With the Iowa caucus less than a day away, much of the debate amongst some of the candidates and pundits continues to focus on the issue of experience. This is misplaced.
It will not be the experience of a candidate that propels him or her into the presidency; it will be the emotion of the voter that decides who becomes the next president. New studies of the brain by neuroscientists and psychiatrists prove that emotions trump logic.
Experts and experienced practitioners in the political process, including, Dr. Frank Luntz, best-selling author of Words That Work and the architect of the "Contract with America" that swept the Republicans into the majority in the Congress in 1994, and Dr. Drew Westen, author of, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, which has become the new bible for Democrats, have concluded that the voters with the greatest power to impact the general election will ultimately cast their ballot on the answers to emotional tests that candidates cannot answer with policy statements or biographical achievements.
From our analysis of previous elections, conversations with experts and our own political experience, there are three major tests:
The first test is the likeability factor. Who would you rather sit down and drink a cold beer with during the already overheated 2008 Presidential election campaign? Not a martini or champagne, just an ice-cold beer. In 2004, most voters believed that Senator Kerry's drink of choice was too expensive for the average American to afford. Even though voters knew Bush did not drink anymore, they assumed he preferred Bud to Brandy. Given the opportunity, most voters felt they would enjoy a Bud with Bush more than a Courvoisier with Kerry.
The second is trust. Who would you trust to stand between your child and an attacker? Or, whom would you choose to go down into the basement at 3am to investigate strange noises? In 1980, in the midst of the Cold War and upheaval in the Mideast, a man who made training films for the U.S. Army during WWII, Ronald Reagan, trounced a former naval officer who commanded nuclear submarines, Jimmy Carter. Three years after 9/11, a man who had a no show record in the Texas National Guard, George Bush, defeated a wounded war hero who had killed people in defense of America, John Kerry.
Vision is the third test. Whose future do you want to live in? Every President elected since at least 1980 has had a positive vision for the future that voters felt. Reagan made us feel "It's Morning Again in America." Clinton challenged us with "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow." George W. declared, "Yes, America Can!" People vote for those candidates who give them something to feel and believe in. This is now more important than ever before because for the first time in America's history, more Americans believe that the quality of life for the next generation will be worse than it was for them. They will vote for the candidate who convinces them that the future can be better than the present.
The role of emotion in our country's politics and within our institutions is clear. One need only look to our legal system where virtually every legal jurisdiction recognizes emotion as a defense for either the degree of murder or murder itself. Emotion can overwhelm logic and rational behavior.
Of course, what happens in some of the upcoming nominating contests will be driven partially by local political demographics. But what happens on November 4, 2008 will be the result of voter's emotional connection to the candidate. All the debates, admonishments from pundits, and protests from the candidates themselves about their opponents' lack of experience or position on a particular issue, will have little influence on the outcome.
Republicans learned this far more quickly than Democrats. Now scientists are confirming what we are seeing unfold in our democratic process. As Westen proved, "elections are won or lost in the marketplace of emotions."
So what is increasingly clear in this election is that it will be the candidate who makes us feel, not think, who will be sipping champagne in the White House at 5PM on January 20, 2009.
Michael Maslansky is President of Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research, a corporate and public affairs market research firm that has conducted extensive research to understand the drivers of voter behavior. Michael has been a consultant to several Republican and independent presidential campaigns.
Peter V. Emerson is President of Emerson Associates International, a company providing political and communications strategies to political parties, governments, corporations and NGOs. Peter has been involved in Democratic presidential campaigns for three decades.
Loading comments…
Posted January 2, 2008 | 10:46 AM (EST)