Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democracy and Elections

Learning from How Conservatives Push Their Cultural Worldview

By Sara Robinson, Blog for Our Future. Posted March 14, 2008.


Part II of a series on the strategies used by conservatives to promote their agenda, and the lessons progressives can learn to promote their own.
Advertisement

This is part II of a series. Click here to read part I, "What We Can Learn from Conservatives About Winning in Politics."

As we saw in the previous post, the entire conservative movement was organized around the single goal of changing the country's dominant worldview, weaning it away from liberal assumptions about how the world works, and teaching Americans to assign meaning to the world using conservative values instead. They firmly (and rightly) believed that that once the rest of the country evaluated and prioritized reality the same way they did, the rest of the conservative political, economic, and social agenda could be implemented with strong popular support, and no meaningful resistance.

But the early architects of this plan, including Paul Weyrich, also realized that having strong ideas wasn't enough. To succeed, they would also have to master the arts of persuasion.

"Ideas do not immediately have consequences," wrote Eric Huebeck in his 2001 update of Weyrich's long-followed plan. "They do not have an impact in direct proportion to the truth they contain. They have an impact only insofar as adherents of those ideas are willing to take measures to propagate those ideas."

Or, as a more cynical conservative once put it: You gotta catapult the propaganda.

This may seem like heresy to liberals. We like to believe that the progressive worldview is so patently superior that intelligent people will readily see the logic of it, and then sensibly adopt it as the best way to think and live. If people resist it, it's only because they don't completely understand it (yet). Fixing that is simply a matter of education: we just need explain our vision more clearly. Our own resolute faith in the power of reason convinces us that reasonable people will be reasonably persuaded by reasonable discussion of reasonable ideas.

It's time to consider the reasonable possibility that we may be wrong.

To our enduring detriment, movement conservatives never bought into that idea. They understood from the start that their ideas (which, frankly, don't stand up nearly as well in the face of clear rationality) would need to be aggressively promoted and sold, using emotional appeals that went to the heart of human beings' deepest desires and motivations. People don't commit their time, energy, and fortunes to a movement because it's all so logical and sensible. They join up because they've taken the movement's worldview deep into their hindbrains as their basic model of reality, and made an emotional connection to the ineffable feelings the movement deliberately stimulated -- in this case, fear, hate, and xenophobia as well as solidarity, reverence, hope, and security. In this model, the ideas only exist to provide a way to rationalize and express the deeper feelings the movement has already activated through other appeals.

Liberals operate from a position of strength on the battlefield of ideas -- and this may be why we consistently overvalue reason and undervalue emotional appeals. Our ideas do have a strong intellectual appeal. But we tend to forget that they also have a far healthier emotional appeal, since we don't have to resort to stimulating fear and hate to get people to buy into them. Still, we've been notoriously terrible at stirring people's more positive and hopeful emotions, and getting them to resonate on a soul-deep level with the values that define our worldview. Clearly, we could stand to learn a thing or two from the conservatives about how they did this.

In this second part, we'll look at some of the essential communications rules Huebeck gleaned from Weyrich's original plans -- and see how these rules might be adapted to make us more effective at winning people's hearts and souls as well as their minds.

Don't be afraid to set 'em on fire
The hard, cold fact is that words and logic will never get us down to the deep, pre-rational places where people's foundational worldviews are shaped. If we want to create change at that foundational level, we need to engage them emotionally, in the pre-verbal places where images, poetry, myths, and ritual reside.

The first thing we need to do is lighten way up on the long recitations of facts and figures and programs and policies. Most non-wonks don't care about this stuff -- the details just make them yawn. They're bored by promises of new programs: most Americans are pretty well convinced by now that whatever the program is or how well-funded it may be, they probably won't see any personal benefit from it, so it comes across as an empty promise. Yet Democratic candidates all the way back to Walter Mondale have been running and losing on just this kind of dispassionate, uninspiring wonk-talk. And then we wonder why the conservatives keep whipping our asses.

You'll seldom catch conservatives talking wonky. They're told from their very first candidate trainings to steer clear of anything that dwells on abstract facts or figures. People want viscerally engaging stories -- emotional stories about people like them, inspiring mythic tales taken from history that express their highest ideals, vivid invocations outlining the shining details of a better future to come. They want clear-cut portrayals of good guys and bad guys that reverberate with the promise that justice will be done, and that they will be honored in the end as agents for good. We may grow up, but we never lose our childhood taste for an illustrative tale well-told. The conservatives knew this from the beginning, and turned this knowledge into a potent political strategy.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: conservative worldview

Sara Robinson is a twenty-year veteran of Silicon Valley, and is launching a second career as a strategic foresight analyst. When she's not studying change theories and reactionary movements, you can find her singing the alto part over at Orcinus. She lives in Vancouver, BC with her husband and two teenagers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What values do progressives or liberals have...
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 14, 2008 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they allow in their same communities female genital mutilation, the selling of brides and forced marriage, the forced wearing of the hijab and burkha, and the suppression of free speech when certain inviduals threaten people with violence and death?

