Read on Twitter
Our friend @will_bunch asks if anyone has written the definitive piece on “Republicans Are From Mars, Dems Are From Venus” OR Why the @ProjectLincoln can eviscerate Trump while Democrats simply don't have it in them?
I did. It’s my 2020 book, Irony and Outrage...
1/ https://twitter.com/Will_Bunch/status/1277359609964105730
I did. It’s my 2020 book, Irony and Outrage...
1/ https://twitter.com/Will_Bunch/status/1277359609964105730
Before I give my fun lil' primer... here's the book: 2/ https://www.amazon.com/Irony-Outrage-Polarized-Landscape-Laughter/dp/0190913088
Lots of folks #onhere are like “Why are Republicans so good ad destroying Trump in these political ads?” and “Why aren’t the dems doing anything nearly as hard-hitting?”
3/
3/
Answer: The psychology of political ideology. Liberals and Conservatives are driven by different psychological needs that shape how we interact with and evaluate the world. 4/
These psychological differences are communicated through our aesthetic preferences.
Scholars have tended to think of “aesthetics” in terms of preferences for art, music, and literature… 5/
Scholars have tended to think of “aesthetics” in terms of preferences for art, music, and literature… 5/
It turns out that conservatives are less appreciative of abstract art, jazz, and stories without a clear ending compared to liberals.
Yes. I'm serious... 6/
Yes. I'm serious... 6/
Some of this is explained by the fact that conservatives (in general) score higher on “need for closure” (lower on tolerance for ambiguity) and lower on “need for cognition” (enjoyment of thinking for the sake of thinking) than liberals. These traits shape aesthetic preferences.
You're saying "WHAT?!? WHY?!?!"
Well, because Liberals and Conservatives (conceptualized as social and cultural ideology – defined by positions on race, sexuality, immigration) are different physiologically, in terms of how they monitor and process threat.
Well, because Liberals and Conservatives (conceptualized as social and cultural ideology – defined by positions on race, sexuality, immigration) are different physiologically, in terms of how they monitor and process threat.
Political psychologists haven’t totally gotten to the bottom of why – but that is why it’s fascinating, right? – but overwhelmingly, evidence shows conservatives are more likely to thinking of their own death (mortality salience) & more likely to be monitoring for threats. 9/
High threat monitoring means conservatives are less comfortable with uncertainty & ambiguity. It meant they prefer routine, order & predictability. It also means they prioritize efficiency over accuracy in judgment formation. 10/
Conservatives are especially adept at using heuristics, emotions, and instinct to come to quick and consistent decisions. This is why I characterize these folks as our protectors and our warriors. They are our first responders. Our law enforcement. Our military heroes. 11/
PS: if y'all bitch at me about stereotyping here... I'll just say I simplify shit to make it understandable. None of these relationships is deterministic. They all involve probabilities. But none of that makes for a good twitter thread. now if you'd allow me to continue...
Liberals, without that same level of personal threat monitoring, have a higher tolerance for ambiguous and uncertain situations. They also don’t need to come to decisions as quickly because efficiency isn’t as high of a priority. 13/
Instead, on the left, we have folks who like to think for the sake of thinking, experimenting, exploring…
They are our artists, our writers, our dreamers, our researchers, our liberal arts professors (Hi! my name is danna.)
They are our artists, our writers, our dreamers, our researchers, our liberal arts professors (Hi! my name is danna.)
I use this framework to explain how/why liberals dominate the world of political satire. It IS the preferred mode of political expression for the social & cultural left because it embodies all their psychological & aesthetic needs. It’s complex, layered, inefficient, playful.
Satire isn’t didactic. Doesn’t tell you what to think… invites you to fill in the blank and come up with it on your own. The people who make it and the people who consume it share these traits/values.
I also use this framework to account for how and why opinion-oriented political talk (sometimes called OUTRAGE) is a natural fit for the right: Efficient. Clear. Didactic. Morally serious. Urgent.
It’s funny, when I wrote the book, I reflected on why it is that certain voices were good at urgently warning Americans about the dangers posed by Trump.
And that those voices were conservative voices!
LOOKIT THIS:
And that those voices were conservative voices!
LOOKIT THIS:
So, yes – the @lincolnproject (and other conservative groups) are exceptionally good at THIS kind of messaging.
like this --- is great.... for certain kinds of people/voters. https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1277034391710113793
like this --- is great.... for certain kinds of people/voters. https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1277034391710113793
They are speaking in the language and aesthetic form most likely to be appreciated by and effective for conservative audiences: Ominous warnings. Didactic and clear. Highlighting threat. Mobilizing through emotions: anger and fear. Check check check.
BUT - I remain unconvinced that this is the aesthetic form most effective for the psychology of the left, for whom such content will likely be consider hyper-emotional, over-the-top, and suspect...
But maybe these ads aren't *FOR* us libs...
But maybe these ads aren't *FOR* us libs...
Libs are an annoying audience. They like ambiguity and nuance. They don't wanna be served up messaging that is fully cooked. They wanna decode it and figure it out (think *ironic satire*)....
...but as messaging becomes more layered and more complex, the message creator loses TOTAL CONTROL.
THINK ARCHIE BUNKER FFS
(here's a fun thread based on the book that explains THAT debacle) https://twitter.com/dannagal/status/1088451556993716224
THINK ARCHIE BUNKER FFS
(here's a fun thread based on the book that explains THAT debacle) https://twitter.com/dannagal/status/1088451556993716224
Put simply: In a world of hybrid, hyper-fragmented informational forms, aesthetic preferences need to be at the heart of the study of political communication – especially given that the left and the right experience aesthetics so differently.
... so yeah, the @ProjectLincoln ads are great at eviscerating Trump. Which is great and likely to be effective - *for people who value such eviscerating.*
By the way – I am charming in my book. I include first person anecdotes and details – and DATA. Original data.
It's also my FIRST book. Published with Oxford through their trade press cause I write like a person and not an academic.
And I make $1 per copy. So, buy 10.
It's also my FIRST book. Published with Oxford through their trade press cause I write like a person and not an academic.
And I make $1 per copy. So, buy 10.
