Why is politics so polarized? Blame that little-known division

[ad_1]

Opinion: Modern campaign advice is not about reason but about outrage. Why talk about a candidate’s qualifications when you can just crush the opponent?

Jon Gabriel | opinion contributor

As the creaking election machinery of the Americas comes to life, campaign teams are ratcheting up the anger.

For several cycles, politics has been based on negative bias: you don’t like your candidate as much as you hate the other.

Why waste time praising the skills and character of their spendthrift client when they can simply crush their opponents?

This strategy substitutes reasoned debate for raw emotion, the latter being a more effective marketing technique.

Campaigns ignore voters who care about the issues

A car ad says little about its specs, instead focusing on a cool song and the cute girl in the passenger seat. In advertising, good feelings trump deep thinking.

Political anger doesn’t work on all voters, especially those who care more about politics than personalities.

Wonks focused on national debt, foreign affairs, or health care are a definite minority, so campaigns typically ignore them.

It reminds me of the old maxim: Great minds discuss ideas; little minds discuss people.

But the focus is less on brain size than on personal temperament.

What matters more: personality or politics?

Many voters fall madly in love with a candidate, whether it’s Obama or Trump. Others passionately hate their political opponents, be it Obama or Trump.

Then there are bloodless nerds like me who would vote for a moldy turnip if they could achieve my political goals.

As many on each side attack each other’s intelligence, morality, and motivations, there is another division that is clearer.

We could rephrase the question of the chicken or the egg which comes first, personality or politics? Depending on how you answer this question, you will suspect the other person of putting the cart before the horse.

Political voters include many so-called intellectuals whose fundamental objective is to achieve specific changes, not to acquire political power for the sake of it.

This is the question that divides us

Whether your perspective comes from a think tank, opinion magazine, or the academy, your eye will first fall on political history, the Constitution, and political details. It’s not about the next four years, it’s about the next four decades.

For this group, the horse is politics, dragging a cart full of flawed, flaky politicians who just might do the right thing.

Personality voters include many cable news speakers, doodlers, and politicians.

New printers, more: How Maricopa County is preparing for the 2024 election

They too fight for certain principles, but know that without the election of specific leaders, political victories are only daydreams in an ivory tower.

Their eyes are on the politician who can possibly deliver the goods, at least some of the time. Why worry about 40 years from now if we don’t make it through the next four years?

For the second group, the horse is the politician, who carries a cart loaded with policies, some of which will hopefully be adopted.

Few voters know this divide even exists

Each side of this division is very active in politics but speaks different languages.

A policy won’t change the mind of a personality-driven voter with a binder full of charts and graphs. The candidate fangirl can’t change the nerd vote with memes or emotional appeals.

The biggest problem is that few people realize that this fracture even exists. The hardcore MAGA woman will call the tax reform guy a corrupt swamp dweller; hell call him a stupid cult member.

But maybe, just maybe, that other person is unpaid, immoral, or part of some sinister cabal. Maybe their point of view is just different from yours, so they came to a different conclusion.

Understanding this can chill the emotionality of modern politics, making it the last thing campaign consultants want. Their business is not reason, but indignation.

If they can keep packs of Americans against each other, that means bigger checks for them. Nothing personal, just business.

Jon Gabriel, a Mesaresident, is editor of Ricochet.com and contributor to The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. On Twitter: @exjon.

[ad_2]