From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Tue Jun 26 2001 - 05:44:02 MDT
Alllow me to recommend a book: David Horowitz' s "The Art of Political War And Other Radical Pursuits" (Spence Publishing Company, Dallas. 2000).
A very interesting book, even for transhumanists. In the following I will use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the American sense, like Horowitz does. Here follows a summary.
Horowitz covers the six principles of the political war that the liberals have understood but the conservatives haven't:
1. Politics is war through other means
2. Politics is war about positions
3. In the political war the attacker wins
4. Position is defined through hope and fear
5. The political weapons are the symbols that evoke hope and fear.
6. Victory is in the hands of the people
1. Politics is war through other means
This is a key point. The Democrats, according to Horowitz, have understood what political communication and political campaigns are about. To win. While the conservatives act like they are trying to win the debate team duel at Oxford University. But the public doesn't act like students hungry for debate. It wont give you the whole evening and it doesn't always value facts first.
In politics today you have about 30 seconds to cut to the chase. Horowitz says that even if you had the time to elaborate your arguments to gain the votes from the insecure or politically inexperienced voters you wouldn't reach them. Either because they don't understand what you are saying or because they didn't perceive it among the rest of the everyday stream of events. And, even worse, while you are elaborating your arguments the other side has already defined you as an evil, borderline racist controlled by religious fanatics, in the pocket of the rich.
And nobody that sees you in this way will listen... and your politically dead. Thus politics is war, according to Horowitz.
2. Politics is war about positions
In this war there are only two sides: friends and enemies. And it is your task to define yourself as a part of the good majority, or as a very large group in relation to your program. It is similar to the military work of choosing the battlefield. Choose a terrain that makes it easy for you to win. The liberals, in the author's opinion, usually define themselves by the concepts of "justice" and "tolerance". If your are perceived as "evil" and "immoral" your opponent will have an easier time to picture you as a threat and thus as an enemy.
3. In the political war the attacker wins
Republicans often have a "conservative strategy" (sic!) and wait for the opponent's attack. Horowitz says that this is a strategy for loosers.
Defining your opponent is the most important part of the political war. All other factors equal, the defensive faction in the political war will loose, because they have let themselves be defined by the opponent.
Horowitz points out that it's important how you use negative attacks in the work of defining the opponent. If you do it wrong you will be perceived as the enemy. But he continues with that it constitutes a greater risk not to use negative attacks.
He uses the example of the campaign for the senate seat of California between the sitting senator Barbara Boxer (D) and Matt Fong (R). Boxer chose, in Horowitz' s opinion the biggest "spender" in congress, to start an extremely negative campaign against the moderate Fong who was ahead in the polls. As a result she managed to define herself as the moderate candidate and Fong as the extremist. Voters like the middle road (between what poles, I might add?). And the decision of Fong not to reply in kind didn't save him from being defined as "evil". It cost him the victory. Horowitz ends the paragraph with: "never say 'never' in political battles. Its an art, not a science".
Perhaps you could add that Bush Sr. chose the same strategy against Dukakis in 1988.
4. Position is defined through hope and fear
The twin feelings of the political war are fear and hope. The one that can give people hope becomes their friend, the one that makes them afraid is their enemy. Choosing between the two, Horowitz says to opt for instilling hope.
But you shouldn't discard fear as a weapon. If your opponent manages to define you as sufficently devious your opportunities for instilling hope will diminish. That is why the liberals are so determined to depict the conservatives as "evil", "devious", hostile to "minorities", the "middle class" and the "poor".
The Democrats have successfully connected the religious right with moral intolerance. And they have received great help in doing so by the actions and mere names of such groups as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition.
As a result, it has been easy for the liberals to depict them as a threat against anybody that doesn't share all their values. "They want to force their morality on you"! It doesn't matter, in Horowitz' s opinion, if it is false or true. And as soon as the negative image has stuck, the smeared party is wounded- often lethally- in the political battle.
You have to reverse the picture the opponent is drawing. If the opponent wants to make you look vile and greedy it is important to dress up in a friendly smile and act with generousity.
He points out that symbols are so powerful in the political war that if you use them wisely, you can launch the most vicious, unfair, and ungrounded attacks on your opponent and still look like a saint.
