The Political Brain
Subtitled: Emotion, Reason, and the
Preface About 1900 one
would have expected emotion to come under serious scientific study.
Darwin had published material on this. James, Lange, Freud
and Sherrington had done significant work. But more traditional
biological science ignored all of this. His 1994 publication of
this book was the first real effort to merge the two areas.
Significant work has been done since. He answers several
questions that people have raised (and misunderstood) about his work.
It is now very clear that emotion is a part of reason and that
without emotion, reason does not work very well (with perhaps the
exceptions of parts of math and physics, perhaps). Progress is
being made today (in 2005) but there are even more questions than
Introduction He was raised to believe in separate neural
systems for reason and emotion. They are separate and reason was
the most important. Then as a neurologist and psychologist he was
presented with a man who was entirely healthy and very successful until
a neurological disease ravaged a specific sector of his brain.
The patient was entirely rational and intelligent, everything
about him suggested a highly successful intelligent person.
Except he could not experience feelings and he could not make
valid decisions. Twenty more years of clinical and experimental
work convinced the author that the ability to experience emotion is
critical in the process of valid reasoning.
It is abundantly clear that an excess of emotion can have a negative
effect on our ability to reason. He is suggesting that a lack of
the proper amount of emotion can also have a very detrimental effect on
our ability to reason. He is not attempting to present a complete
theory of human cognition, that is for those who follow, he is
expressing his opinion and as a scientist he is making his point using
scientific observation and experiment.
He tries to make three points in the book. The first is that
reason is not as pure as some think it is. Emotions and feelings
inhabit the same areas of the brain and are all involved in our
existence. The second is that feelings are extremely important
and that feeling is not an elusive mental quality attached to an object
but a direct perception of a specific landscape, the body.
Feelings are our glimpse into the inner workings of our body and
our status with regard to everything around us. The third is that
our brain is the center of our body and our experiencing of the rest of
the world. Our brain exists to maintain out body, we interact
with the environment as a whole, we cannot separate our brain from our
body, and the phenomena that we call a mind is dependent upon a brain
acting within a body. We cannot understand mind without equally
understanding the brain and the body acting within an environment.
C1 Unpleasantness in Vermont He starts with the story
of Phineas P. Gage starting on Sept . 13, 1848. He was a
construction foreman on the Rutland & Burlington Railroad
supervising a crew laying track. He is supervising the drilling
of blasting holes, he is distracted and before an employ can pour sand
on the blasting powder Gage starts tamping it. It explodes
blowing the tamping bar through Gage's cheek, into his brain, and 100
feet away after passing through his skull. He is stunned but
fully awake, he is helped into a cart and taken 3/4 of a mile to a
hotel. There he gets out of the wagon and waits an hour for a
doctor to arrive. The doctor cleanses the would regularly and
removes at least one abscess. In less than two months Gage is
declared cured. The doctor says, "I dress him, God healed him."
Unfortunately Gage was not the upcoming young man he used to be.
Other than loosing the vision in his left eye he was completely
well physically but his emotional restraint was gone. His social
"cooth" was gone, he could not maintain social relationships, he could
not hold a job for an extended period of time. He was featured at
Barnum's Museum in New York, he worked in South America for
several years in horse farms and stagecoach driving. In 1860, in
failing health, he came back and lived with his mother and sister in
San Francisco. On May 20, 1861 he suffers an epileptic convulsion
which never completely ended until he died on May 21.
The author goes on to discuss several considerations of people with
regard to Gage's injuries. He then discusses phrenology and the
contributions of Franz Joseph Gall to brain localization and its
relationship to the discussions about Gage.
C2 Gage's Brain Revealed
Five years after Gage's death his body was exhumed and his skull
and the tamping iron were sent to the Harvard Medical school.
Recently Hanna Damasio, the author's wife, and others did a
complete imaging analysis of the path of the tamping rod and the
projected damage to Gage's brain. They found the the tamping rod
did no damage to the areas of the brain related to motor function or
language but the prefrontal cortices in the ventral and inner surfaces
of both hemispheres.
C3 A Modern Phineas Gage
He describes much more fully the case mentioned in the
Introduction. A young man with a brain tumor that destroyed brain
tissue in an location very similar to Gage's injury. In many ways
the cases are similar but of course he could study the living man in
this case. He describes the results of many test and his
responses to questions.
C4 In Colder Blood He
continues the discussion of the same patient and adds descriptions of
other similar cases and animal models. Comments on drugs acting
on the brain, you have to know where in the brain the chemical is
C5 Assembling an Explanation To make a decision in a social environment:
How the body and brain interact:
- One must have knowledge about the social situation and about your own self.
- The processes of emotion and feeling are part of the neural machinery for biological regulation.
- This knowledge depends on numerous systems located in separate brain regions.
- Knowledge can only be retrieved in a distributed manner from sites in man parallel systems.
- These facts must be held active in a broad parallel display for an extended period of time.
All organisms respond to their environment. The simplest by
chemical action and movement. As organisms become more
complicated their actions require more and more intermediate
processing. He defines a mind as the ability to form neural
representations which can become images, be manipulated by thought, and
influence behavior by helping predict the future, plan accordingly, and
choose the next action. This is the central problem of
neurobiology as he sees it.
- Nearly every part of the body sends signals to the brain via the peripheral nerves.
- Chemicals arising from body activity reach the brain via the
bloodstream and either influence the brain directly or through special
- The brain can act, through nerves, on all parts of the body using various pathways.
- The brain also acts on the body by manufacturing or ordering the
manufacture of chemical substances in the bloodstream such as hormones,
transmitters, and modulators.
The rest of the chapter discusses some of the issues and problems of viewing the brain and body in this manner.
C6 Biological Regulation and Survival
A complex chapter describing a sample of the many chemical and
neurological feedbacks and regulations that allow our body/brain to
operate and thrive in a world with many dangers. He goes a little
overboard on avoiding biological determinism in an environment that
includes computers which can ONLY flip switches, save the results, and
make decisions based on the positions of these switches. Most of
us know what they can do, how much more can the incredibly more complex
C7 Emotions and Feelings
Our emotions are intimately connected with the state of the body
- you just can't get mad without tensing your muscles, etc. More
relationships between emotions and feeling and the state of the nervous
and endocrine system. The difficulty of "faking" emotions -
schools of acting and how/why they work. Again, a lot of chemical
and neurological detail.
