Do you base your political vote on emotion? Share your questions with Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

The book sounds extremely interesting.

Is there a connection between polical thought and cognitive dissonance - the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time? Are Republican strategists better able to exploit this phenomenon than their Democratic counterparts? In other words, do the messages sent out to Republican voters allow what is warm and fuzzy to override what is disturbing, thus allowing Republican voters to continue feeling comfortable, perhaps unaware of their own negative feelings toward the candidates of their party?

I've not read your book, but will, as I am interested in both politics and brain science. As a minister in a local church, I am well aware that emotions drive almost all decisions. I read a quote from a 1941 essay by George Orwell and I'd be interested in your comments on it. More specifically, what other emotions would you add to his very short list? Do liberal intellectuals and conservative intellectuals treat emotions differently or similarly?

Here's the quote: "The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions -- racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war -- which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselvs as to have lost all power of action."

Thanks.

Great to see some questions already - Drew is on the air NOW (Minnesota Public Radio Midmorning) but look for answers later today...

I've done some reading about cognitive science (Mithen, Pinker, Cosmides/ Tooby), and as a result, I've come to think of the 'progressive' and 'conservative' mindsets as competing cognitive modules for self-preservation.

I'm wondering if your research has included any look into cognitive modularity, and if you have any opinion on how it relates to political mindsets.

No Julia!

I base my vote on rational thought and vote for the person that would fit my ideals most. I also vote most times for that person who also has a chance to win. Sometimes that person is miles away from what I stand for, like when I voted for Nader even tho he had no chance to win, and Kerry who might have won, and did win in Minnesota where I live.

As you know I am a republican and those two votes were easy for me as I found George W. Bush to be incompetent, as Bush had failed at every job he ever held.

Does the gut/intuitions/emotions serve the public in any positive ways? For instance, when Michael Chertoff revealed that his gut feeling was that Al Qaeda was readying for another attack - did it serve to wake people up or did it cause more harm than good?

I wonder if he has ever read the first chapter of Ann Coulter's book "How to talk to a liberal"? Yes folks, that Ann Coulter. The first chapter of that book is essential to any conservative who wants to discuss issues with liberals and to any liberal who wants to win real debates. Throw the rest of the book out, it's just a re-hash of old articles. Get it from the library, OMG, don't even buy it!

But read the first chapter. It covers the emotional aspects of both conservatives and liberals. A must read for anyone who wants to win political debate, whether at the water cooler at work, at the barstool of their favorite pub, a fancy dinner party, or in the stands at their kids baseball games.

I will read this guy's book.

Orwell? Do they read his works in the public high schools these days? Or does it hit too close to home?

I would love to have "1984" or "Animal Farm" as part of the St.Paul's book of the year deal.

I used to base my vote on which party seemed like it was the lesser evil, that didn't doi anything but prolong evil. Last election I switched up and decided maybe the correction necessarry was to vote for the greater evil in an effort to demonstrate that both parties are the same evil, only the beneficiaries of that evil change, Again, nothing though the evil won for the most part.

Now I think the only way to successfully and as quickly as possible end the dominance of american society by regal crown party corprointerests is to vote for whatever candidate offers that choice in the fastest manner possible, be it intentional action or certain untended but clearly visible misaction on their part. So far the Republicans seem the greatest hope though with brillancies like their stand on destroying the value of american labor with illegal labor domestically, the Democrats are closing fast.

God help us all if we don't see the need for genuine progressive change for we are regularly being rewarded with no points for the status quo same old same old.

Glad to see so many good questions and comments - I'll be posting Drew Westen's replies here in line in good time. Check back! Don't hesitate to ask more questions or join in the discussion!

BTW - if you missed the live radio, you can hear the audio archive here.

Thanks to everyone who asked questions so far! Mr. Westen and I have been in contact, and I'll share his replies here in line:

M M wrote:

The book sounds extremely interesting.
Is there a connection between polical thought and cognitive dissonance - the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time? Are Republican strategists better able to exploit this phenomenon than their Democratic counterparts? In other words, do the messages sent out to Republican voters allow what is warm and fuzzy to override what is disturbing, thus allowing Republican voters to continue feeling comfortable, perhaps unaware of their own negative feelings toward the candidates of their party?

Drew Westen replied:

I think you're definitely on to something. Democrats generally do a poor job of making people aware of what would be dissonant to them in Republican positions because they're too afraid of offending someone somewhere. The Republican Party platform of 2004, just like the expressed position of most Republicans in the House and Senate, is that life begins at conception, no ifs, ands, or buts. What's another way to describe that? It's a rapists' bill of rights, that gives every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child and puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims. Combined with parental notification (which Republicans all support), it means that an incest victim, if allowed at all to abort a child forced on her by her father or adoptive step-father, has to get his permission for an abortion. Those are immoral positions. Democrats should call them that, and let people decide if that's what they really believe. And they should make clear that Republicans oppose the right of couples who need in vitro fertilization to the have the experience most of us are lucky enough to have without medical intervention of giving birth to their own biological child. Why? Because in vitro wastes embryos, which are souls. Republicans are putting their moral abstraction—an interpretation of Scripture that is not shared by most Americans—over the desire of living, breathing, caring human beings to have a child—and doing it by imposing their religious faith on others through the Big Government. If Democrats would talk like that, we'd have a different Supreme Court—and conservatives would be on the defensive on abortion in every part of the country.

