When Facts Are Not Enough: Treating Mass Psychosis

From AlterNet:

One of the biggest, long-lasting delusions of progressives is that people are moved mainly by rational arguments. Consequently, to get people to accept a particular policy such as universal health care, all one needs to do is to present strong and persuasive arguments in favor of it.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As George Lakoff and many others have pointed out, conservatives are highly effective in getting their views across and their policies adopted not just because they control major media outlooks and think tanks, but because they have powerful narratives that appeal directly to gut emotions. Until progressives not only have a better understanding of how emotions fundamentally shape political issues, but also incorporate them into their appeals, they will continue to lose the hearts and minds of the wider populace.

And

In abandoning the soaring thought and passion of his campaign for compromise, President Obama has not only lost the enthusiasm of his supporters, but far worse, he has lost the moral authority that is necessary to stand up to mass psychosis.

More here.

Okay, good essay, emphasizing some ideas I've been attracted to for some years now: people are more emotional than they are logical, and strong, passionate narratives are absolutely vital in order to effect political change. And the right is much better at this than the left is. The essay goes on to call the Tea Party point of view a "mass psychosis" which simply cannot be combated with reasonable debate. So far, so good. I totally agree.

But then it gets to the conclusion, which is...problematic...to say the least. I mean, I think it's good to observe that the kind of language Obama used on the campaign trail is in the same ballpark as what the essay author is calling for. But, and it is very important to remember this, in hindsight, Obama's rhetoric was by and large without substance. Actually, you don't even need the 20/20 vision hindsight provides to have known this at the time: the then candidate was pretty clear about his views on his web site. "Getting out of Iraq" meant not getting out of Iraq; "change" meant keeping things pretty much the same; "hope" meant, well, I'm still not sure what it meant, probably because it didn't mean anything in the first place.

But that's the point. It just isn't reasonable to say that Obama "abandon[ed] the soaring thought and passion of his campaign for compromise" because he never planned on living up to the standard liberals projected onto him. That is, the vagueness of his soaring rhetoric was intentional from the get-go. The groovy good vibe talk was all about establishing a brand that would be appealing to progressives, getting them to vote for a conservative pro-corporate Democrat by allowing them to see something in him that just wasn't there. In other words, Obama hoodwinked the left. I mean, to be fair, liberals were willing victims, but that doesn't change the essential dynamic: Obama's lofty speeches were always bullshit.

The President didn't abandon anything. The soaring rhetoric was always a diversion. Just a cynical maneuver aimed at getting liberal votes. Obama the right-leaning corporate errand-runner compromiser is the real guy. That is, Obama's liberal supporters should never have been enthusiastic in the first place, just as Obama never had and never will have the "moral authority" to effect true political change in this country.

So yeah, the left really does need to start figuring out how to base its ideology in sweeping emotional narratives or we're doomed to obscurity. But Obama's not the guy to do it. And he never was.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$