As we saw with Frank Luntz, the very power of political messaging has the possibility to shift the way people view policies. Through conducting focus groups and talking to thousands of undecided voters, Luntz was able to help the Republican Party shift their positions to best align with their voters. However, the true power that comes as a result of the literal words, the study of metaphors and grammar, that ultimately shifts the opinions of voters.
Political scientists across the country attempt to craft messages to turnout and motivate voters. It all ultimately starts with the strong understanding of the English language itself. Although many Americans have a very loose to almost no understanding of grammar, tense, for example, plays a substantial role in how people perceive messages. In using the passive voice, like "had an" as opposed to "was having" is seen to cause possible voters less concern. This idea expands only further to broader marketing, where phrases like "only has," as oppose to "has," which exacerbates things like calories.
Back to politics, just like simple grammatical choices, metaphors can really shift the way Americans perceive political messages. In many ways, the very metaphor used to convey a political opinion is the most crucial aide in helping a uninformed voter understand a policy or candidate. For example, Barack Obama used many sprinting/running metaphors to explain the long-haul of the 2012 presidential election. He used phrases like "run through the tape," and "This is not going to be like Usain Bolt," a pop culture sports reference that can help people process his stance.
The evidence shows that when candidates use moving verbs or verbs that don't necessarily demand any physical action, people "simulate a fleeting sense of motion." They activate people's brains into almost take the same action or feel that they need to take the action naturally, regardless of whether they believe the words they hear or read. The result? A higher chance that the person becomes mobilized and wants to vote.
The result, when taking advantage of all of these methods, is the victory of a campaign. If you look from the landslide in 1972 for President Nixon, where he belittled the Democrats, to when Obama turned a concession speech into a song video ad, the tools are the same. No matter the real tone of the messaging, as long as it caters to the specific campaign, and it is ultimately victorious, the campaign's goal is fulfilled.
Sources:
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/framing-political-messages-with-grammar-and-metaphor
https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/3955/ten-of-the-best-presidential-campaign-commercials-of-all-time
Great post, Noah! This reminded me of the cool hunters we learned about in the Marketing documentary. Their job was to figure out what was going to be cool and convince people to buy it without seeming like there was any marketing whatsoever. Like the strategies in this documentary, the subtle language differences you discussed seem to be a way to convince people to buy a product (or vote for a candidate) without there being any apparent influence. Like we learned in the documentary, people don't like to do things when they feel they are being told to do it. It seems that for the most part, this idea is one that highly influences many political scientists to find ways to campaign without having the American people take notice.
ReplyDeleteI really love this, Noah! I think it is interesting how one can utilize specific verbiage in order to elicit specific emotions. Furthermore, I find it incredibly interesting how one can utilize metaphors and "moving verbs" to elicit a specific response. This reminds me of color psychology where fashion designers choose specific colors for specific situations. For example, red can be interpreted as strong and angry. While blue can be seen as calm and soothing.
ReplyDeleteInteresting connection between politics and marketing! It reminded me of rhetorical devices of persuasion that we learned in AP Language, specifically Obama’s pop culture sports reference where creative techniques like these are used to target audiences like the consumers so that they “buy” into it or become “mobilized” as your saying. Building on how grammar and metaphors are used to craft messages in language, I’ve noticed other methods being used like in online media coverage. For example, to elicit positive associations with a candidate (and brands in general), there’s endorsement by celebrities on twitter. In political ads, there’s also emotional stories that empathize with personal struggles of voters or heroic acts that build upon their charismatic image/reputation. All of these tactics shift perceptions.
ReplyDeleteThis trick of using passive voice to make a situation seem less concerning was also used in a controversial history textbook that played down the terrible nature of slavery into something that "wasn't that bad." This Texas textbook used human subjects and active verbs when discussing the "upside of slavery," but used abstract nouns and passive verbs to discuss slavery's brutality. An excerpt from the textbook reads, "Whippings, brandings, and even worse torture were all part of American slavery." This sentence doesn't include any people, such as the slave owners who were doing the whipping, branding, and torturing and doesn't include the slaves who were whipped, branded, and tortured. By not using the words "slave owners" and "slaves," the sentence distorts what really happened.
ReplyDeleteI think it's impeccable how you associated two fundamental and substantial topics with each other; the issues that are politics and marketing. I never thought that people would utilize metaphors and other literary devices to induce a particular response from an audience. Interesting how it's not always the context that attracts people's attention but also about the wording and specific devices used in speech.
ReplyDelete