C8 The Somatic-Marker Hypothesis
The purpose of reasoning is deciding is selecting a response
option that is a word, a sentence, or some combination of them in
connection with a given situation. He postulates an example of
three decisions a) your blood sugar level decreases, b) an object is
falling, do you ignore it (raindrop), catch it (a ball) or jump out of
the way (a piano), or c) you are a stage governor and you must decide
whether or not to commute the sentence of a convicted murderer.
The third problem is solved in additional ways from the first two
but the same neurobiological core is involved in all three. The
question of differing types of intelligences as for example social
intelligence vs. mathematical intelligence as on possibility.
Somatic-marker hypothesis: You are presented with a problem and
"instantly" multiple key components of possible solutions are
visualized. But before you apply any type of reasoned analysis to
the possible solutions, some of these solutions generate a gut feeling
of unpleasantness. This may have originated in an unfortunate
choice in the past but now it serves to immediately reduce the possible
solutions that you consider. You end up with fewer alternatives
to consider and it takes less effort to come up with a solution.
In computer terms if I wanted to create a somatic-marker I would create
a weighted list of activities and their outcomes. They would be
given a weight depending the desirability (reinforcement value) of the
outcome - from very negative to very positive. Each time the
activity was repeated the weight would be modified.
He discusses possible locations in the brain for the processing of
somatic-marker information, how these areas interact with other areas
in the brain, and what this would mean for overall intelligent behavior.
C9 Testing the Somatic-Marker Hypothesis Again,
neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neuro(behavior?). They first
exposed normal and Gage like damaged patients to emotionally disturbing
photos, basic physiological responses were very different. In the
gambling experiment they set up gambling games. Both normal and
damaged patients liked them but the normal quickly learned to minimize
their losses but the damaged patients often never really learned to
avoid plays that would cost them large amounts of money. Both
groups learned but the damaged patients had more problems with longer
term learning, the kept coming back to the riskier plays. They
seem insensitive to the future, he uses the term "myopia for the
With further instrumentation the normal group would begin having a
galvanic skin response (GSR) to potential bad plays but the damaged
subjects never developed this. It wasn't that they had no memory
of possible results, they just didn't seem to care. Poor memory
would suggest, "Out of sight, out of mind." With them it was more
of, "Out of sight, in mind, but never mind."
C10 The Body-Minded Brain
Again, the brain and the body are both parts of the same organism
and cannot be split off from each other. He hypothecises that the
brain evolved to maintain the body and protect it. It makes sense
to assume the brain could do this most simply and efficiently to map
within itself the body. The more the body and brain were
interconnected the better this mapping would be. He explores this
by a thought experiment, imagine you are walking alone on a dark night
and you hear footsteps behind you. You were in a calm state.
Immediately you become alerted. Your muscles tense, your
pupils widen, your brain becomes more active, you speed up your
walking. Before you have any idea what the footsteps are both
your body and your brain prepare for action and increased capacity for
sensing your environment.
C11 A Passion for Reasoning
To master a subject you must be passionate about it. A
question about Descartes most famous line, "I think, therefore I am."
The inscription which he choose for his tombstone was one that he
used frequently, "He who hid well, lived well." Is this a
disclaimer of his "I think" line? The author doesn't believe so.
He thinks that, "I think ..." was exactly what Descartes meant.
Damasio believes that this is the biggest error to be passed down
to modern thought. Why is this so bad, others have made greater
errors, Plato for example. The main reason is that we have known
that Plato was wrong for many years. Descartes Error still haunts
us in terms of (religion) and western medicine and in the understanding
of the human mind.
physicians have deep interests in the humanities. However the
medical schools that trained them tend to ignore this data.
Western medicine glories in the expansion of internal medicine
and surgical subspecialties. Neurology began as a subspecialty of
Most medical schools offer courses on the sick mind as found in mental
disease but very few offer any instruction on the normal mind.
Why do students learn about psychopathology without ever learning
about normal psychology? He believes that much of this stems from
a Cartesian view of humanity. The mind has been left out of
medical education because it was seen as the province of religion and
philosophy. Even after it became the focus of a specific
discipline, psychology, it has been very slow to enter medicine and
Concepts like the placebo effect and that psychological disturbances
can cause disease of the body are finally becoming accepted. The
Cartesian based neglect of the mind has hindered the practice of
medicine and with the increase in medical knowledge and the increase in
subspecialties it is not getting better fast. The increase in
alternative medicine is probably a response to this lack.
There are 21 pages of notes and references, 5 pages of further reading, and 12 pages of index.
The Political Brain
Subtitle: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation
A review by Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic Party ". . . In
2008, we will win the presidency if our candidate reads and acts on
this book." He said roughly the same about George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, he was right in both cases.
Introduction To understand this book read and understand Descartes Error
by Antonio Damasio, the previous book note. The view that many
people have had of the mind since the 18th century, that of a dispassionate mind,
is simply not true. In American politics for the last 50 years
the party that has embraced this view of the mind the most passionately
has been the Democratic Party. They have been very busy pushing
this view and loosing elections. To be sure there have been
exceptions, primarily extremely bad Republican performance or Democrats
who paid lip service to the conventional wisdom and did it their way
During the final months of the 2004 elections Weston and his colleagues
but together a research study to examine the brain processing of
political partisans. They had four hunches, or more formally hypotheses, that they wanted to test.
They presented their subjects with six statements showing clear
inconsistencies by Kerry, six by Bush, and six by politically neutral
figures. Some of these statements were fictitious but they were
made to seem real by embedding them in actual statements of Bush or
Kerry. As the subjects were lying in the scanner they were shown
slides. The first would be a "normal" statement from a candidate
and the next would be a contradictory statement by the same candidate.
- Threatening information would activate neural circuits associated with negative emotional states.
- Activations in a part of the brain heavily involved in regulating emotions.
- A brain in conflict - activations in a region known to be involved in monitoring and resolving conflicts.
- They did not expect to see activations in a regions that had been "turned on" in prior reasoning experiments.
They were surprised when all four of their hypotheses were supported.
When partisans saw inconsistencies made by the opposite
candidate, they reported major conflicts, close to 4 on their 4 point
scale. However when they viewed an inconsistency made by their
candidate they only reported a minor conflict, about 2 on their 4 point
scale. The portions of the brain that they expected to see
activated were all activated. And they didn't see much activation
of areas normally associated with reasoning tasks.
