues.

Interestingly, many people who call themselves "conservatives" actually think like progressives on a range of issue areas. For example, many "conservatives" love the land as much as any environmentalist; want to live in communities where people care about each other, that is, have social not just individual responsibility; live progressive business principles of honestly, care for their employees, and care for the public; and have progressive religious values: helping the poor, caring for the sick, being good stewards of the God's creation, turning the other cheek. One view of "bipartisanship" for progressives is finding self-described conservatives and independents who have such progressive values and working with them on that basis. That's what Obama did when he went to Rick Warren's megachurch and it is his strategy in Project Joshua. Note that this is the opposite of the form of bipartisanship that involves really adopting right-wing values, or even appearing to. What this bipartisan strategy does, from the brain's viewpoint, is to activate the progressive mode of thought in the brains of conservatives, and thus tends to inhibit conservative thought.

But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought. In short, it actually helps conservatives. Rather than "taking arguments away from them" it strengthens their basic values and hence all their arguments. It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.

If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.

As has often been said, if you are a conservative, why vote for the progressive spouting conservative views when you can vote for a real conservative?

In short, if Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, rightwing views, he will not only hurt himself, but also hurt other Democrats.

The Responsibility Position

Suppose that Obama's motivation is not political expediency, but rather an attempt to counter both rightwing and centrist stereotypes of progressives as being irresponsible.

Adopting, or appearing to adopt, rightwing positions is not going to work, and will only hurt, for reasons given above. What is the alternative?

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama portrays what I would call progressive ideals as simply American ideals, and he continued that account throughout the primary campaign. I think it is a correct account. And I think it is the key to uniting the country without adopting rightwing views. From this perspective, responsibility and the strength and judgment to act responsibly works with empathy (caring about other people) to define the basic American ideals: freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, and so on. One can speak from this perspective of "full responsibility" both social and individual as central to the American vision, and they say what it means to be both responsible and committed to American ideals in each issue area. Moving to rightwing views, and abandoning American ideals, is never necessary to win.

The Nuanced Policy Position

It is possible to add nuance to a policy to make it look like you are moving to the right without actually doing so in policy terms. This can seem to do double duty, avoiding criticisms without making really substantive changes. It is an illusion.

When Obama ran for Senator in Illinois he had to at least appear to support Illinois industries -- coal, ethanol, and nuclear energy. He has used nuanced escape clauses, such as if it turns out to be economically feasible, while aware that sequestered coal, corn ethanol, and nuclear could not be economically feasible. Is this good politics? It may have been for a new senator, but it is not for a president. The reason again is that doing so activates a conservative mode of thought and inhibits a progressive mode of thought, making the move to real alternative energy that much harder.

Positions like this depend on a deep mistake about policy. There are two aspects to policy: cognitive and material. Material policy is about the nuts and bolts, how things are to work in the world. Cognitive policy is about what the public has to have in its brain/mind in order to fully support the right material policies. Coal, nuclear energy, and ethanol are policy disasters, and even giving them support with nuanced escape clauses hurts the possibility of real energy reform, but it activates, and hence strengthens, the conservative modes of thought that lie behind those proposals.

The bottom line: A nuanced policy that looks like a rightward move has the cognitive effect of a rightward move. Cognitive effects matter awfully in presidential campaigns.

Can You Avoid Attacks?

No. No matter how many rightwing views you move toward, you will be viciously attacked as too liberal, as influenced by radicals, as inexperienced, as unpatriotic, as all words and no content. Stick to your core values. Be yourself. Voters will respect you.

Why Understanding the Political Mind Matters

Politics looks different from the perspective of the cognitive and brain sciences. That is why I have written The Political Mind. Your arguments change when you start with how the brain and mind really work.

From the brain's perspective, the pragmatic arguments and moral arguments converge: Don't adopt rightwing positions for the sake of political expediency (that will backfire) or to demonstrate responsibility (that too will backfire). The best way to be expedient is to be authentic, stick to your core values, show and discuss responsibility, and thus garner trust. That is how to lead our nation, and to do so responsibly and toward fulfillment of its ideals.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

Comments

[CindyMax]

Thank you, Mr. Lakoff for sharing your insight. The cognitive and material aspects of human perception with respect to politics is either too difficult for many readers to comprehend or they are too emotionally bound to their own dogma to consider other perspectives. We will be mired in these dark ages for a long, long time if people refuse to listen to and, dare I say it, analyze other points of view. The destructive narrow-mindedness evident in this discussion is disturbing to say the least. Willingness to listen to all points of view is a good thing. Listening is not synonymous with agreeing. Try it. You might experience a little growth and like it!

