In an essay I published yesterday, I argued that The Issues---as important as they are to us---are not quite as important in a general election campaign as knowing how to respond to the all-out effort that will be made to assassinate your character.

Quoting an analytical tract I wrote back in 2004, I stressed the importance of understanding the 'Swing Voters' who determine the outcome of every general election. Today I want to focus on the method of communication that is needed in order for us to 'connect' with these people and win their votes.

The key thing to remember about the Swing Voters (and...well, all low-information voters, for that matter) is that they typically do not have the kind of education that is necessary in order for them to understand the issues in any depth.

What usually happens is they will first listen to a Democrat/Berniecrat explain the issues to them and find that they agree with what they heard. Then, the next day, they will listen to a knowledgeable-sounding Republican explain the same issue from their perspective and will find themselves agreeing with that person's criticism, as well.

They simply do not have any basis upon which to evaluate what they are hearing, which often sounds like 'mumbo-jumbo' to them. What these people rely on to help them decide on which person to vote for is their reading of the emotions that they are hearing expressed. They may not understand all the big words or the references that are being made, but they do understand emotion when they see it expressed.

This highlights an important fact re: their dispositions. They are looking/listening for something they feel they can trust. When they hear 'academic-sounding' explanations given by a candidate in a careful, sober tone, they automatically become suspicious of what they are hearing.

In contrast, when they hear a candidate express some emotion, they tend to assume that what they are hearing is spontaneous, and therefore inherently more worthy of their trust.

This, of course, explains much of the widespread perception that Bernie Sanders is uniquely authentic. It's an impression that is due almost entirely to his habit of expressing a lot of emotion when he explains the political landscape to his audiences.

It is indeed one of THE most important aspects of his fundamental appeal.

Unfortunately, the Swing Voters' reliance on displays of emotion makes them vulnerable to manipulation by clever politicians and cunning strategists who have learned which kinds of emotional performances work best .

It is really no mystery why every successful Republican office holder you see is quite practiced at expressing a lot of emotion from behind the mic, usually of the negative sort, which they use to 'define' their political opponents in media reports.

Anger, outrage, scorn, ridicule, mocking laughter...all of it deliberately intended to affect the perceptions of the Swing Voters out there who are trying to decide which party seems more threatening to them.
.

Group Identity Is Everything.

.
When an all-out effort by the Republicans to assassinate the character of a political opponent succeeds, it is essentially because they have set up a group identity choice in the Swing Voter's mind that favors them.

They are always asking the Swing Voter: Who do you want to identify with? Us "Good People?" Or those bad, stupid, corrupted, lying 'typical politicians' who hate America and want to make us vulnerable to our enemies?

This group identity element is of the utmost importance, for it is THE key to getting voters to select your party on all the down line choices.

You cannot win control of Congress without successfully defining the opposition party in the minds of the Swing Voters in a negative light.

A reformed Democratic Party (or any third party you can imagine) can only wrest control of the national government from The Oligarchy if its members are able to create an image of The Republican Politician in the minds of Swing Voters that they will not feel they can trust.

Here are some of the sections I wrote on this back in 2004:

Like it or not, the only way Democrats can win against the modern Republican Party is by defining them as a group that is [morally] defective and threatening. (When the Bad Guys do this, we can accurately describe it as "demonizing" your opponent.)

Swing Voters will vote for the Democrat if they end up with an image of The Republican Politician that they find threatening. Unlike the Republicans, [economic progressives] do not need to fabricate any Republican character flaws out of thin air in order to define them effectively. We simply need to point out the truth.

Our goal must be to define The Republican Politician as a shrewd, cunning, deceiving, manipulative, mean-spirited, Con-Artist who willfully and gleefully assassinates the character of any innocent victim who stands in his way. We need to describe them in this way with palpable emotion.

In terms of basic, overall strategy, Democrats need to constantly remind themselves that IT'S NOT THE ECONOMY, STUPID! IT'S THE IMAGE CAMPAIGN!

The Issues? Yes, they still matter. You and I know that they are THE most important thing at stake. But when it comes to winning an election that Swing Voters will ultimately decide, the economic agenda you are pushing must be presented in a way that ultimately serves to define---with strongly-felt emotion---the Republicans in the minds of the Swing Voters in a way that they find threatening to their well-being.

Any time a [Berniecrat] candidate speaks out on an issue like the economy, or the environment, or foreign policy, final comments should be made that refer to the Republican politician as a scheming manipulator, a threatening deceiver. We must make our logical points on the issues, but then we must always bring it back to the image of The Republicans that we are trying to establish, the scary image that reflects the truth of who they are.