Their brains did something the researchers did not expect. When
politically biased subjects observed their candidate making
contradictory statements the circuits involving negative emotions
turned off and those involving positive emotions turned on. Their
brains weren't "satisfied" by
making them feel good, they "actively" worked to make them feel better.
The reward circuits overlap substantially with those activated
when drug addicts get their "fix", a new meaning to the term political junkie.
So what for Democrats? Don't worry about offending hard core
conservatives, they will never listen to you anyway. Anything you
can say will be twisted by their brain into supporting their own
feelings. Their minds won't bend to the left. The positive message is: The political brain is an emotional brain.
It is generally agreed that about 1/3 of Americans are Democrats,
1/3 are Republicans, and 1/3 are undecided or independent. You
have to worry about the undecided voter and the best way to sway
him/her is via their emotions.
"We can't change the structure of the political brain, which reflects
millions of years of evolution. But we can change the way we
appeal to it."
Part I Mind, Brain, and Emotion in Politics
C1 Winning States of Mind A comparison of two
political ads, one from the Clinton-Bush race and one from the
Kerry-Bush race. Clinton told a simple story of a kid from Hope
who had a dream, met his idol, and is now running for president.
Everything was upbeat, fit the story and there were no negative
parts. Kerry told a story of privilege (his word) and a
Northeastern liberal intellectual (Harvard). Clinton never
mentioned his education (Harvard) and neither did Bush (Harvard also).
Facial expressions were better in the Clinton ad. Kerry
(and/or his handlers) just didn't understand that you have to connect
A brief segment of the second Bush-Gore debate: Bush gave a sort
answer. Gore gave a long technical answer. Bush came back
with a folks, self deprecating answer. He dodged Gore's good
question and talked about special rights for gays. Weston then
wrote a short response that Gore could have made. Republicans
have understood for some time that emotions are more important than
reason, have thought for 30 years, except for Clinton, that reason is
the most important. Actually this had made them less likely to
speak the truth, if you believe that "the issues" are the most
important, you are more likely to follow the opinion polls instead of
your internal compass, and voters will pick this up as weak, waffling,
pandering, and unprincipled -- and they will be right.
Careful attention to policy is good government, good election politics
is showing the voters that you have principles and that they can trust
you to make good decisions (policies) in their behalf.
He gives several examples of hard hitting emotional politics from
Democrats, now Senator Claire McCaskill, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe
Sestak and Virginia Senator Jim Webb.
C2 Rational Minds, Irrational Campaigns
More history of dispassionate reason and how our politics have
changed since our countries founding. An example of how Kerry was
trying to convince a Pennsylvania coal miner to vote for him. A
counter example of a brain damaged patient from Descartes' Error.
The tired, hungry miner waiting for dinner will not obsess on the
decision, he will pick the guy who sounds like he can be trusted.
Description of a debate item, Medicare, from the first Gore-Bush
debate. Gore was perfect with the numbers, Bush made it seem that
the only thing Gore cared about was the numbers. Description of
one of FDR's fireside chats, description of part of a 1992 Bush-Clinton
debate, how Clinton handled the Jennifer Flowers problem, multiple
repetitions of why Democrats need to use emotion to convince voters
that Democrats are trustworthy.
C3 The Evolution of the Passionate Brain Examples,
Martin Luther King and the Selma marches, the response
of LBJ. The evolution of the brain stem and the early linkage
between senses and feelings resulting in better control of our
environment. The Johnson (vs. Goldwater) "Daisy" ad. The
ability of the amygdala to respond to subliminal stimulation (the more
"logical" areas of the brain can't process information that fast).
Probable subliminal ad by Bush in 2000, functionally unconscious
background (Bush standing in front of a screen with the theme of his
speech in the background "Spreading Freedom" etc.), this is technically
not subliminal but it only registers peripherally. Music is
excellent for setting the mood - the right emotional tone.
The anatomy and function of the cerebrum. Democrats seem to
appeal to the "blue brain", the coasts of the cortex and Republicans to
the "red brain" in the middle. Patients with damage to the
frontal emotion circuits often show symptoms like Democrats - ability
to reason well but not react well to emotionally laden situations.
Comparison to Phineas Gage some of Damasio's patients.
The "Willie Horton" and "Revolving Door" ad of the Bush - Dukakis
campaign. Both were carefully designed to generate fear and
loathing in the voters - and they worked. Westen suggested an
approach that Dukakis could have tried. Dukakis never recovered
from these attacks.
C4 The Emotions Behind the Curtain
The Dukakis "What if Kitty were raped and murdered?" question.
Dukakis heard a question about the death penalty and answered
with statistical data. The audience heard, "Are you a man?", "Do
you have a heart?", and "Are we similar enough that I could trust you
to represent me and my values as president?"
What is the alternative to the dispassionate vision of the mind?
It is a passionate version of mind, brain, and emotion which is
based on the ideas of Darwin, Skinner, and Freud.
Darwin: Natural selection (genes) select for organisms that lookout for
themselves and those who share their genes. Our most powerful
drives revolve around survival, reproduction, survival of our kin, and
the wellbeing of others in our group. How Reagan's "Morning again
in America" ad touched on all of these factors as well as a subtle but
scathing attack on Mondale. He presents an alternative story line
that is even more evolution based.
Skinner: Skinner didn't believe in theorizing about the mind.
He put reward and punishment into the psychological literature.
Later theorists applied his ideas to feelings, emotion, and brain
Freud: He as well as Skinner was deeply indebted to Darwin.
He put back in the emotions that Skinner left out. Also
much more of the "ancient brain" connection. Freud and Skinner
didn't agree on much but they both agreed on the importance of
A description of a child putting these together. When his
daughter was 3 1/2 she attended preschool at a temple. One
evening before dinner she asked, "Daddy, where is God?" Not being
much of theologian Westen responded, "Well, no one is really sure, but
most people think he's everywhere, watching over us." "Well," she
responded rather irritated, "he must not be watching very well."
Perplexed, Westen asked what she meant. "Because of President
Bush," she responded emphatically, her disgust circuits obviously
firing widely. His wife flashed a look of consternation although
Westen experienced considerable pride at her ability to put together
what she was learning at preschool with the political bias she was
internalizing at home. A couple of hours later she made her daddy
proud again when she asked, "Why does God let bad things happen?" and
then wondered how God could let Bush be president.