[lainey]

Great job Cindy. It is wonderful to read a post that is informative and above all, correct.. We need a leader who will listen to all sides and not be subjected to any extreme form of thought, whether it be from the left or the right. The change of which Mr. Obama speaks of is exactly that and the nuance always leaves the ability for reason to trump political idealogy. Thank you very much.

[intelliwoman]

All true. Which means NO OBAMA. The change of which he speaks is talk without substance, dreams with no plan, pandering without integrity.

I won't vote McCain. But it makes me sick to think I must vote for him to save the Supreme Court from becoming totally ultra conservative for the next generation.

[bigfro]

YES Cindy. I Agree

[mivogo]

Terrific post, Cindy. It's sad that listening to all points of view is now considered a negative. When preaching to the converted, no one learns anything new. The left reads The Nation, the right The Weekly Standard, and both "know" they are thinking correctly. True believers are not only boring, but are mirror images of each other. Bravo!

[Retrofuturistic]

1. FISA
2. faith-based initiatives
3. mental distress of the mother not grounds for abortion
4. Obama's statement that impeachment is "off the table", that it should be reserved for offenses that are more "grave" than what the Bush administration has committed

[FirstShirt]

Sounds like a republican. Not bad.

[nomobull]

another list without proof to back up your claims.

[Zeje]

His pledge to increase military spending

[Sarahjan]

Obama needs I read George Lakoff during my undergraduate studies and his formula did not work for many democratic leaders. Bill Clinton won because he shifted to the center more sharply than Barack Obama’s refocus on value issues means that democrats can claim these values and these voters as their own. This is smart political move. If he convinces enough working class whites and economic conservatives and religious groups concerned with social justice to vote for him, he will win a landslide in nov.

Let leftwing purest cry flip flop as much as they wish. They are really out of touch. Obama needs to respect people’s values and that include religious values. I am Muslim and during Christmas I always say to my Christian friends Merry Christmas. I do this because I think there is something unauthentic about meaningless words such as “Seasons Greetings” when the majority of the people are Christians. It is terrible to deny majorty their capacity to practice their moral values. By that I do not mean that Obama should bring his Christianity to the White House for I beliave the separation of church and state but the idea that Obama is selling out by appealing to Christian groups coming from left leaning voices is utterly ridiculous.

[Marlyn]

"Obama needs to respect people"s values and that include religious values." ???

Respect is not the issue. The issue with respect to religion is MONEY. It is against the Constitution for our government to support any religion. Yet Obama will EXPAND the unconstitutional faith-based initiatives to include more churches to provide social services that should be provided directly by our government.

The Church of Scientology offers many "secular" social programs, so I'm sure they are happy at the news.

[intelliwoman]

I am a practicing Christian and not a left wing purist. I am not out of touch. Mr Obama needs to respect the Constitution (faith based funding, FISA) and people's values, which means religion should not be a part of the discussion.

My values also include people who tell the truth, people who are not racist (Senator Obama ran the most racist campaign I've ever seen, every query or criticism was called racism). My values also include having someone who is not elitist, not arrogant, and who really has compassion for all. My values also include raising our children to be compassionate decent human beings (how long did his children sit in the pews and listen to rev Wright)

Obama sold out before he started his presidential campaign. HE IS A POLITICIAN who has used racism and good rhetoric to fill all.

Once again www. pledgedbut notbound.com

[nomobull]

and have you read the bill or using soundbite to base your argument on.

[gladys46]

O does listen! Obviously, the so-called, for O butts, didn't listen to him from the beginning of his campaign, had they, O would not need to continuously assure them of his stances or of his steadfast views of a changed America!

Geez, writers must be starving these days!

[ohiodem250]

I think Lakoff's advice is well intentioned...as well as Arianna's and all the other media types as well as the numerous bloggers and commenters here. But, honestly, maybe the guy actually believes in faith-based initiatives. Maybe the guy actually believes in policy nuance. Maybe the guy actually believes that Americans are smart enough to see through the ridiculous spin machine that has been a central part of campaign coverage in post-modern times. And maybe the guy actually believes that if Americans are not smart enough to see through that - that our politics is not ready for someone willing to compromise or change or evolve or have nuanced positions - then maybe we deserve what we get. Maybe, just maybe, Obama is trying not to be a cynical politician. Maybe, just maybe, Americans are tired of being sub-divided into demographics and sub-demographics and just want to be talked to. And for God's sake, remember something else: there's a reason you aren't on Obama's staff. He's got all the advice he wants or needs right now.

