Emotions

[Az]

Dean was shot down because he got emotional. The right seems to have a monopoly on emotions. If any on the left get emotional about something we are immediately targetted and shot down. And the worst part is its not just by the right. Our own people tsk tsk us and tell us we should be more reserved.

Emotions are what sway people. In the end it is what moves politics. If something does not emotionally resonate with a person it is likely they will reject it. If they accept it in general then they will become more enthisiastic about it if someone can present a strong emotional support of it. This is simply how our minds work.

But the right has forced us into cautious emotionless presentations of our positions. They have denied us the single greatest tool in political rhetoric. We have to take this back. We have to embrace our passions and enthusiasm for our positions or we will never sway the fence sitters.

People want to believe in others. They want to feel and see confidence. This is what the right has learned to present. A compassionate front. The image of someone that seems to really stand for something. Even if in the end they are two faced the perosona the present is enough to sway people.

Howard Dean shouted out in excitement and everyone fled from him. Think how things would have been different if instead we had shouted with him. What if that shout had become a real battle cry. What if it had been used as a rallying cry to lead the charge and turn back the rights advances. Instead we fled. We abandoned him. All because he showed passion.

[lukasahero]

1. Emotions = women

women still = less than

The right doesn't have a monopoly on emotions, they denigrate it - and us for it.

I'm really starting to hate living in this world.

[Az]

2. They don't denigrate it

They foster it. Its just most of the emotions they appeal to are fear and hate. We appeal to emotions of hope and community. But they would deny us these tools.

[kwassa]

3. I think the criticism of Dean shouting is a false one

but the larger issue is that he came across as a perpetually angry man, in my opinion, that served as a lightning rod for Democratic opposition. This was a great and important functional purpose.

However, he did not come across as a judicious statesman. We want thoughtful leaders, or at least ones who appear thoughtful, and not governed by emotions.

[Az]

4. Reason and emotions are not exclusionary

Yes we want to have leaders that think things through. But the people also want someone that has confidence in the things they have thought through. Emotions convey such things. Look what they did to Gore. As soon as he started showing emotions they reversed the boring stiff image and started calling him unhinged.

[kwassa]

6. It is not that emotions are used, but are they appropriate ...

to the situation at hand, and the scale of what is being addressed.

This is part of the gift of a great political speaker. Clinton had this gift. Gore is highly intelligent, but doesn't have skills that are that good.

Bush actually has this folksy, macho shtick that many people buy as being real. To me, it is just a hollow act, but many Repubs see it as sincere, and an echo of an old Western archtype, even if Bush is really a product of Washington and New England.

[Az]

7. True there is an art to it

But we are being cut off from access to this art. Any sign of emotion and we are dragged before the court as irrational ideologues. And yet the right gets to wallow in emotional appeals all day long.

[kwassa]

8. The right flings lots of mud, but it doesn't have to stick

A great case in point is Kerry's so-called flipflopping. If he had responded immediately to that charge when it first appeaared, and responded directly and forcefully, it never would have taken hold. These outlandish notions create their own "reality" if they are not opposed in clear, reasonable language. Fight soundbite with soundbite.

What the Repubs do do well is to create that soundbite message and stick to it, which engraves it in the public imagination.

[Az]

9. Which is why cultivating the art of emotion would pay off

Being able to incorporate emotional power into our dialog would go a long way to heading off such claims. If there is an emotional center that people can relate to then claims of flip flopping would bounce off like water on a duck.

[kwassa]

10. I think we just need a leader with the skills, which we don't have

I also think we need to step up and re-claim the moral values arguments, because Democrats are moral people. It is not a subject Democrats talk much about, because of the distaste of imposing ones views upon another, but without speaking up for it, the ground is lost.

It is not unlike the word "Christian" which has been stolen by the most extremely conservative part of the Christian world in the media usage of the word. The implication is, of course, that others who do not share their views are not Christian.

[stillcool]

5. The right gathers fodder for its attack machine...

anywhere they can find it. 'Deans Scream', Gore's 'Inventing the internet'John McCains baby, Maz Clealands comparison with terrorists, etc.,etc.,etc., The problem with all these assertions is people pick it up and start repeating it without question. They hear the info-mercial on the news and kick it down the road, and it then needs to be proven false to them. As long as we have members battling the constant garbage manufactured by the right, the more obscured the real battle becomes, and we will always arrive long after the horse has left the barn.

[flobee1kenobi]

11. Re:he did not come across as a judicious statesman

I agree
but how did Gore and Kerry lose when they did??
The right just saw a minor mistake and exploited it, making it bigger, something the left failed to do.

And believe me, there was oprotunity!

[stillcool]

12. How could Gore and Kerry not?

If third, fourth, and fifth parties are spouting gibberish making the news 24/7, and the truth is nowhere to be seen. How else have we arrived where we are? I don't know who you refer to as not 'coming across' as a 'judicious statesman'?