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

[stop7997]

I hope Obama's people read this.

[AlisonChaynz]

I couldn't agree more with Professor Lakoff. This is not only the kind of advice that Senator Obama needs to hear, it's the advice ALL Democrats need. His book should be mandatory reading for all Democratic strategists (who, I'm convinced, are some of the stupidest people on Earth).

[auntbaby]

I think Obama is reaching out to people especially the religious vote because Dems have not done this before. If you just concede that vote, you are like Bush and the black vote. "I'm note going to get it anyway, so why bother?" At least he is making an effort. He does share some values with them. If some can see the main issues that bond us all instead of just Gays and Abortion, then something can be accomplished. Maybe those on the left could try to see the common ground approach and look beyond just the differences. The left is like the war protesters who took the protests leading up to the war as a chance to throw in every single issue..we need to be focused and not worried about the smaller issues.

[tbone99]

He doesn't really have to pander to the religious right tho' because Mccain is not popular with them.
Many of them have switched on their own to anti -war, pro enviromental issues just based ion the last 8 yrs. he seems to be pandering just to pander.

[Titonwan]

He doesn't have to vote for this FISA bill that let's BUSH off either! Wonder why. (It's because it lets Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller off too).

[zuzuzpetals]

Thanks George.

Absolutely agree.

If you want a chilling read--look at Bob Shrum's book on the 2006 election in which he was a consultant for Kerry. The number of times he convinces Democratic candidates to override their "gut feelings" and move to the right is horrifying. For example--he got Edwards to go against his own "gut" and vote to support the Iraq war.

What is it about these Democratic candidates that is making them so lack courage--even the courage to follow their own gut?

[DrFitz]

Yes, Lakoff's latest book is excellent. He's getting better and better at explaining his ideas to those who don't have advanced degrees in psychology, cognitive science, or linguistics. Everyone should read the whole book. Shrum and his ilk have been giving Democrast HORRIBLE advice. It's absolutely critical to change the mindset of progressives in order to really change public understanding of issues and who they should relate to. Just hoping the Republican screw-ups are so severe won't cut it unless the case is made WHY their ideas have led to all the ways the country is off track.

[swoosie1]

It's called "money" and that is why...

[MegWe]

It would be helpful if everyone would go read Obama"s books. Have you? Honestly?
It might do eveyone some good to stop posting on HuffPo for while.

[Marlyn]

Why don't you, MegWe, go read George Lakoff's book? It might do you some good to stop posting on HuffPo for while.

[savethecountry]

And who says Obama isn't being true to his principles now? His opposition to the Supreme Court decision on the death penalty for child rapists is in his book "The Audacity of Hope," written before the primary season. His support of faith-based initiatives can be found throughout his years as a community organizer in Chicago. Regarding Iraq, his willingness to take into account the actual conditions there is completely consistent with who he is and has been throughout his public life. His position on FISA, while discouraging at first glance, positions him to pursue criminal prosecutions and is consistent with his approach to policy making.

I suspect that progressives, so starved for someone to carry the water for us, didn't do their due diligence in reading Obama's books and parsing his speeches. He's been completely consistent about his issue positions, not all of which I agree with. Also, I think some of us forgot about the core belief of Obama's campaign: that we the people can get involved and make OUR OWN LIVES better, including contacting our US House and Senate Members, who are in positions to make a difference, too. That would include joining groups that support our issue positions. Obama himself would say that change starts with the people, wouldn't he?

Obama ultimately shouldn't be a surrogate through which we can abdicate our personal responsibility to insist that government make the kinds of policy decisions that we want.

[elmoor]

Thank you, thank you~!!!!

[boing007]

savethecountry has a good point, but if Obama keeps tilting to the right and remains that way during his Presidency then it will be very difficult for all the progressive groups to pull him back to the center and beyond.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

A progressive would not be moving to the center, but would be pushing and pulling the center to progressive positions and views. Net take: Obama is the essential problem he claims he will fix, and thus is not the right kind of change for Democrats, nor for America.

[kudabux]

Obama has passed center. He is on his way to the right.

[AbbieXHoffman]

You just described how to win a popularity contest.

If you are saying that is what works in a presidential election, and you may be correct, that is sad and maybe we to consider having two leaders like the UK, one for policy (PM) and one as a figure head (Queen).

[DrFitz]

You're missing his point. He's saying it IS rational to focus on those things because it's impossible to predict how large a majority will back him in Congress and which of the specific issues he'll actually be able to get through. All those character issues help you judge whether the explicit issues are just pandering or are core. How things are prioritized, how a candidate will react to all the endless major world changes that will throw the best laid plans for a loop, etc.

[AbbieXHoffman]

I am not missing the point. I just disagree.

He is saying specifics aren't a good idea to campaign on, because it's difficult to keep on message when you get too granular and difficult to make promises. That works when the vote is for something as insignificant as a popularity contents.