A short description of framing by making ocean and moon
obvious and then asking a subject to name the first detergent that came
to mind => Tide. A central aspect of the art of political
persuasion is creating, solidifying, and activating networks that
create primarily positive feelings toward your candidate or party and
negative feelings toward the opposition. Republicans are very
good at doing this after spending billions of dollars over 40 years on
think tanks devoted to honing the conservative message.
One of the implications of Freud's theories, one that he could not
quite accept, was that emotional processes can be activated and shaped
outside of awareness. A partial example of this is a Nixon ad in
1968 that had no voice and no text. It only had pictures of
Humphrey at the Chicago Convention as well as many pictures of violence
from the preceding months
C5 Special Interests in Mind
The chapter starts with a quote from Francis Bacon in 1620.
It starts out, "The human understanding when it has once adopted
an opinion . . . draws all things else to support and agree with it."
Once we have made up our minds, "Don't confuse me with the
facts." As Bacon said in 1620, there is nothing new in this
chapter. The only thing it adds is a number of examples - mostly
very bad examples - of people who have made up their minds and refusing
to admit the existence of more information.
An example of how Republicans and Democrats saw Bush's Second Inagural
Speech. A description of how people determine the content of
ambiguous messages (THE CAT vs TAE CHT for an "artistic" font).
Bush I and II vs. Saddam compared to Hitler but not African
leaders. Republicans and Democrats and how they saw the Anita
Hill - Clarence Thomas hearings vs. Clinton and Paula Jones, Kathleen
Willey, and Monica Lewinsky. How to predict the votes of
Supreme Court Justices by knowing who appointed them. Predicting
responses to Abu Ghraib prison torture stories. Peoples opinions
of manual vs. machine ballot counting for the Florida vote. They
were able to predict peoples attitudes about vote counting 83.5% of the
time using cognitive and emotional data but using only the emotional
data they could predict attitudes 83% of the time, i.e. factual data
In general they report that the dispassionate mind of the 18th century
philosophers allows us to predict somewhere between .5% and 3% of the
most important political decisions people make.
The statement of hope: Even though 80% of the time peoples voting
can be predicted without any knowledge of the actual truth that means
that 20% of the population are influenced by actual data, and given how
may elections are won by 2% or 3%. That is enough to change the
vote in many cases.
Now, how do we change those voters minds?
C6 Trickle-up Politics
In 1952 the National Election Studies began as a database at the
University of Michigan collecting data on every presidential and
midterm election since. In the elections between Eisenhower and
Stevenson (1952 and 1956) the feelings of the voters towards the party
and the candidates was the best predictor of voting. This has not
changed. Between 1980 and 1996 less than 20% of voters voted for
the candidate of the opposite party. A later study showed that
could feel warm towards a candidate but also angry toward him.
And that positive and negative associations were more important
than personal judgments about his personality and competence - feelings
are more important than beliefs. Also emotional judgments about
personal characteristics are much more important than their positions
on the issues.
The only time issues become important when voters are very emotionally
involved, especial when they are anxious. The issues that become
important are those that relate to the voters interests (is it good for
me and my family) and values. This becomes really important in
extraordinary times, such as with FDR and the depression.
In the 1930 a candidate for local office conducted a "field study".
A week before the election his workers distributed a leaflet with
an emotional appeal, in another ward the leaflet had a carefully
reasoned appeal, and in the third ward no leaflet was distributed as a
control. Votes increased 50% in the emotional ward, 33% in the
rational ward, and 25% in the control ward. In 1998 in
Massachusetts a study was done in which an ad was shown to two groups
of people. In one group the music and images were bland, in the
other they were emotionally threatening. The emotional music and
pictures produced much more anxiety or enthusiasm and the people were
more likely to sigh up to vote or volunteer.
Example of the first Gore-Bush debate in 2000. Bush mildly
attacked Gore, Gore did not fight back, Gore still did not fight back,
Bush then called Gore a liar, Gore said that he would not get into
character or credibility attacks. Southern men respond to attacks
as a matter of honor. When Gore backed down from a (verbal) fight
he was seen as a coward and lost much of the south at that point.
Westen wrote a script that Gore could have used. In 2004
made a speech where he was not listening to his handlers and it was a
much better hard hitting speech.
Why don't / can't Democrats run emotionally compelling campaigns?
A hierarchy of goals that should guide every campaign that wants success.
- Democrats are cerebral, especially Democratic strategists.
They tend to be intellectual, they read and think, they thrive on
policy debates, arguments, statistics, and facts. When they have
a belief in the moral superiority of cerebral arguments they tend to
come across as condescending.
- They believe that reason can provide means and ends. Wrong
- it can only provide means. In evolution emotion came before
intellect. We are hard wired to love, hate, fear, and anger.
We respond faster and surer to these before we respond to
- Democrats believe that the effective use of emotion is inherently
manipulative. You can either tell the truth or lie with arguments
and statistics just as well as you can with emotionally compelling
words, images, and analogies.
- Many cerebral Democrats have a great discomfort in displaying emotion (in public?). A
clinical example of this is obsessional personality style,
characterized by tone deafness to emotion, combined with viewing
emotion as something irrelevant or bothersome. If the do express
emotion it is usually righteous indignation. Another trait has
been called "emotional avoidance". Highly functional people who
minimize their access to emotion (perhaps call it the Spock syndrome?)
They are often unable to notice or respond to emotional signals
in others. They are fundamentally handicapped by an emotional
style that runs contrary to what is required, especially in the age of
This is exactly the opposite of how most Democratic campaigns are run. Trickle-up politics is as valid as trickle-down economics.
Most voters can't keep up with the policies proposed by any but
the major candidates and have less chance of evaluating them as valid
- Define the party and its principles in a way that is emotionally
compelling and tells a coherent story of what its members believe in
and defines the other party and its values in ways that undermine its
capacity to resonate emotionally with voters.
- An effective campaign to maximize positive and minimize negative
feelings toward its candidate, and to encourage the opposite set of
feelings toward the opponent.
- Manage feelings toward the candidates' personal characteristics.
