The Politics of Persuasion

Despite some dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of success of President Obama's first White House administration, he was none the less re-elected. But as emphatically as Mr Obama was returned to office, so too was the stalemate that had shackled Congress during his first term. So long as Republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives and Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, passing legislation to achieve his aims will remain difficult.

In order to break through that blockade, President Obama is once more forced into trying to muster the support for compromise measures. And that means persuasion.

The state of the union was an all out display of political persuasion, as President Obama used the State of the Union address to offer the Republican Party (GOP) grounds for co-operation (BBC, 2013). Part of that was to use human beings as both visual aids and emotional cues - bringing real people affected and afflicted by real events into Congress, there to be face to face with the people who decide on the policies that might salve their pain or relieve their distress.

The GOP response, presented by Senator Marco Rubio, was no less a persuasive appeal, it was just targeted at a different audience. The primary aim was to offer platitudes to their core voters - while making a play for what they hope is a compatible audience by also offering the response in Spanish.

The problem with the politics of persuasion is that saying too much is a bad thing. Fully contextualising information and complex relationships leaves too much of a chance for miscomprehension. So information is condensed and packaged, to grab attention and convey information in digestible morsels. The State of the Union address, and the response, focussed heavily on sentiment and ideology, with facts seemingly open for interpretation either way.

And this problem is epitomised by American style political campaigning - simplified, emotive messages; specifically aimed to provoke a response or to encourage identification with the cause. Even the positive messages, that seek to rally people to positive achievements with positive emotions, such as collected in the Spike Lee edited Design for Obama (2009), cannot be left beyond criticism for oversimplification.

What is happening in America right now is a war for public influence, that is being fought with targeted persuasion - aimed, packaged and delivered just for the target audience; something that the increasing personalisation of our technology is only going to make easier over time.

When we allow ourselves to be moved by anything less than well evidenced arguments, we are merely encouraging people to play to our prejudices, which we are only too ready to hear people agree with. We must be vigilant against our own susceptibility to persuasion, and force those who seek to persuade us to use a better quality of argument, and a better quality of evidence.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Obama's 2013 State of the Union speech: full text'; 13 February.

+ Spike Lee & Aaron Perry-Zucker (eds) 'Design for Obama: Posters for Change - A Grassroots Anthology'; Taschen, 2009.