From this perspective, we can see that Democrats have been showing far too much respect for Republican politicians. If Democratic nominees always show respect for their Republican opponents, on some intuitive level voters will wonder why. "Well, if they really believe that Republican ideas & actions are worthy of respect, then why are the Democrats even running against them? Could it be that Democrats are actually not very authentic people?"

Swing Voters who have been voting Republican recently have come to see the Republicans as deserving respect partly because of the respect that Democratic politicians have shown them. Of course, if you are meeting your opponent face-to-face at a debate, you will want to be courteous to show that you were "brought up right." But...you [must always] make it very clear—in moderate but detectable ways—that you do not respect your opponent because you do not respect her agenda or her methods.

Yes, show graciousness but feel condescension. Be sure that you intently communicate your fear of the damage that these people can do to America...It is important that we model the disrespect that Swing Voters should be showing & feeling for Republican politicians. Be superficially polite, but make sure that your fundamental lack of respect shows through. Show your disrespect more conspicuously whenever you have an opportunity to address The Audience directly.

Yes, it is true that Swing Voters are [understandably] turned off by a continuous exchange of angry charges and countercharges between the two parties, but the only other alternative for Democrats is to allow the Republicans to constantly savage them with impunity.

The emotions we need to emphasize to the Swing Voters?

Democrats need to understand the importance of showing Swing Voters that they fear Republican rule. The more apparent it is to Swing Voters that a lot of Americans are truly scared of George Bush & The Republicans, the more they’re going to wonder if maybe they should also be afraid of him. (Typically, [children] first learn to fear things they didn’t fear previously after seeing fear in the faces of others.)

Some Democrats might think it would be better for us to emphasize our anger, but we need to be aware of the ways that this can backfire. We do not want to be characterized as "Angry People" who are always angry [in a threatening sort of way]. Voters need to see that behind our anger is a real fear for the well-being of the American People and for America’s reputation around the world.

We should never be reluctant to show our fear of Bush, but we need to make it clear in our tone that our fear is appropriate and that our anger is controlled & justified.

[To understand why I make this point] think of the many times when the Republicans have accused Democrats of "hating America" or of "hating George Bush." They make this charge to evoke an image of people who are imagined to be inherently angry and who are therefore a threat to 'us normal people.'

Now think of how that image changes if---when we are accused of hating---we point out that people only hate that which they fear. Whenever we are accused of hating the Republicans, we need to keep repeating to the media that no, it is fear that we feel. It’s our best defense.

We want the Swing Voters to see us as people who fear the Republicans, but we also want them to see that we are also brave enough to take on the threat. Like the sergeant said to the private in the foxhole, "Everyone's afraid, son. But we can’t let that fear stop us. We still have a mission to carry out."

We are afraid and angry. We just know that we must oppose evil when we see it. Verbalize fear. Show courage.

Any doubts as to how the Republicans would try to depict Bernie as an Angry Radical?

One more bit on the use of fear and anger in a political campaign:

In the final weeks of the 2004 campaign, many Democrats complained that the Republicans were using fear tactics to win the election. It was kind of an odd criticism to be voicing, given that political campaigns have always been a contest between competing sets of fears throughout history.

[Keep in mind that] even when we are motivated by hope, the key emotion that inspires us to act with a sense of urgency is our fear of losing the thing we are hoping for. Indeed, people are optimally motivated to support a political campaign when they are inspired by fear of a lost opportunity.

Yes, fear is the one emotion that is strong enough to motivate people to go out and vote who have never voted before. (If your big thing is getting out the vote, keep this in mind.) The ultimate truth of political competition is that Swing Voters always choose a particular candidate or party because they fear the consequences of having the other candidate/party in office, the one they didn’t vote for.

The problem with fear is not that politicians use it to inspire voters; the problem is that some politicians create fears that are irrational or unjustified or exaggerated. When such fears are used to intentionally mislead citizens into voting against their own best interests, then the use of fear is unethical.

In contrast, if the fear that politicians inspire is legitimate—and their intention is to alert voters to a danger that they can protect themselves from—then the use of fear is virtuous. What Democrats need to understand clearly is that Swing Voters can be persuaded to fear either party. Right now, too many of them fear The Democrats more than they fear The Republicans.

They will return to their identification with the Democratic Party only after they have been persuaded that it is The Republicans whom they ought to fear, not the Democrats. It is the Republicans who are not like them, who are simply looking for yet another opportunity to play them for fools.