Convince voters that your candidate is trustworthy, competent,
empathic and capable of strong leadership, and to raise doubts about
the opposition on one or more of these dimensions.
- Manage positive and negative feelings towards the candidates' policies and positions. This is a distant fourth.
What voters need to know about a candidate is:
Part II A Blueprint for Emotionally Compelling Campaigns
- Does the candidate share the values that matter the most to me and does he care about people like me?
- Can I trust him to represent me faithfully?
- Does he have the personal qualities that lead me to believe that
he will do right by my values and interests, such as integrity,
leadership, and competence?
- If there is an issue that really matters to me, what's their
stand on it, and can I trust him to think about it and make decisions
which I would probably make if I had all the information they'll have
as my elected representative?
C7 Writing an Emotional Constitution A political
campaign must start with a coherent, emotionally compelling story.
It has a setting, protagonists, a problem, obstacles to be
overcome and a resolution. In more detail:
A retelling of "The Little Engine That Could."
With analysis. how it met the above story analysis elements.
Only Carville and Begala have been the only recent presidential
campaign leaders to follow this idea and what happened when Dukakis,
Carter, Dole, and Kerry didn't. How Reagan talked to the voters.
The underlying story of America since Reagan according to
Republicans. The problems with this story, 1) it fails to explain
the intent of the villain (the Democrats), 2) it leaves out the reason
why liberals "tinkered" with the free market (under the Great
Depression it failed), 3) it is an account of the liberals assault on
God - in actuality the conservatives wanted to support only one
religious viewpoint, and 4) it is a thinly veiled attack on all people
other than WASP's - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (evangelicals).
Why and how Carter didn't tell the Republican story.
- It should have the structure out brains expect of a narrative so that it can be readily understood, tole, and retold.
- It should have protagonists and antagonists, defining both what
the party or candidate stands for and what the party cannot stand, most
centrally, what the antagonists represent.
- It should be coherent, requiring few leaps of inference or
imagination to make its plot line vove forward or the intentions of its
central actors clear.
- It should have a clear moral (and generally subordinate morals, which refer to the party's values).
- It should be vivid and memorable.
- It should be moving.
- It should have central elements that are readily visualized or pictured, to maximize its memorability and emotional impact.
- It should be rich in metaphor, both so that it is emotionally
evocative and so that it creates and reinforces its intended analogies.
- It should take elements of the opposition's story, including its metaphors, and recast them as its own.
- Finally, if the story is the party's master narrative, it should
be a story its framers would want to tell their -- that could be
illustrated in a children's book -- because it should be so clear,
compelling, and central to its members' understanding of right and
wrong that they would want their children to internalize the values it
A retelling of "The Little Engine" and Art Buchwald's "So you want to
be an anti-Semite?" the way Republicans act. A litany of
"intended" consequences of Republican policies. Examples (lots)
of the words that Republicans have labeled Democrats. Why can't most people think of such a list for the Republicans.
C8 Aborting Ambivalence
Many Democratic pollsters reflect a one-dimensional reading of
three-dimensional data. Most people are ambivalent about most or
all issues. Polls and other techniques are valuable only for
evaluating the terms, body language, etc. best get across the message
that your principles compel you to support.
A description of the facts and emotions surrounding abortion, how some
Democratic candidates have approached the issue, and raises the
question, "What is the Democratic Party stand on abortion?" He
recommends that the Democrats take a principled stand on abortion.
He offers a sample position paragraph. He quites the
Republican 2004 plank on "Promoting a Culture of Life." He offers
some counters to this - Republicans
put the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, they
guarantee the right of every rapist to choose the mother of his child,
they are proposing a rapists' bill of rights, and Republicans
believe that if a sixteen-year-old girl is molested by her father, the
government should force her to have his child, if she doesn't want to
she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her
and ask for his consent.
Westen makes the point that if you ignore an issue in hopes that it
will go away - it never does. The job of a political strategist
is not to turn an asset into a liability for fear of a counterattack.
It is to prevent or counter that attack and to have thought a few
Early in Clinton's 1992 campaign Clinton noticed that they were behind
30 points on the welfare issue his comment to Carville and Begala was,
"Boys, they're killing us on welfare. We's better talk about
welfare." The're first ad was on welfare reform. It must
have been successful.
C9 Gunning for Common Ground
The previous chapter focused on conflicts within voters.
This chapter focuses on conflicts between voters. Most
Americans consider themselves "Middle Class". However the
definition as escalated in recent years. Now those with incomes
between $50,000 and $200,000 consider themselves middle class.
Given an income of $100,000 per year - a good private college or
university costs so much that these people don't have much expendable
People have very different frames for guns and gun control. In
large cities a gun means a a criminal robbing you. In rural areas
a gun means hunting deer with your father or grandfather.
Examples of how Democrats can thrive within the system.
First of all tell the whole truth, Bush was eastern establishment
all the way, prestigious schools, to be a rancher he had to buy a small
ranch two years before he ran for the Presidency, he built lakes on his
property because the river running through it was too polluted to fish.
Kerry is a hunter but his handlers wouldn't let the press show
him carrying a dead goose because it would offend the wheat germ and
When running a campaign and there are two emotionally divided sides
look for two things, 1) areas of ambivalence in one or both sides that
may mask shared networks (frames) and 2) ways of bridging seemingly
unconnected networks to create a common ground. Westen suggests a
campaign commercial showing a reaction to a pollution scene and linking
it th a man taking his son fishing. Another suggestion is via
terrorism. A gun shop, a couple of locals are talking with the
owner and his wife. A number of Middle Eastern men come in the
shop, pull automatic weapons off the shelves, and put their cash on the
table taking 3 or 4 apiece. The woman casts a worried look at her
husband, he shrugs with a facial expression that says, "What am I
supposed to do?" Shift to candidate out hunting, he makes
comments about his opponent saying that anybody can buy automatic
weapons without checking ID and background checks. Compare with
NRA and Republican stands.
Do not simply ignore parts of the country (or area) to Republicans just
because you haven't won there recently. Don't use eastern
establishment (or coast) values in your commercials if you don't live
in New Jersey (or Seattle). Put in the values and the concerns of
those who live in your area.
C10 Racial Consciousness and Unconsciousness
Americans have always been of two minds about race. This is
slowly changing but you must realize just how it is changing. The
first thing that changes is our public speech. Our deeply held
(but seldom voiced) "gut feelings" change much more slowly.