[Marlyn]

"maybe the guy actually believes in faith-based initiatives." ???

and not in the Constitution? Then how can he be president? He must swear to uphold the Constitution which says NO GOVERNMENT SUPPORT for churches.

[Star123]

Not only that--but he is saying Christians must be active and go forth and do good works--Preacher in Chief?

[nomobull]

a constitutional lawyer versus a bunch of media pundits but they know more than he does go figure.

[ohiodem250]

First of all, the unconstitutionality of faith-based initiatives is not a foregone conclusion, hence the Supreme Court not having a case challenging it brought before them in the eight years that it has been active. Also, a close reading of Obama's proposal says that these funds are not specifically mandated to go to faith-based groups; the funds are actually earmarked for ANY non-profit social service group. The change Obama is making is that it will now be open to non-profits whose parent organization is a church or a temple or a mosque or a satanic brotherhood. If these groups use the non-profit to evangelize they will be disqualified. One final thing, Bill Clinton was the first national politician to endorse the idea of faith-based initiatives and used executive orders to test the waters of it. So, in the end, a Democrat brought this issue before us.

[justobserve]

"The best way to be expedient is to be authentic, stick to your core values, show and discuss responsibility, and thus garner trust. That is how to lead our nation, and to do so responsibly and toward fulfillment of its ideals. "

Well said!

[rwe2late]

Obama makes ambigiuous statements as part of an election strategy to appeal to the supposedly popular beliefs(dare we say prejudices and misconceptions) held by allegedly average “middle” voters. He also makes statements which conflict with other stated goals, such as the conflict between expanding the military, and yet replacing militarism with diplomacy in our foreign affairs. Or between NAFTA and resuscitating our economy.
This strategy has been tried before, and loses as many votes as it gains due to:
(a) the intrinsic disingenuousness which voters reject, aka flip flopping and playing politics
(b) the inability to utilize corporate media to beat Repugs on their own turf, namely flag, religion, voodoo economics, apple pie, and other false appeals used to manipulate voter sentiments.

Obama should appeal to voters by more clearly articulating how military expansion is ruining our economy, shifting wealth and power to a tiny elite, creating unnecessary enemies abroad, and forcing the curtailment of our liberty at home.

Does democracy work? Can the majority of voters be reasoned with? Can the establishment media be overcome? If not, then perhaps the neoCONs are right. A pretense of democracy is good enough. The prejudices of the masses need to be molded and used "for their own good" which they cannot comprehend.

Lincoln did not run on a platform to end slavery, but at least he argued it should not spread.
Obama need not promise to dismantle the military empire, but he should at least pledge to halt its growth.

[Marlyn]

"This strategy has been tried before, and loses as many votes as it gains."

TRUE.

[rwe2late]

Of course, much of what is said supposes Obama actually wants change, actually wants to curtail the growth of empire, restore liberty, etc.

Another plausible explanation is that Obama first expediently moved to the LEFT to capture the nomination, and is now merely revealing his actual positions.

[biosolution]

Too bad Lakoff's book wasn't published before Ned Lamont's run against that gas bag Lieberman.

[bigfro]

Great article. If Obama listens he will win. These tools on Tv repeat the same old spin and it doesn't fly.

Now go ahead Uncencored reports tell us how Obama is exactly like McCain so we should vote for the old fraud that ripped off so many people with the Keating five.

[Giordano Bruno]

Hopefully Mr. Lakoff's advice will be heeded. Nothing dampened enthusiasm for the Kerry campaign in 2004 more than his pandering to the constituency that supported Mr. Bush in 2000. When he mounted the podium and his first words were, "Lt. Kerry reporting for duty." I felt my own slightly contrived enthusiasm for his candidacy dwindle.

It is true, I think that BHO is inexperienced. But it is equally true that he instinctively supports correct policies. Watering them down to try to capture a constituency whose views are antithetical to his core beliefs will only serve to revitalize the chances of Mr. McCain.

