Lame Brain

Some of you may recall my criticisms of Emory University psychologist Drew Westen and his new instruction book for Democrats, THE POLITICAL BRAIN: THE ROLE OF EMOTION IN DECIDING THE FATE OF THE NATION. (See here, here, and here.) If you don’t, the gist (actually, the entire substance) of his argument is nicely conveyed in this passage from an unintentionally hilarious article about the book in the Los Angeles Times, which I quoted in the first “here” above:

… [Westen] lays out his argument that Democrats must connect emotionally with the American electorate — and that he can teach them how.

….

Westen writes that it doesn’t make sense to argue an issue using facts and figures and to count on voters — particularly the swing voters who decide national elections — to make choices based on sophisticated understandings of policy differences or procedures. He says Democratic candidates must learn to do what Republicans have understood for many years — they must appeal to emotions….

If the Democrats weren’t taking this argument so seriously Westen wouldn’t be worth the attention I’ve already given him, but since even normally sensible liberals such as the editors of The New Republic continue to treat this would-be emperor of Democratic campaign rhetoric as though he were actually clothed with a sensible argument it is, alas, necessary to point to his most recent lame exposition on the political brain.

I recently criticized Obama for playing the race and bigot cards by ridiculously attempting to portray any criticism of his scant record as the politics of “fear” and pre-emptively denouncing Republicans calling attention to his race, which they haven’t done, by calling attention to his race. Now comes clothesless emperor Westen, in another unintentionally hilarious article, this one in the usually somber New Republic, who attempts to provide some academic cover for Obama’s preemptive demonizing of Republican criticism. Apparently what Westen means by urging emphasis on “emotions” rather than facts is nothing more than old-fashioned vituperative mud-slinging.

Luckily, the quality of the argument here can be easily conveyed with once brief excerpt, which will spare you the pain I endured by reading the whole thing.

Over the last several weeks, McCain has been running “The American President,” an ad with all the trappings of positivity, but that actually sets the stage for all future attacks. The attacks will not come from McCain. They will come from the momentarity dormant 527s behind them, giving McCain plausible deniability while they make the presidential contest about Barack Obama’s differentness and activate unconscious racial sentiments that Republicans have preyed upon for four decades.

The name of McCain’s ad itself suggests both its positive message and its more insidious subtext: What other kind of President is there? An un-American President, someone who is not really “one of us”? An anti-American President? Or perhaps just an African-American President….

So what is the message of “The American President”? The announcer asks, “What must a president believe about us?” This seems innocuous enough, until you realize that it implicitly sets Obama up as “not one of us” and lays the ground for the RNC and the 527s to remind Americans of Obama’s “elitist” comments about average Americans, which McCain is already riffing on in stump speeches, and Michelle Obama’s gaffe about being really proud of her country “for the first time,” to which Cindy McCain responded that she has always been proud of her country. (Apparently her country’s refusal to let black people vote for a century after the Civil War, including during her lifetime, never touched her sense of national pride.)

The announcer goes on, “And what must we believe about that president? What does he think? Where has he been? Has he walked the walk?” Again, innocuous enough, but it plays on the question of what Obama must have been thinking in the (did I say black?) pews all those years while listening to Reverend Wright, or what he must have learned in the Muslim schools he allegedly attended in Indonesia. The ad ends, “John McCain: The American President Americans have been waiting for.” Syntactically, that’s an oddly redundant conclusion. Why not, “John McCain: The President Americans have been waiting for?” Because, of course, that second rendering would not imply that his opponent is not American.

So, McCain is a racist for daring to use the adjective “American,” for calling attention to Obama’s passive acceptance of Rev. Wright’s rantings, for Michelle’s lack of pride, until recently, in “downright mean” America.

I almost hope the Democrats keep this up, but I remain surprised that The New Republic would take this tripe seriously. Actually, even calling it tripe is an insult to cows and pigs, whose cooked stomach linings are much tastier than Westen’s partisan stew.

Say What? (4)

  1. Ellen K June 23, 2008 at 8:12 pm | | Reply

    I am wiling to bet that if Obama does win in November, that he will be expected to fall in lockstep to the outlined script. Any deviation will be seen as being created by his evil and racist “white blood”. Frankly, why should I, a moderate conservative, even remotely consider voting for someone who labels me and mine racist when they have never even talked to us. Is that not some sort of bigotry?

  2. Anita June 24, 2008 at 9:56 am | | Reply

    everybody is proud of their country, regardless of what it has done. If they are not proud of the country, then they are proud of their own group, however defined. the liberal attitude that america is nothing to be proud of will lead to this response eventually, I don’t care what you say, I don’t care about whatever it is you think I have done wrong, I am proud of my own. That is the consequence of liberals continually attacking americans, that is, white americans. And why shouldn’t people respond like that? everyone else does. the idea of collective shame and guilt is nonexistent in all of the world, except for the west. in fact, people usually don’t even admit that they ever did anything wrong.

    if the aim is to increase liberalism, real liberalism, liberals are acting wrongly. there is a limit to how much contempt people can put up with when they don’t have to put up with it. and liberals should not think that people don’t notice that those who critisize the US are always strongly in favor of every other country or group whose actions and culture are far beneath ours in terms of human rights, tolerance, respect for all mankind, etc. Just this weekend, the NYT magazine had a remarkable article about how europeans need to be more tolerant of islamic intolerance. this question came to me, is there any inherent value in tolerance? if there is not and it is just a matter of choosing apples rather than oranges, why have it at all? if others don’t and they are proud and happy without being liberal, what is the point in being liberal?

    It is amazing that a person who is running for president and who even if he loses will probably not lose disgracefully like george mcgovern is hostile to the country. I can’t get over it. where in the world could a person run for the president and despite it? no other place but here.

  3. Cobra June 27, 2008 at 8:42 pm | | Reply

    You can’t mean the John McCain who said:

    >>>”I didn’t really love America untill I was deprived of her company.”

    You can’t mean that guy, right?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25274602#25274602

    And on FOX NEWS no less…

    http://politicsnewsnetwork.typepad.com/politicsnewsnetwork/2008/06/mccain-i-didnt.html

    Anita, what’s your opinion of Senator McCain’s statement?

    –Cobra

  4. John Anderson June 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm | | Reply

    “… unconscious racial sentiments that Republicans have preyed upon for four decades.”

    Hmm, what happened back then about racial sentiments, unconscious or overt? Oh yeah, that’s about when Republicans passed, over Democrat party strenuous objection, a little thing now called the Civil Rights law, right? Shame on those guys! How dare they!?! How unlike Sharpton (or Byrd, heh) can they be!?!

Say What?