Surveys will seldom reveal any race prejudice. However
certain "coded language" will commonly invoke our older more primitive
feelings. These are terms like, "law and order", "welfare
queens", "states rights", "soft on crime". We need to invoke the
conscious and higher order feeling and attack those who use the coded
language as racist.
It is possible, in fact very common, to learn things at two levels.
The first is at the rational or logical (conscious) level - you
read about it for example. The second is unconsciously or
implicit level. These things you learn are not the same but they
can be. When the mind is engaged the conscious level overrides
the unconscious. Patriotic symbols in the background are one
example. Your unconscious messages must carry the same message
that you want your conscious message to say. You also need to
examine your opponents ad's and messages to see what unconscious
messages he is trying to put across.
When the other side is sending racist messages the worst thing to do is
ignore it, the best way to fight racism is to shine the bright light of
truth on it. You can't erase 300 years of history without work.
Weston has lots of other comments that are best read in the book.
C11 Death and Taxes
Positive and negative emotions are not opposites, they are
different, work in the brain differently and effect voting differently.
If you are only positive you are only fighting half the battle,
you can't win an election with half a brain. If the proposals of
your opponent are horrible, you have to tell people why they are
Segments from JFK's acceptance speech and Clintons 1992 convention
speech plus a speech that Westen would have written for Kerry.
Principles of Managing an Emotional Portfolio:
Rely on your emotions, your gut feelings to generate ideas for campaign
ads. Once you have designed an ad test it to see if you get the
response you are aiming at. If not, redesign. You need
talented people to create your ads but you need good data to see if
they are working. As Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify."
- If You Don't Feel It, Don't Use It
You have to describe your values and principles with emotional
clarity. An evaluation of the clarity of parts of the Republican
Contract With America. If you propose a bill, make the name
evocative, suggest why it should be passed, and make opposition to it
difficult because of the values it expresses, and relate it to your
party's master narrative. As a counter to the Flag-Burning
Amendment he proposes a Flag-Hiding Amendment. Very good, a must
- Frame Messages for Emotional Impact The framing of the genetics of homosexuality as lifestyle and War on Terror vs. Freedom Fighters. See Talking Right by Nunberg and Words that Workby
Luntz. Examples: Estate tax vs. Death tax vs. Paris
Hilton Jet tax or Billionaire Bonus or Caviar cuts; Republican
tax cuts vs. tax on the unborn; replacing the Death Tax with the
Birth Tax. If you are responding to a Republican initiative
always assume that they have carefully selected their frames, words,
analogies, and imagery and that they understand branding. Study
their words carefully and never repeat Republican slogans except to
attack them. Refer to the "Clear Skies Initiative" as the "Dark
Lungs Initiative". Always use the term "Bush and the Republican
Congress" when Republicans try to distance themselvesfrom the
administration. Framing can be done with images as well as words.
- Pitch Your Message a the Right Level
A hard concept to get across, example: don't say "Christian
morals", specify the group you want to address, not all Christians
agree with many of their ideas.
- Appeal to the Whole Brain
The appropriate use of visual and auditory cues, types of music,
sirens, crying infants, etc. Examples from Ned Lamont's campaign
against Joe Lieberman.
C12 Hope, Inspiration, and Political Intelligence
Excerpts from FDR's Fireside Chat Dec. 9, 1941 the Declaration of
War with Japan. The charisma of FDR, Reagan, and Bill Clinton.
The best predictor of success of a candidate is the ability to
elicit positive emotions.
As is becoming more and more clear there are several aspects of
intelligence. Recently Republicans have selected candidates
almost strictly for, what he calls, their political intelligence; their
ability to talk to people, to form coalitions, to be empathic, and to
link to people. Democrats have valued competence. The
Republicans could certainly use more competence and the Democrats could
use more political intelligence.
Curb appeal: the feeling voters get when they "drive by" a
candidate a few times on television and form an emotional impression.
Research has shown that quick spots of a candidate, as short as
30 seconds, are enough for voters to form a lasting opinion.
In selecting candidates Democrats should carefully observe primary
candidates as to their curb appeal because it will be very important in
the general election, they should monitor their candidate's
nonverbal behavior during the campaign to make sure it doesn't change
as the contest becomes long and bitter, and they should train their
candidates to maximize their nonverbal appeal.
The party and candidate needs a compelling master narrative, often
based on the candidates life story. Candidates should also have
"signature issues". These are specific issues to illustrate their
values and principles. There should only be a small number of
these and they should discuss these more often than the other issues of
the day. He discusses two possible ones, A "Parents' Bill of
Rights", and a "Fair Salaries Act".
If there are problems in a campaign answer them truthfully, the whole
truth with reasons and show how if fits in with your ethical position.
(Unless you are having a blatant affair.) The main thing is
to get out your message seen from your point of view and not let your
opponent tell it from his point of view. Your message needs to be
positive showing enthusiasm excitement, hope, compassion, and pride.
Examples from Bush and Gore with a proposed speech for Gore.
C13 Positively Negative There are several myths regarding negative campaigning.
These last three are mainly believed by Democrats. They
contradict everything we know about the mind and the brain. The
best evidence against them is the results of the last few elections.
- Campaigns are getting nastier - Wrong, at the start of our
country and throughout the 1800's our campaigns were very negative.
However negative campaign ads are getting worse.
- Negative campaigning reduces voter turnout - Wrong, this has been
recently shown to be false. Also in the 2004 election the
Republicans produced many negative ads to motivate conservative voters
to go to the polls. The 2006 turnout was mainly caused by
voter anger and the War in Iraq.
- Negative appeals are unethical - Wrong
- Negative appeals are ineffective - Wrong
- When negative appeals are made by the Republicans they are better left alone - Wrong
If you believe that negative campaigns are unethical - read the
Declaration of Independence. 70% of the statements are negative
about the British government. There is a big difference between
pointing out the errors of your opponents and unfair, misleading, or
unethical attacks which are not true. Whether an appeal is
rational or emotional, or positive or negative is completely
independent of whether it is ethical. Television ads are often
more powerful than speeches because of the linking of multimodal
networks linking words, images, sounds, and emotions. A long
discussion of Republican ads that were not ethical.