In presidential elections, we are owed specifics. We deserve to judge candidates from the bottom up (from specifics up to the big picture ideas) as well as the top down and side ways. Escpecially when the candidate is so inexpereinced in leading anything we should be judging him on the specifics up to see what he is really made of. Had he been a govenor or around a lot longer than maybe he could get by on high flying rhetoric, but becuase he is so new and unproven--I want to know the specifics.

[bushtool]

Professor Lakoff,

You have missed the core reason Obama is moving to the right. The voters don't matter. How the media treats Obama is all that matters. If he convinces the people in power that he is one of them, then they will not sick big media on him and they might let him get elected. Otherwise they will ruin him and he won't be able to be elected dog-catcher.

You might want to reconsider your core assumption that the voters, rather than the media which is controlled by the existing people in power, are the one that determine our Presidents. And even if the media moguls somehow screw up, there is always the Supreme Court to make it right.

[DrFitz]

Well, that's an interesting point. But it seems to me the corporate media is likely to be stacked against progressive candidates until the groundwork has been laid making them realize these ideas now represent the mainstream. So they're likely to come out biased against Obama this cycle now that the spectacle of the Obama vs. Hillary primary is over no matter what. So making these moves to try to be acceptable to the talking heads and their bosses just gives them another way to criticize--to go after those character issues in a different way.

[Uselessboy]

The "mainstream" doesn't fund the media. The sponsors do.

Therefore the official political "center" is the consensus of the top end media sponsors.

The political center and the media have no relationship at all to the human residents.

[booksnmore4you]

Most odd is your assertion that, since one will certainly be attacked, then just hurl headlong along and "just be yourself".

I don't think you've been paying close enough attention to Obama. Andrew Sullivan says it better than I:

"He wants withdrawal from Iraq as prudently as possible. That this might take longer than sixteen months, even though that is the goal, is Bush's fault, not Obama's. Yes, he does want to expand access to private healthcare, engage Iran with more than bluster, raise taxes on the successful, pass immigration reform, end torture, and restore America's moral reputation in the world. And he intends to do it without acting like a rigid, purist ideologue, of the kind Krauthammer admires and of the kind that has driven us into a ditch in Iraq. His adjustments in the post-primary campaign take the hard edges off his clear policy positions, defuse some obvious weaknesses, move aggressively to the center ... and use his money advantage to win the thing. Er: he's a skilled politician. I know the Republicans are used to Democratic candidates being knocked about and defined and pummeled from the get-go. But Obama is different. Hadn't you noticed that yet?" (From http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/krauthammer-pan.html)

Also check:

Obama’s cunning capture of the centre ground
Slowly and subtly, Barack Obama is wiping out every reason to vote for McCain
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4275040.ece

[elmoor]

Didn't we want a President for ALL of us... not just the ones on the left or the right. We've got one in Obama... and we as Dems can get over our need for revenge and get on with the business of getting things done.

[walk0nwalls]

It's an easier move than trying to convince the country that the republicans are wrong and the conservative paradigm of the country has not helped the country.

I don't think he'd do it but a lot of us were hoping that he'd be the one to turn around the slowly shifting political needle of the country from right to left. Clearly this won't be the case.

*depressed*

[Zeje]

We were hoping for a leader -- not a follower

[tbone99]

Somehow I don't associate "cunning" with integrity- I

[booksnmore4you]

cunning: "Showing inventiveness and skill"

[AbbieXHoffman]

Good article but maybe Obama really believes what he is saying about these issues. I think he does.

Regardless, don't we deserve to know the specifics of how all his rhetoric will translate in actual policy as president? That is what he is doing FINALLY--giving us the specifics. You may not like all of them, but we deserve to hear them. He's going to have to do that in debates anyway. Better he lay it all out now rather then suprise us during a debate. If he waited for a debate, the media and the public would be so surprised that we would likely conclude that he lost the debate and that would hurt him more.

[RnR]

Maybe, but the problem I see is that the specifics he's giving us now, are not the same specifics he gave us before he became the ****presumptive**** nominee. There's still the convention.

[AbbieXHoffman]

I don't think he gave us any specifics and shame on the media for not pulling them out of him.

[Herrington]

Mr. Lakoff, you sir, and others, highly regarded in the public dialogue or not, have simply jumped to conclusions that are not evident except by the journalistic act of the assigning of motive to Obama. Having reviewed his stated reason for the various controversial actions taken on his part of the last few days, I see only a calculation to achieve what can be achieved in the present political environment. And if you are to be proved correct, not giving up, never compromising and never finding value in the opposition's solutions would have worked already. What is observable, irrefutable in fact, is that it has not.

I do agree that the American public does elect most substantially on the basis of ‘character’. What has transpired is that the Republicans have seized on a couple of nuanced deviations from what might strictly be called progressive issues to tar Obama as inauthentic. The weeks that preceded saw them accusing him of being too liberal. He will never be just right, either for the Republicans or for all the single issue left leaning marginal Nader supporters. What he is, is a man who tries to see the right thing and accomplish things when things can be accomplished.