5. The political weapons are the symbols that evoke hope and fear.
The most important symbol is the candidate. Does the candidate instill hope or fear?
People want to know: can he understand our situation, does he seem knowledgeable and responsible, will he REALLY stand up for the opinions he's propagating, do I like him or do I feel distrustful in his presence, would I like him to come to my dinner party?
JFK was, in Horowitz' s mind, a relatively inexperienced and inert congressman and senator. He managed to win the presidential election almost solely by stating a row of what he said were problems in society and then chanting the mantra: "we can do bettah". Why, asks Horowitz? Well, partly because he looked handsome, seemed fun, youthful and charming- and he managed to build an image of not being a fanatic. And he used his soundbites well. You have very few opportunities to drop them. Be clear, concise and very, very focused.
The same goes for parties. The Democrats have a party line. When they fight they are always very focused. Everytime they approach a TV camera, there is at least a sentence that is in common for them all. "Tax cuts for the rich are on the expenses of the poor", for instance. A constant repetition makes sure that the message gets through. When Republicans speak, they all speak about different things. There are too many messages, instead of a single focused one. One message, says Horowitz, is a soundbite. Many messages are just an irritating wall of sounds.
It is thus symbols and soundbites that decide the election. That is what reaches people before they have thought it through. And that is what people will remember. Well chosen words and expressions are perceived as more important than speaches, platforms and manifests.
The Republicans' faces also give an impression. In an increasingly pluralistic society divergence is important. Presently, Horowitz sees too many WASP Southern Republican faces on TV. People cannot identify with such a seemingly extremely homogenous group. How could they understand anything else than their own group's problems? It doesn't seem possible for normal people to be Republican.
6. Victory is in the hands of the people
This is the most important principle and the foundation for all the six principles. You must define yourself in a way that is understandable. There must be an element of hope in electing you. And an element of fear for the possibility of your opponent winning. You can pull off both by describing yourself like the underdog, "the untried, previously unknown alternative", the good thing fighting against hardships for a better tomorrow, just like Jane & Joe Q. Public.
Horowitz points this out as the Democrats' best skill. While the Republicans couldn't care less about it. Each and every liberal sentence says "Democrats care about women, children, minorities, working- class America and the poor. The Republicans are evil, bought off by the rich, and they couldn't care less about YOU". This is the strategy that has to be reversed for the Republicans to win, he means.
"The just cause" as shown by the liberals, Horowitz finishes, is a strongly motivating factor in the political war. It gives energy to the troops and gives the campaign the force to win the political war. Republicans believe in giving people economic possibilities and individual freedom. The basis of this idea is justice for all. If they could do this message understandable to the voters, the Grand Ol' Party would win.
So what do I personally think of David Horowitz' s book?
It is certainly a very intense book, certainly au pair with Emile Zola' s "J' accuse". A mix of rage against "Slick Willie" Clinton, a political manifesto, and a desperate call for action.
I also get to wonder: where was this book published? Dallas, in The Lone Star Republic. Somehow I get the impression that someone in the Bush campaign headquarters read this book, and guess who gets to listen to "Hail to the chief" on repeat these days...? Things that make you go "hmm".
After having worked myself for 15 years in Swedish politics, I must point out that Horowitz has certainly found some kernels of truth.
You have a nice program, but somewhere along the road you became "evil" in the eyes of the public, and you are still sitting hidden in the basement without anybody listening to you. You want to enable people to make "more informed choices". Well the only informed choice left standing in the political arena may be not torape the Earth and endanger all our lives. Do the rational, informed choice: ban nanotech in '03. For your kid' s sake.
Techno naivism in the political and ideological arena will certainly cost transhumanism the victory. Not that it would amount to much of a fight either today. Our opponents have a far, far greater degree of political clout.
Together with Robert A. Heinlein' s "Take Back Your Government! : A Practical Handbook for the Private Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work", and Friedrich A. Hayek's "The Intellectuals And Socialism" I think that David Horowitz' s "The Art of Political War And Other Radical Pursuits" is good read for the discerning transhumanist in order to add to his political savoir faire.
Ciao
Waldemar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:17 MST