If negative ads are ineffective why did Bush win the 2004 election by
spending 3/4 of his budget on attack ads. Every sinning
presidential campaign in the last century has featured attacks on the
opposition. Democrats have often tended to respond to attacks,
especially unfair ones, with a set of strategies that virtually always
Counterpunching is so important because failure to counterpunch costs
elections. There is a 7 page analysis of the Kerry campaign and
how Bush attacked him even before he was nominated and kept it up all
during the election, especially the Swift Boat fiasco.
- Do not respond at all. This allows the Republicans to frame
the issues and voters tend to assume that the charge is true or has
something to hide, which in tern emboldens the attacker.
- Respond with a flurry of facts or counterarguments. This
turns the debate to one on the extend to which the charges to true.
It is best to respond as a parenthetical statement embedded in a
story of someone who would behave unethically in a campaign is a good
predictor of how he would behave in office.
- "He know it's not true" or "he's lying." Turns the debate
into a he said / she said shouting match. Tell a story about the
opponent that shows he is lying because that's who he is.
- Direct personal attacks or "low blows." A direct and immediate
angry response that tells the audience that you are a man who can stand
up for yourself and is sick and tired of lies from a person who doesn't
understand the truth.
- Appeal to referees (the media) or worse yet the opposition to
stop the attacks and play nice. This signals the the person is of
lesser status and must beg.
- Call for the removal of the official who has been a lightning rod
for public disapproval. The primary example here is the
resignation of Rumsfeld. Bush was the president, and the buck
stops there, if Bush didn't want it done it wouldn't have been done.
When you are dealing with a person (or party) that is likely to do this
one good technique is to inoculate the electorate. Make it known
that you expect such attacks and then when they come you can say
something like "There you go again" (from Reagan's campaign against
C14 Terror Networks
The Republicans have used terror in the late 1940's and early
1950's with Joe McCarthy and again since 2002 when Karl Rove went
before the Republican National Committee that terror (national
security) would be the linchpin of the Republican efforts over the next
few years. The Democrats didn't respond because they were fear of
being unseated, fear of being branded, and fear of being outflanked.
Since they didn't respond they were unseated, branded, and
He has a nice comment, "Where there's Fire, Don't Wave at the Smoke."
You put out the fire, and if someone keeps starting those fires,
you put out the arsonist. His primary example is the Oct 2002
resolution that Bush pushed through to invade Iraq without
congressional debate. The could have told the truth, it may be
hard but you never have to apologize later or try to lie your way out
of it. He recommends a statement that the Congressional Democrats
could have taken. The Republicans used this vote for the next 5
years and are still using it to accuse any Democrat who wants
accountability to accuse them of being "Soft on Terrorism."
The use of terror as a tactic has been used before. The Alien and
Sedition Acts under President John Adams, the "red scare" in 1917 when
the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, and Joe McCarthy in the early
1950's. The main thing to learn is that when you try appeasement
the bullies always view it as a sign of weakness and increase the
attacks. The Democrats should have responded in 2002 with a call
to the Republican No Rights Left Behind initiative.
If you don't stand for anything, there's not much reason to have a
party. If the Constitution isn't worth defending, it's hard to
know what is. And if your leading strategists can't figure out
how you can win by speaking the truth on vital matters of national
security and civil liberties, get yourself new strategists. The
Republicans have been doing this all during Bush's presidency.
The Democrats must learn how to act together. The Demo
slogan for 2006 was "Together, we can do better" - follow it, or even
better as Franklin said more than 200 years ago, "we must all hang
together or we will most assuredly all hang separately." He
repeated a statement made by Garrison Keillor.
Again, the Republicans have been using terror ever since 9/11 and every
time they did Bush's popularity level increased. Recent
experiments have shown that when faced with stories of death and terror
most people become more conservative, supportive of their home culture,
and ready to attack other cultures. How can you respond to this?
First identify and learn about the problem. There are
scientific data on terror management techniques. The first step
is to inoculate the voters, tell them how terror is used to manipulate
them. Look for the Trojan horses. Stop using the Republican
framing terms, "War on Terror". Any time this approach is tried
again, call them on it. Remind Americans of how great leaders in
the past have responded to threats. Look for the manipulative
words and phrases the Republicans are using and prepare counters to
A recommendation to Kerry in 2004. We are not fighting a war on
terror, terror is a feeling not an enemy. If the president wants
to fight a war on terror I suggest he see a therapist. As your
president. I will not declare war on feelings, I will declare war on
those who create those feelings. There were many areas where the
Republicans were vulnerable to attack - the Democrats didn't attack any
A lot of Democrats are angry at Republicans for violating the letter
and the spirit of the Constitution. They are also very angry at
Democrats in office for failing to use the weapons at their disposal to
fight against the Republicans.
C15 Civil and Uncivil Unions
The Terri Schiavo case. This case was an example of a
battle between two value systems, two moralities, and two visions of
faith. One was inherently antidemocratic, rests on assertions of
the form, "I've talked to God, He has told me the answer, and I have
the right to impose it on you." The other, that which our
founding fathers had, starts out with the view that to live a just and
moral life, we must be firm in our moral convictions but humble in our
recognition that we are not the only ones who feel certain about our
faith or values. Democrats need to talk about values, morality,
and faith but not using the words or the meanings of the Republicans.
John Haidt has distinguished several kinds of moral emotion.
"Self-conscious" emotions - shame, embarrassment, and guilt lead
us to do the right things. "Other-suffering" emotions -
compassion, empathy lead us to feel for others and try to help them.
"Other-praising" emotions - admiration and respect for those we
consider morally courageous primarily define the morality of the left.
"Other-condemning" emotions - anger, indignation, contempt,
disgust, and loathing are especially common on the far right. The
danger is that these "other-condemning" emotions cause the left to fear
the right who use these. They must learn to recognize these
emotions for what they are and to fight against them.
We must learn to separate out the sacred from the profane. We
live in the profane. This the world about which Jesus said,
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." However it is not all that easy
to separate the whole world into two non-interacting parts, the sacred
and the profane interact in many ways. Our political parties
sometimes try to. Democrats are very uncomfortable with the
sacred, preferring the profane. The Republicans is casting its
appeal much more in the language of the sacred. It has even gone
farther, turning the profane world of free-market capitalism into an
article of faith and calling anyone who disagrees a blasphemer.