In other words, the entire nation is over analyzing this last week. Take a breath and see what happens this week.

[RnR]

"What has transpired is that the Republicans have seized on a couple of nuanced deviations from what might strictly be called progressive issues to tar Obama as inauthentic. ..."

"nuanced deviations"???? That's a new one. I would offer that most of those posting here are more than a little upset by what is perceived as .... (well this isn't quite as literary as "nuanced deviations" )
a flat out sell out of we that he used to become the presumptive nominee. Rather crude, but to the point.

[Kalifornika]

Yes, most of you do sound misinformed and histrionic.

[Herrington]

Exactly, precisely, what was the sell out?

[BigBen]

When the knives were out for Hillary Obama fans did not rush to her defense so don't expect 18 million voters who supported Hillary to rush to Obama's defense when the knives are out.

[generationyes]

Jeezus Christ! When are you people going to quit your freakin' sulking?

[Kalifornika]

BigBen, actually some Obama fans and Obama himself did rush to Hillary's defense when the media and others made sexist comments or inappropriately made claims of racism.

It is funny that you would make this comment, because by making the comparison, you tacitly acknowledge that many of the attacks currently being made on Obama are illegitimate. You also seem to forget that knives were out for both Hillary and Obama during the primaries.

By saying you will sit on the sidelines because you are mad at Obama's fans, you are engaging in the same misconduct for which you apparently blame all of Obama's supporters. I think it is curious to base your conduct with respect to this critical presidential election on your reaction to some of Obama's supporters, rather than the candidate himself.

I can only tell you that if Hillary Clinton had won the primary, then I would be doing all I could to support her. And I certainly would not put up with this type of crap.

[Titonwan]

A very good article! I can't vote for Obama if this FISA bill passes. He's lying about why he supports it now. He said in Febuary that the old FISA works fine. He said it while standing right alongside of Chris Dodd. My eyes and ears work perfectly fine. Now he is supporting this Constitutional nightmare that strips all Civil suits (which will help send Bush, Pelosi, Reid and Rockefeller to jail) and gives immunity to giant telco corporations simply because they have more money than GOD. Red, blue, purple, green, it makes no difference to me anymore. The DLC is as crooked as the GOP. When Democrats choose to sacrifice freedom for security, that's the last straw. Barack has made the most stupidest choice possible on this. Stomped on our 4th Amendment and covered for not only Bush, but the leaders of the "Democratic" party. And has done it under all the sheeple's noses. Just like Bush. I am a patriot. I see what I see, not what you TELL me to see.

[generationyes]

I truly think you are wrong about what Obama is doing. But you're entitled. It's OK if you don't vote for him. We don't need you to win.

[Titonwan]

Keep saying that over and over. Click you shoes together while you say it.

[Zeje]

Apparently the Democrats don't need the Democratic base to win -- they need the right-wingers to win. Let's see if it happens

[lafrance]

George, you and the rest who keep wringing your hands and whine about this supposed move to the right or center by Obama. In reality much of what is being accused of Obama moving to the center is in fact stuff he has been saying all along. Google or youtube any town hall or speeches on certain issues and you find Obama has not changed his positions.
But, the media has manipulated you and others to believe it in their attempt to gin up controversy. You have been played by the media royally. And they will continue to take positions of Obama and try to convince you that he has flipped and turned to the center. As long as you allow youself to be mind controlled by the media for their entertainment, they will continue to alarm you over things that in truth are nothing.
Wake up and think.

[doug108]

Interesting take. I have felt my enthusiasm for Obama wane in the last couple of weeks, mainly because my trust in him has declined. I'm not voting for anyone but Obama this fall, but I don't feel as confident in him as an agent of change as I did before.

[cheforacle]

I have been a big time supporter and done work for the campaign but I am with you on this doug 108. Not because of his positions on public financing (I agree with him on his opt-out) or his opposition to partial birth abortions for the mental health of the mother (a particular exception I frankly never knew existed) or for his faith-based initiative stance (I'm prepared to cut him some slack as long as, when President, he does not violate church-state separation) but because of his decision to support the compromise FISA. He violated a basic principle which I firmly believed he would hold fast to. His support for this frankly pathetic bill has deflated my enormous enthusiasm for his candidacy and has left me questioning the sincerity and credibility of everything that comes out of his mouth. And this after months of defendin him and exuberantly supporting his campaign. I have never agreed with him on all of the issues and never expected to. But I thought his well-established position on FISA and telecom immunity was reflective of a core belief in the Fourth Amendment. Now it is hard not to conclude there is nothing that is uncompromisable (and I support his political expediency on other realms because getting elected is vital) with him. My disappointment is huge and none of his other "rightward tacks" have caused me to feel this way at all.

[peaceplez]

I agree with you too Doug. I gave him slack for a few of his nuanced backpedalings but the accumulation of them culminating in his wafling on FISA and his wanting to increase the size of our military makes me wish that he would seriously consider George Lakoff's words here as well as Arianna's wonderful essay the other day. I'm sad.