That's why conservatives are confused: it doesn't seem to make sense to allow such things and call it cultural relativism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

comments so far
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Mar 14, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ok looks like the ultrarightwing is hijacking this posting thread. they'll probably come after me with both barrels blazing.

i can tell you as a practicing psychotherapist that ideas, pep talks, logical discussions are helpful but usually do not result in real change without people doing something different in their everyday lives on a consistent basis. in other words, as the article says, the presentation of ideas does not necessarily lead to their acceptance, adoption or action upon them. often i must connect with people on a level other than that of purely ideas for them to "get it" and start to do something different to deal with their problems.

the clear-cut portrayal of good guys and bad guys comes from the more primitive early developmental style of black and white, all or nothing thinking when we are very young. later we learn to think in comparative thinking as well -- well most of us anyway. comparative thinking allows us to see that there is warm, warmer, cool, cooler as well as just hot and cold. it allows us to see that there are degrees of both good and bad. but in times of stress or of emotionally charged thinking, we often revert back to the all or nothing, black and white thinking. political messages in general and especially those of conservatives have become adept at manipulating people into all or nothing thinking. the sound bite political ads of almost all politics anymore as well as the very heavily emotionally charged messages of conservative/ultrarightwing talk radio speak directly to the all or nothing thinking style embedded in every one of us.

think of it as part of the dumbing down of america so that too many of us learn to think just outside the box enough to develop the next new ad campaign for deoderant but not enough to think critically enough and creatively enough about what is going on in the world to do something that might upset the comfortable position of the wealthy/corporate elite who actually own and run our country and the world. add that to the amount of time most people spend trying to earn a living and raise a family (2 ultra-important activities) and you have a recipe for nothing changing substantively except in case of a crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walk it, Sara
Posted by: Jack Saturday on Mar 14, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like your ideas, Sara. So: walk the walk now. Pin this model down in an anecdote or two, a story of how you spoke truth to power, how you were assertive face to face with oppression— or at least how somebody else did. I personally would love to hear the stories of progressive writers’ lives— not just in books, it seems that the desire to “write a book” is an infection of progressives, that may be connected to their internalizing the values of universities and schools where they did well—but books are tools for a tiny elite. Get out on YouTube and talk out loud and show this spirit you promote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Conservative" A Common Euphemism for Fascist
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy on Mar 14, 2008 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Conservatives" have propagandized many Americans to use the wrong term for fascism, and to call it
"conservatism." There is no reason for the author
of this story to fall for this trick, and no reason for anyone else to do so, either.

Let's call a spade a spade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberal is not Relativist
Posted by: drdanj on Mar 15, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another mistake we made. Conservative meant "one right way, my way." We knew that was wrong, so "we" (not me, I was still a kid in the 50s and 60s) started talking about relativism, knowing the the US was good, but not perfect. "We" got hammered. Okay, fine.

Here is a new "one right way," and the deal is it goes beyond "my way." Universal Conventions on Human Rights. Of course the United States does not live up to them, rejects many if not most of them, and so-called conservatives get their undies in a bundle because if we really lived by solid universal standards, they'd have to play nice with other people on the planet, and right here in their own country.

Liberal folks, in this Red Queen Race, WE need to do an end run around decades of Neo-Conservative long-term planning, and engage a new model.

Someone asked for a story. Okay, consider the illegal war crimes of invading a non-threatening sovereign nation. Bring it down to a photo from the very first days of this illegal, immoral act. A man stands half bent over, in his robes, his head covered. He's just a guy, just one more person trying to eak out a living. Can't see his feet, but he appears to be standing on a charnel pile. In his arms hangs the lifeless body of a girl, perhaps 13 or 14. Or, what remains of her body. She's been blown apart by one of our bombs. She's a kid, could be any of our daughters, our young sisters. The girl has this little feathery boa around her neck, clearly was "dressing up" that day, just playing. She's a kid who was just hanging out with her friends, and we killed her.

Does that man hate us? I have no idea. But if he does, it isn't "for our freedoms." Is he the father? Are her parents also dead? If not, they have every right to hate each and every one of us. They have every right to hate me. And thus goes the future of our country, our society, our world. We have perpetuated another round of hate and death for another generation.

We killed her. Each and every one of us. And thousands and thousands and thousands of others like her. And not Just Bush, Clinton too. Our nation is not in a fight between liberals and conservatives. It is in a fight between Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals, and all of us are being conned by the old words. The two "Neos" are not just an extension of the old fight. They are two different world views on how we should run our world Empire. And if we, who would have considered ourselves liberals or conservatives allow them to keep running the place, we will all help destroy the world. Our grandchildren, orh theirs, will pay the price, because ultimately, Empires collapse of their own hubris. It will happen, unless we the people, all of us take back our country, and get off our high horses and accept the humanity of everyone on the planet. Unless we get together and demand universal human rights for everyone, until we are willin to pay the full pirce for goods, which means living not slave wages, until we accept differences, but demand that no one be forced into a bhurka or have to go through mutiliation, or pick your favorite violation of human rights, then someday it will be our own progeny lifting the dead bodies of their children from the charnel pile.

Conservatives: Get over it. The Republicans do not represent your values. Liberals: Get over it, the Democrats do not represent your values. And all of us: get over it, The United States does not represent the end of history, the sine qua non of human rights and social justice. It is time for all of us to wake up, think some new thoughts, and recognize that killing other people, here or elsewhere is not the proper price for our latest toys, nor for our own egotistical delusions of grandeur.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Liberals Are Too Meek
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Mar 16, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We liberals have been too afraid to hit back, even politely, accurately and in self defense. The Swift Boaters maligned a decorated war hero while supporting a draft-dodging Air National Guard deserter, but nobody had the courage to point this out. We're also afraid to use the law against political criminals, while the right happily jails innocent opponents. Bush and Cheney have committed far more felonies than any of the 2 million prisoners in US correctional facilities, yet enjoy total impunity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]