"If you want to win elections, you can't assume your values. You have to preach them. If one side is running on values and the other side is running from them, it isn't hard to figure out how the electorate will start thinking, feeling, and talking about values."
Until the 1980's references to God were common. Kennedy, Johnson,
Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Carter all commonly referred to
God. Then in 1984 Reagan redefined faith and morality. He
was very public in his pronouncements of faith. He was very
skilled in changing the Democratic complaints about his supporting a
particular faith into claiming that they were against all faith.
Much discussion of various types of religious, fundamentalist,
christian right politics. Democrats should tell Americans about
the extremists who are violating the law, the spirit, and the exact
words of the Constitution. These include Pat Robertson and former
Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Evangelical Christians have been at the forefront of the effort to end
slavery and give rights to women. They still have their fervor
but their good works have been hijacked by a few of their number and
The author defines fundamentalism. They differ from evangelicals
in that fundamentalists are motivated by fear, hate, and the
"other-condemning" moral emotions. Jerry Falwell said, "A
fundamentalist is just an evangelical who is mad about something."
Jimmy Carter said that the key characteristics of fundamentalist
religions everywhere is that they are invariably dominated by
authoritarian males who consider themselves first among equals.
They draw la radical distinction themselves and everyone else,
who are defined, at best, as objects of pity, and more usually,
subhuman objects of scorn. They are angry and militant, often
willing to resort to violence to assert the dominance of their beliefs,
and view any efforts at cooperation or negotiation with others as signs
of weakness. There are three central features of fundamentalism, rigidity, domination, and exclusion.
It is time for a progressive moral critique of the right. This
should not only target the intemperate words of the leaders of the
Republican party. It should also focus on the deeds of Republican
office-holders. It should be framed as a moral critique, not as a
matter of policy differences or as a "debate on the issues." He
quotes a number of quotes from the Bible which run counter to
Republican moral principles.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Mark 10:21-25. John the
Baptist, "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none;
and he that hath meat, let him do likewise" Luke 3:11). "When a
man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at
peace with him: Prov. 16:7. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they
will be called sons of God" Matt. 5:9. "For I know how many are
your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous
and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the counts" Amos
12. "Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits:
Exod 6. He describes a number of cases in which Republican
officeholders under Bush have violated one or more of these statements
from the Bible.
In 2004 Bush made an anti-gay message supporting a proposed
constitutional amendment. Kerry said very little. Westen
offers a press conference statement that Kerry could have made.
He also offers a number of facts and figures and moral statements
that Democrats could make when faced with anti-gay sentiments.
The philosophers of the Enlightenment used reason as a weapon against those who would rule by religious dogma but it was their passion
for liberty that led to the founding of America and democracies around
the world. Two visions of the mind and brain dominate our
thought. One, dispassionate reason suggests that voters choose
candidates based on their policies. The other, a passionate
vision suggest that voters are moved by the feelings that candidates
and parties elicit in them.
Voters tend to ask four questions that determine who they will vote for.
Candidates who focus their campaigns toward the top of this hierarchy
and work down generally win. Candidates who start at the bottom
and work up generally lose. What does this mean for Democratic
candidates and the Democratic Party?
- How do I feel about the candidate's party and its principles?
- How does this candidate make me feel?
- How do I feel about this candidate's personal characteristics, particularly his integrity, leadership, and compassion?
- How do I feel about this candidate's stands on issues that matter to me?
Contained in the book are 4 pages of general notes and 31 pages of
index. A more specific set of notes for the book are contained in
his web site: www.westenstrategies.com/PoliticalBrainNotes , this
is 54 pages long (big type).
- It means abandoning traditional Democratic laundry lists with
each special interest putting its "issue" in the bag and telling
compelling narratives of what progressive stand for.
- It means recognizing the complex and conflicting networks that
constitute public opinion, which can't be mapped in one dimension.
- It means recognizing that most issues that matter to voters are
fraught with conflicting emotions and that the most persuasive appeals
are usually those that are the most honest.
- It means recognizing the shared and unshared networks of emotions and searching for networks that bridge them.
- It means recognizing the difference between conscious and
unconscious sentiments, appealing to voters' better angels, and calling
hate by name.
- It means recognizing that elections are won or lost in the
marketplace of emotions, and that political persuasion is about
managing emotions by activating the right networks.
- It means selecting and nurturing candidates with the political
intelligence to win, who can tell compelling stories about what they
believe in and provide their fellow citizens with hope and inspiration.
- It means distinguishing ethical and unethical appeals and fighting it out in the neural turf of the electorate.
- It means recognizing the dangers posed by those who would
demagogue hate and terror and showing the courage to respond with
compassion where appropriate and aggression where necessary.
- It means reasserting the traditional American understanding of
the relation between church and state where American presidents raise
their right hand and vow to protect the nation "so help me God" and not
reward the righteous and rageful who demand, "so help my God."
- Most importantly, it means that the first question a candidate
should ask on any issue should always be, "In light of my values and
the best available evidence, what do I believe is right?" The
second question is how to close the gap between that answer and the
feelings of the electorate.
Additional notes from article in Huffington Post Apr. 16, 2009
The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling
Libertarian Conservatism, eg.
Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul. Government should be small and weak
and kept that way through low taxes. The primary role should be
to police streets, protect private property, and protect the country
from external threats, (internal threats can also set them off).
Social Conservatism, entirely
incompatible with libertarianism. This is primarily Christian
fundamentalism. They have privileged knowledge of God's Will and
have the right to impose that will on others. eg. Falwell,
Robertson, and Dobson.
Fiscal Conservatism, eg. Bob Dole - soft New Dealers, they accept safety nets but prefer them to be thin.
National Security Conservatism. Eg. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They are hawkish but avoid military service.
Westen doesn't directly use word but is strongly hinted at.
They commonly use key words that are "understood" but are not
explicitly racist such as voting rights, "welfare queens", affirmative
action, "illegals", "one of us".
Republicans are short on ideas but long on selling ideas, Democrats are
the opposite, "long on ideas but short on the ability to bundle them
into coherent, emotionally compelling narratives that make people want
to buy them."
A reader of Westen's article recommends the addition of a sixth category, this would be the "Law and Order Conservative".
eg. Nixon, Giullani, J. Edgar Hoover. A "fear-of-chaos"
response" to the problems of urban violence, antisocial behavior,
antiwar activism, countercultural lifestyles, and controversial art