Jay Kuten: The politics of emotion

Jay Kuten

I came to my skepticism of political advertisement early in life. World War II ended shortly after my 10th birthday and I remembered the feelings of elation brought by that victory of the Allies. I remembered also the radio broadcasts and the newsreels and movies that pictured the bravery of our forces, and those of our allies, the British, and the Russians. I was not too young in 1942 to understand how badly the war was going for American forces in the Pacific and how the Soviets were holding off the Nazis at a faraway place called Stalingrad, keeping us from losing the war to the Axis.

After the glow of victory began to fade, within a year, we were suddenly given to understand that the "Russkies" embodied the new threat, and it was called "Godless communism". I couldn't make sense out of that sudden change, as it was happening through the same media, the radio, the newsreels, the movies that had depicted Russians as heroes.

It was many years before I could conclude, based on reading history, that the Soviet Union was deservedly reviled, but that sudden shift from friend to foe in late 1946 was like finding out that Santa Claus wasn't real. The result was a residual feeling that any government, even our own, may be self-serving in policies and pronouncements and that it is necessary to view the political rhetoric put forward with detachment separating emotion from official presentations in order to arrive at a critical analysis featuring reason.

That the design of political rhetoric in all its forms is intended to bypass reason and appeal directly if covertly to emotion is nowhere better illustrated than by the current US presidential campaign. Each political party convention tried to amplify the support of its nominee by ramping up their emotional appeal to their respective committed voters, and at the same time to entice to their standard bearer people from the large pool of voters who don't affiliate with any party.

I emphasise the major significance of appealing to emotion in that earlier election campaigns also generated emotional bases for voter's decisions, but those campaigns also had concomitant, distinct, policy-driven agendas, like ending a war or rebuilding an economy. This year's campaign is almost entirely about emotional appeal. And that is a problem for Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump is all about feelings and emotion and devoid of ideas. Yes, he offers proposals: "build a wall," "ban all Muslims," "deport 11 million illegal immigrants." These are not ideas but are instead metaphors embodying fantasies that his supporters recognise as unattainable. It's not the doing of them, not the literal solidity of a wall that is expected or demanded, but the feelings generated by the emotional weight of metaphor. The thought and especially the feelings behind the wall are sufficient in themselves.

When Trump supporters are asked/challenged regarding the unlikely coming to being of these wild proposals, they acknowledge the discrepancy between proposal and reality, but that doesn't erode support for Trump in that he is giving voice to the wishes they could only dream before Trump. He's making thoughts that civility demands us to suppress, respectable, and by extension those who hold such thoughts.

Hillary Clinton, by sharp contrast, is all ideas and very little passion. Yes, there is emotional attachment to her on the basis of gender, but identity politics only serve to emphasize the divisions between Americans. What previously successful presidential contenders offered was a vision of an American future buoyed by a sense of optimistic striving, engaging the emotional commitment of the citizens toward shared goals.

Trump wants to make America great again. That may mean little besides stamping his name but it engages people who used to feel "great" but no longer do. Clinton says we are stronger together, but those are just words unless and until she can generate a vision felt in common that makes people want to vote for her. Being a woman and not Trump may not be enough this year.

Jay Kuten is an American-trained forensic psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand for the fly fishing. He spent 40 years comforting the afflicted and intends to spend the rest afflicting the comfortable.