How Political Psychology Explains Bush's Ghastly Success.

[laststeamtrain]

How Political Psychology Explains Bush's Ghastly Success.
Death Grip
by John B. Judis

<snip>


Soon after the 2004 election, the mood in the country began to shift. Reminders of September 11 lingered, but they were increasingly displaced by worries over the Iraq war and anger over the growing scandals within the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Bush's incompetence in responding to Katrina tarnished his image as a father-protector. Says Solomon, "Bush became less of a useful object to unload non-conscious anxieties about death."

One explanation for what happened psychologically can be drawn from experiments that Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski conducted in the mid-'90s. These showed that there were conditions under which the mortality exercises had a reduced impact. One such situation occurred when the experimenter repeatedly told the subjects to make a "careful" response to the questions rather than a "gut-level" or "natural" or "first" response. In those cases where the experimenter urged care and deliberation, the psychologists concluded, subjects acted on a "rational" basis that reduced the influence of unconscious anxieties.

Something like that might have happened after the 2004 election, as voters, forced to weigh other concerns--Iraq, Katrina, the Abramoff scandals--subjected reminders of September 11 to greater thought and skepticism. These associations made Bush "less of a useful object." It could also be that active memories of September 11 have begun to fade for many Americans--just as memories of Pearl Harbor did for an earlier generation--reducing the effect that these memories have on unconscious fears. The reduction of mortality salience is evident not just in growing public dissatisfaction with Bush, but in reduced support for conservative social causes. The average annual percentage of those believing abortion should be illegal dropped from 19 percent in 2004 to 15 percent in 2006, and the percentage believing it should be legal "under any circumstances" rose from 24 to 30 percent. The postSeptember 11 outburst of religiosity also began to abate, particularly among the young. These changes in public sentiment, which reflected the diminished psychological impact of September 11, help explain the Democratic triumph of 2006.

Of course, there are still voters within the Republican electorate whose hearts beat to the rhythms of September 11 and who are still engaged in a passionate defense of their worldview. They continue to identify the war in Iraq with the war on terror; they worry about illegal aliens and terrorists crossing the border; some even judge the growing public opposition to Bush as further confirmation of his role as protector. These voters appear particularly attracted to Rudy Giuliani, whose entire campaign is based upon reminding voters of September 11. And, if Giuliani is the Republican nominee in 2008, the election may pivot on his ability to use reminders of September 11 to provoke the public into another massive bout of worldview defense.

But, right now, it doesn't look promising for any candidate who hopes to follow Bush's 2004 script. The voters of 2008, including those in Martinsburg, will probably be buffeted by competing emotions about Iraq and the war on terrorism, and therefore less inclined to base their decisions on gay marriage. Barring another assault on American soil, the moment of September 11--and the reminder of mortality that it brought--may well have passed. And with it, too, the ascendancy of politicians who exploited the fear of death that lies within us all.

<more>

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707
*

Fascinating article that was discussed on Rachel Maddow's show today (8/31).

[sandnsea]

1. Or, the media began telling the truth

Nah, it couldn't be anything that friggin' obvious. :eyes:

[Skittles]

6. or

things became so friggin' obvious even morons could not fail to see what was going on

[EST]

2. Thank you for posting this.

Even though it is old territory, I am not familiar with this body of work and look forward to some satisfying digging.

I like to characterize the reactions that people have, the fact that any attack on the "rightness" of one's evidence for anything is perceived as an attack on survival.
We learned (perhaps) as creatures of prey, gifted with a prefrontal cortex, that any wrong decision was tantamount to death. In the deadly game of predator and prey, neither one survives very long by making poor choices, thus the innate demand that we always be right.

We value being right, and if unavoidably proven wrong, then being right about being wrong; above anything else survival is being right and even suicide is about survival. Our survival is inextricably entwined with being right and someone proves himself right about all the reasons for self extinction and thus survives by being right about all the reasons for suicide.

Fascinating-thanks again.

[supernova]

3. I've felt for a long time,

but not said recently on DU, that the greatest success of the Dem party in gaining cross over votes of conservatives is going to be NOT espousing bland 'centrist" viewpoints (like Hillary is wont to do), but to understand and soothe the scarred, scared child that is the heart of the Repub base. I think we can do that and forthrightly claim our liberal heritage.

[yurbud]

4. yeah, the Mr. Rogers shtick is not going to win back the hardhats. that's why Rove feared Dean

he knew how to speak the language that could penetrate.

[applegrove]

5. Good points.