Thanks for soliciting Mr. Westen's answers, Julia. He makes an important about the waste of embryos due to in vitro fertilization. A true Pro-Lifer would be 100% against in vitro fertilization for this very reason.

When morals are selective, they have no validity.

I'll be sure to pass along your feedback, Diana.

Here is the first of today's replies:

Jim Peck wrote:

I've not read your book, but will, as I am interested in both politics and brain science. As a minister in a local church, I am well aware that emotions drive almost all decisions. I read a quote from a 1941 essay by George Orwell and I'd be interested in your comments on it. More specifically, what other emotions would you add to his very short list? Do liberal intellectuals and conservative intellectuals treat emotions differently or similarly?
Here's the quote: "The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions -- racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war -- which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselvs as to have lost all power of action."
Thanks.

Drew Westen replied:

Jim, I think Orwell was right, and that liberal intellectuals all too often think that they are rational and that that's what makes them better than the average person. They forget that Heidegger was a brilliant philosopher who sided with the Nazis, while many people of far lesser intellectual means, including many who would probably be in your flock, risked their lives and the lives of their kids to hide Jewish families. Sometimes that reflected high-level moral reasoning, but most of the time those who saved people during the Nazi years said they did it because what was happening just wasn't right, or they were taught that we're all children of God. It was highly irrational to hide Jews under Hitler, if you think self-interest is rational, because you and your children could die for it.

But yes, I would add to the list of emotions, and there's some great work by a moral psychologist named John Haidt at the University of Virginia on the different moral emotions often experienced by liberals and conservatives (although of course there's a lot of overlap). I would add, for example, empathy and compassion to the list, as well as love of peace—emotional values that I suspect are at the heart of your faith. Democrats have done a poor job of summoning the better angels of Independent voters—and particularly of moderate and evangelical Christians—by allowing the extreme right to drape hate-based initiatives in the language of sanctity. I'd encourage voters whose faith is important to them always to ask, when they're getting riled up about an issue like immigration or gays—whether they are responding primarily with love and compassion or hate and contempt. If it' the latter, they need to consult their values and their Bible and to introspect on why they're feeling what they're feeling—and not allow themselves to rationalize away feelings that may they wish they didn't have but can easily drive all of our behavior when we're not looking.

Marty G. wrote:

I've done some reading about cognitive science (Mithen, Pinker, Cosmides/ Tooby), and as a result, I've come to think of the 'progressive' and 'conservative' mindsets as competing cognitive modules for self-preservation.
I'm wondering if your research has included any look into cognitive modularity, and if you have any opinion on how it relates to political mindsets.

Drew Westen actually addressed this onair! Catch the audio archive here.

Hello - and more from Drew today.

Richard B. wrote:

No Julia!
I base my vote on rational thought and vote for the person that would fit my ideals most. I also vote most times for that person who also has a chance to win. Sometimes that person is miles away from what I stand for, like when I voted for Nader even tho he had no chance to win, and Kerry who might have won, and did win in Minnesota where I live. As you know I am a republican and those two votes were easy for me as I found George W. Bush to be incompetent, as Bush had failed at every job he ever held.

Drew Westen replied:

I wish more American voters would think about competence. On the competence issue, I think from your description you were in fact voting rationally. I talk in my book about how to appeal to voters, when a candidate like Bush is running, on competence issues, when many voters feel put down if you say that someone who is working hard to talk and sound like them is incompetent or not smart enough to lead. But if you're voting for the person who fits your ideals, you're doing exactly what the data show that most people do—and exactly what I suggest politicians should think about as they frame campaign appeals—and it's only partly rataional. Voting for the person who fits your ideals is a rational means to your ends—having your values expressed in your government—but your ideals are not rational. If you're not poor (which I presume you're not, if you can write an email so quickly after a show), why do you care (if you do) that others are? If you care about what happens to the earth we leave our children, why? You won't be here to see it. If you care about abortion one way or the other, why? Perhaps you've studied the scientific evidence and come to conclusions about when a fetus becomes a person. But I doubt it.

But you are unusual in that you voted across party lines because of your feelings and beliefs about a candidate, based on data. Only about 20% of people tend to do that in an election. We need more people like you who, through whatever combination of reason and passion, come to a conclusion that runs against the one our brain naturally gravitates toward, which usually leads us to twist the data until they fit what we want to believe about our party's candidates. You should run for office. And I say that as a Democrat—who believes that reason and passion both have an important place at the political table!

In your book you suggest that the Republican message is different in that it relies on word associations and subliminal images.
In an article I published in Covert Action (March 1982) it reads:"The combined effect of word associations(derived from the semantic differential)with subliminal imbeds is so strong that it displaces any other message".
The article was titled "CIA Media Operations in Chile,Jamaica,and Nicaragua" and was the product of 12 years of research in the field.My interpretation of your research would be that we have the established covert propaganda methods used by CIA abroad finding application in domestic politics.