Genetics and Politics

*My return!*

This is something that has always been a foremost concern of mine. The right wing has seemingly on a consistent basis been able to more effectively craft and frame messages for their side of the debate, sometimes so much better that it seems the debate is lost even before it has begun. Furthermore, this perceived performance gap manifests itself regardless of the validity or veracity of the arguments used on the Right when presenting their case.

But, lately I've been forced to discount that little bit of conventional wisdom because of findings from research conducted in the emerging field of political physiology, which offers a counterpoint: "... new research suggests we are not merely swayed, here and there, by emotional appeals."

Political Physiology, in short, proposes that where an individual falls on the political spectrum isn't determined entirely by external forces but is also largely the result of a predisposition hardwired in us at birth due to our unique genetic makeup. I think we see some indication of this being so from observing the HCR debate and the heightened fear response found amongst conservatives when the bill was proposed and even after it becoming law. From the political physiologist point of view, this is strong validation for the discipline as the research indicates that for conservatives, an idea that is perceived to be a threat, regardless of the existence or lack of a rational basis for that perception, triggers an instinctive and vigorous fear response. A liberal, on the other hand, would be more likely to weight the merits of new ideas, analyze it and rationally consider it in greater detail before accepting or rejecting it.

Psychologist, David Amodio, of NYU concludes: "Conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity, and novelty." Within that context, the inferior communication strategies and message framing that has become a nearly indisputed criticism of the Left, is not the end of the story. To be clear, emotional appeals and clever rhetoric are still essential elements of a winning strategy to win debates on the issues. But our expectations for how effective they will be on modifying the opinions or beliefs of the greater population may have to re-evaluated.

Perhaps, what the Left suffers from is not a performance gap, but an enthusiasm gap. It seems logical to assume that since the Right is able to motivate conservatives to engage in almost immediate, full throttle advocacy or opposition for their side of the debate, we perceive the delayed, cerebral, and measured response from liberals as the result of inferior messaging from the "Apparatchik" found on the Left. If society is witness to this scenario played out over and over again regardless of issue, candidate, or generation, it can easily become "conventional wisdom".

Political physiology, while still a nascent field of study, in my opinion presents a compelling alternative viewpoint that suggests to expect the same visceral response from liberals, that same level of enthusiasm, is a near impossibility. We're just not built the same way.