As a life long Democrat, I find myself increasingly frustrated with the Neo Dems. The ones like Ms. Pelosi who support President Bush's War against Iraq and with the metaphorical equivalent of a signing statement, all the while pretending to oppose it. People recognize this deplorable duplicity, and they resent it. In fact for me, Ms. Pelosi is a far bigger disappointment than Mr. Bush, if only because she has failed miserably to meet our expectations, which were at one time far higher than those we had for Mr. Bush. This is a political style which BHO must not emulate. Most importantly because to do so would be to discourage and demotivate his idealistic youth base.

Giordy

[Marlyn]

"he instinctively supports correct policies." ???

No he doesn't. I wish he did.

Obama suggests that we lock insurance into our health care system, instead of getting it out. He suggest we turn to coal and nuclear in order to get off oil. He promises to expand using churches to deliver social services, when this violates the separation of church and state, because as he says we NEED to, just like W says we NEED to torture in order to be safe.

[sufi66]

"just like W says we NEED to torture in order to be safe."

Let's not get hysterical.

[kellygrrrl]

while everyone is quickly pointing out the "mistake" so many Dem candidates make
"moving to the right"

I would point the "mistake" so many Democrats make:
Eating Our Own

how about we win this one, guys

[Marlyn]

I'll not vote for someone who doesn't represent me. Right now, I'm at the point where I don't even want to be a Democrat anymore. I used to think supporting the Democrats was the only way to defeat the Republicans, because no other party is big enough. But now, I can't tell the difference between the two, so count me out, FOREVER. I'm going GREEN. The whole process is a farce. The USA is a fascist state and democracy is a lost dream.

[Marilyn Ferdinand - Huffpost Blogger]

Exactly! The Democrats do not represent progressives. Obama is not "one of us."

[Zeje]

Agreed. I will not vote for someone who does not represent me. Obama no longer represents me.

[lwfky]

Have you seen recent polls showing that Obama is considered less honest than McCain? I think it is a huge mistake moving to the right in order to win the election. Did it work for Gore, Kerry or Hillary? When will Democrats learn that standing up for their principles and explaining why they are right for America is the way to go. This is not "eating our own".

[Marilyn Ferdinand - Huffpost Blogger]

" If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. "

I think this is to be expected from a man who says he has values and then chucks them out the window when it seems expedient to do so. I think his defining character trait is his ferocious ambition that has helped him develop a great ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I don't believe he has any values that rank higher than "win at any cost."

[Saitia]

This is typical old meme politics at it's worst. The MSM, blind as a bat, injecting power into nonsensical events just to create controversy and thus revenue, creates teapot tempest after teapot tempest to try and hammer Obama back into some meme they're familiar with, his values be damned; what could make you think they understand him at all??
When the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit:
http://www.urantiansojourn.com/2008/07/05/18/06/00/category%/obama-the-real-deal/

[teacupsnpots]

Hope O does whatever it takes to win...

I am not concerned with anything else....

[PATina]

Thank you Mr. Lakoff for such a timely article. In my personal ccampaigning for Sen. Obama during the time up to the PA primaries... most people I talked to were concerned about those character traits you mention. I would try to discuss his policy issues... most people just wanted to know why they should trust him. I'd point hout Clinton's character flaws and ask if they could trust her. If he votes yes on FISA as he says he's going to... I can't even convince myself, let alone others, why they should trust him.

I guess we are so used to lying politicians we just choose the ones whose lies we like better.

[Sarahjan]

A quick read of Antonio Gramsci’s PrisonNotebooks can tell me great deal more about the specific tactical shifts Sen. Obama made since winning the nomination. Obama is working towards the forging of a winning coalition. Obama is a student of political Science and his shift to the center reflects more on his mastery of politics rather than reliance on cognitive science and evolutionary psychological theories.

[Marlyn]

"Obama is a student of political Science and his shift to the center reflects more on his mastery of politics" ???

Say what you will about his mastery, HE LOST ME with his shift to the right. How can he be the president who swears to uphold the Constitution, while at the same time advocating positions that violate the Constitution? for example by expanding Bush's unconstitutional faith-based initiatives?

[nomobull]

he never had you if you are buyingf sound bites from the clueless

[bigfro]

If he was a studend, then would realize that conventional wisdom doesn't work for a change candidate.

"If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. The Obama magic will be in danger of fading."

Being dishonst to fool republicans will simply remind republicans that dems (Like you) have no spine and no integrity and just read a political playbook like a robot