The Political Brain - Chapter 5: "Special Interests in Mind"

When Republicans and Democrats listen to a speech, they usually hold diametrically opposing perspectives that depends on the political party of the speaker him/herself. Each party favors their own. Essentially, it boils down to what people want to hear. Drew Westen argues that “the tendency to see what we want to see reflects an accidental byproduct of the evolution of our brains.” Why? Well because what people hear elicits an emotional response and they can base their judgments on these emotional associations. This is why, Westen says, there has been the “[prevention] of rational discourse…for about 80% of populations, including the most politically informed voters” (Westen 90).

Westen also talks about how many people view ideas and titles with “association” and “alternative possibilities.”  For instance, to a typical person, the word party usually either conjures up fond memories of a social gathering, or the political statements s/he has heard from other people regarding the Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, when hearing this word, it brings up some form of emotional memory in the form of multiple networks in the brain all working together to try to make sense of the context of the word (its definition). This is important because candidates can take advantage of this phenomena and implement it in their campaigns. Is this necessarily a bad thing and how can we avoid being taken advantage of in this sense?

Two sets or constraints “shape our judgments,” according to Westen (Westen 99). These are cognitive constraints (which are imposed by the information that we have available) and emotional constraints (which are imposed by the feelings associated with one conclusion or another). However, these constraints are usually competing with each other; it’s the classical war between logic and emotion. Westen makes a few examples (such as the Clinton vs. Dole debate) to illustrate how emotion takes place in decision-making.

I believe, in the end, what matters is likely those last 20% of voters. It is probably very difficult to change the minds of 80% of voters, but emotional association will almost always be stronger than cognitive association. However, I believe, like Westen, that these 20% of voters “have changeable minds” and can be influenced by logic. Usually, presidential candidates win by only “2 to 3 percentage points.” So we know that we can change their minds or allow them to gravitate towards one viewpoint or another. But how is this possible?