|
I just read the introduction. I think use Journey instead of Hope.Hope is something feel sad. I thought "Journey" is more like positive thinking and action.
The 2008 election may be the herald of a Democratic revival; but only if Democrats heed what Westen has to say in this book, and don't lapse back into their old, counterproductive habits. The ideas that Drew Westen presents in this book are very similar to those of cognitive linguist George Lakoff (though I like Westen's approach better than Lakoff's).
It was originally published more than a year before the 2008 election; and Obama is only mentioned a few times in passing (except in the postscript to the paperback edition, which does discuss his campaign). This isn't a book about Barack Obama.
This is a book about why Democrats have had such a hard time winning elections in recent decades, and what they're going to have to do if they want to start winning again. But it's fair to say that Barack Obama won largely because he, and the people who ran his campaign, had a pretty good grasp of the principles of political psychology discussed in this book.
Written by a clinical psychologist, this book explains how people make political decisions -- such as who to vote for -- and how politicians can influence those decisions. A number of Democrats, including Obama, are listening to what Westen has to say; and are putting his advice to good use.
If you're interested in political psychology, political communication, or political strategy, I highly recommend this book.
This is a very narrow book. Surely there's more out there than this. Doh.
Instead, it's really just one more partisan take on the world of late 20th and early 21st century American politics. There is very little discussion of research beyond a study here and a study there (including the author's own). I got it thinking it would lend some real light on what makes one person a conservative and another a liberal, what personality traits might make one person favor one party over another, what neuroses and what healthy traits might be at play when voters pull certain levers.
I guess you have to be a Democratic strategist for this last bit to be really anything more than a no-brainer. In particular, the author seems really only interested in how the Democrats can do better by borrowing a page from the Republicans' playbook - in particular, in using emotion in political advertising.There's very little here that is really of any interest beyond such a narrow partisan agenda. The author's typical strategy is to hammer away at some very basic construct from cognitive psychology (neural networks, say), discuss some ad (typically in a rhetorical, not a psychological, fashion), then state - once again - that emotion plays a role in politics.
I thought for sure that a psychology professor at a fine institution such as Emory might have quite a bit to say. This is, however, very much a political book, not a psychological one.
However, each has its own rather subtle flaws. And while the author's analysis in this area does indeed track well with the seminal work in this area of Daniel Goldman (in both his "Emotional Intelligence" and his "Primal Leadership") as well as that of Michael S. An accurate summary of their very restrained approach could be paraphrased as: "Brain scans can indeed show that something is going on among the neurons that doesn't happen at other times, but there is no way to know exactly what that something is. To their credit, Newberg was very modest and restrained in the claims he made about the mapping between feelings and beliefs based on brain states -- and indeed in what that might all mean to an individual's belief in God. And thus, what may have been sage advice today may be entirely irrelevant advice even a few months later -- as the election of Barack Obama so aptly demonstrates: Apparently, some of Westen's so called "emotional racist elements" evidently had to find it within their hearts, and within their emotional power to vote for Obama overriding and trumping their emotional anti- minority ideological posture. But also, if one takes into account the larger tectonic forces that tend to move the American electorate, then this advice is trivially true and obvious.
And here, by tectonic forces I mean economic issues, issues of America's role on the international scene, and issues of general fairness. However, as anyone who has studied the American political mind, or the political process, know all too well, both are ever evolving dynamic and organic systems. This book contains many layers of analysis, all of which are connected to the methodological machinery of recent brain research; and all of which are imminently plausible in the context of contemporary American politics. I was disappointed not to see this large and important body of literature even mentioned in the author's analysis. For once an emotional valence is attached to the political process that attachment then becomes a self-fulfilling part of the political narrative itself.At the second level of analysis: of voter decision making based on interrogation of brain cells via "implanted electrodes." This is at the very least tricky, "cutting edge" and "risky" scientific -- not to mention political business. Gazzaniga's "The Social Brain," the research here is not done nearly as carefully as that performed by say, Andrew Newberg, et al in their "Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief." (See my Amazon review).In that book, the reader may recall that those authors performed a similar analysis: interrogating subjects about their beliefs as electrodes were inserted into their brains. I tried unsuccessfully to connect to the website with his larger bibliography and set of references.Despite these concerns, this author has hit a rich mother lode and is pushing forward, with or without relying on his academic bone fides.
Obama to have achieved a 56% mandate to rule, he had to have had at least a sizeable chunk of that faction's vote. At the first level of analysis, the Machiavellian like advice given to democrats: that they must move away from taking "the intellectual high road" and move to a more "gut level emotional approach" to politics if they are to ever expect to reach the "Guns, God and anti-gay" (or Sarah Pallin) faction of the American electorate, is on its face not just reasonable but entirely sage advice. Suffice it to say that it is incumbent upon the researcher to make clear what it is that "electrode interrogation" is measuring and more important, what it is capable of measuring. For it is a given that in order for Mr. For my money, if "emotional politics" are to be used as a basis for electoral analysis," I prefer the more indirect approach of Dick Morris perfected through his "triangulation process, a process put to such excellent effect by "Team Clinton." The Morris approach, took implicit advantage of the dynamic qualities of the American political mind (and process) without having to characterize it either positively or negatively. Not only has Westen not done this, his research in this area has such a paucity of citations, one wonders whether or not he is working entirely alone and in the dark.Finally, this approach, of "tracking" the discrepancies and contradictions in the decision making and emotional judgments of individuals, has a rich and well-known pedigree in the literature on "Cognitive Dissonance," invented by Leon Festinger (in his Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook) and made famous by Shel Feldman (in his Cognitive Consistency). Five Stars for sheer intellectual guts.
The author is a clinical and neuropsychologist at Emory University who presents both research and savy political anecdotes in support of his view that Democratic candidates have failed to understand and use emotion in their campaigns for office. It is an account of relevant psychological and neuropsychological research and a history and analysis of failed Democratic campaigns (most notably Gore and Kerry) with recommendations future candidates.
|
