Political communication needs an aesthetic and emotional quality in order to engage its audience: discuss this statement using appropriate theories and concepts and link your arguments to appropriate communicative media
“
Sometimes leadership isn’t about moving to the left, or moving to the right, it’s about moving the electorate” –
Drew Westen 
Emotion and aesthetics play an important role in winning elections both here in the UK and in the United states. There are many examples of when emotion and the selling of the self results are advantageous to the user however it is not a black and white process. There are different types of emotion that do engage and some aesthetic techniques can only get the audience interested because politics is left out so much there is nothing to engage in. I will discuss these issues in more detail by including both theory and examples to provide a detailed account of the role emotion and aesthetics has in engaging audiences in politics, using Television as the medium of communication.
There has been a lot of change in political advertising and the way in which politics connects with its audience. In Political Electoral Broadcasts (PEB’s) in the UK and there has been a greater emphasis of the significance of the party leader and the use of attacking tactics towards other parties (Scullion & Dermody, 2005). This new trend encapsulates both an increased usage of emotion and aesthetics in trying to gain an upper hand.
Firstly, a look at attacking and negative campaigns; These forms of advertising and broadcasts focus on attacking the issues and image of the opponent and be so effective as to win the election (Perloff & Kinsey 1992, cited in Scullion and Dermody, 2005). Negative campaigning commands attention in the media and therefore gets a lot of interest from the public. There is a sense of urgency in these types of adverts and leads to a sense of immediate importance creating more memorable adverts than neutral and positive ones (Carlstone 1980; Wyer, 1974; Brains & Wattenberg, 1996 cited in Scullion & Dermody, 2005). This means that the more emotive negative campaigning is more understandable making information more accessible to those who may not have been interested before and as research by Fiske (1980) suggests, it creates higher attention levels. This is linked with the usage of metaphors. Metaphors can be used to induce fear and feelings of negativity towards a certain group, but it social group of political group. For example relating immigration to disease activates fear (O’Brian, 2003) and induces a reaction from the audience, encouraging a turnout at the polls, one example of emotion creating a more engaged and involved audience. There is a demanding amount of information that builds up from all parties, including their policies and views but an audience cannot always pay attention to it all. So what metaphors do is to offer “a short-cut device to address this need” (Charteris-Black, 2006, p11) For the last eighty years there have been concerns that the electorate make irrational appeals and find themselves at the voting booths not really knowing what they are voting for (Westen 2008), but these metaphors communicate the political arguments, communicating ideology by political myth, heightening emotional impact and establishing the ethical integrity of the speaker (Mio 1997). This outward anger can have other positive effects as well (Conger and Kanungo, 1994) because it creates a feeling of inclusiveness and cohesion between members and supporters motivating to compete with outsiders (Bass, 1990). If it is appropriate use of emotion, and the leaders who can demonstrate further knowledge of their emotions, are better performers (Goleman, 1998) giving trust and confidence in them, can be used as an emotion guide on an issue.
Although the above argument provides three arguments for the positive effect emotions have on increasing engagement, there is research that suggests that attacking adverts negatively affect the turn-out of elections and therefore this form of emotional appeals can be seen as disengaging rather than engaging (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1999 cited in Scullion & Dermody 2005). This leaves the question open to other forms of emotion such as hopes and dreams. This was successfully done by Democrat candidate Bill Clinton in the 1992 American Elections. In his Television
advert there were many references to the American dream and Hope:
I was born in a little town called Hope, Arkansas, three months after my father died. I remember that old two-story house where I lived with my Grandparents. They had very limited incomes. It was in 1963 that I went to Washington and met President Kennedy at the Boy’s National Program. And I remember just, uh, thinking what an incredible country this was, the somebody like me, you know, who had no money or anything, would be given the opportunity to meet the President. That’s when I decided I could really do public service because I cared so much about people. I worked my way through law school with part time jobs – anything I could find. After I graduated, I didn’t really care about making a lot of money. I just wanted to go home and see if I could make a difference. We’ve worked hard in education and health care the class-room, to create jobs and we’ve made real progress. Now it’s exhilarating to me to think that as president I could help to change all our people’s lives for the better, and bring hope back to the American Dream(Taken from Western, 2008 – Video available from Youtube.com)
This speech also introduces aesthetics in politics to the essay. As well as including the well-established theme of hope and the American dream he weaved into the advert that he was not anyone different but someone who grew up with hardships on a Main Street in a town, without a father. This lack of elitism and perceived pure humbleness made him only the second Democrat to be re-elected as President eighty years due to this approach (Western, 2008). Republican strategists have recognised since the days of Richard Nixon that this is the road to victory, paved in emotional intentions (Western, 2008 p13).
This is what Senator Robert Dole did throughout his political career. He was perceived by voters as “a man of character and stature who had been badly wounded on behalf of his county . . . a common G.I. Joe” (Friedenberg, 1997, p163). Voters were faced with a choice between Dole and Forbes, who was a man born into extreme wealth and had rarely faced such adversity as Dole. Dole won.
Perception on TV was a particularly important to candidates in the past just as it is now. Dwight Eisenhower was one the first to appear on TV and proved to show how important image was on television. Actor Robert Montgomery trained Eisenhower on how to appear on TV and he came across a lot better Adlai Stevenson did and ultimately won (McNair, 2003). And since then it has not just been present but has been an important part of political communications. Richard Joslyn observed that between 1960 and 1984 only 15% of politics spots (on American TV) included specifics about policies however 57% addressed personal and professional qualities of the candidate. Included in this, are the inclusion of family members in the adverts (Franzen cited in Friedenberg 1997, p 159).
According to Derek Draper, former New Labour ‘apparatchik-turned-psychotherapist’ said that “someone like Gordon Brown has to sell himself on his personality” by taking on the old American tactics. There is a reason why Draper feels that this is an important feature for a politician to show, and that is because “we can never get to know all the policies but we can get to know the politician as a character” (Draper Cited in Backett 2008). This follows up on Charteris-Black’s idea that there needs to be an easier but balanced alternative to pure policies for an audience to make their voting decisions and personal characteristics are a more engaging way to do this.
This is a common trend for most politicians; David Cameron is a family man who rides his bicycle to work, Barack Obama is a family man who cares for the people and is ‘one of them’. It is the latter character who has really brought forward the celebritistion of politics to the general public. Since the Second World War there has been a new class shift where there has been a blend of all class levels and what has emerged is that Celebrities are the new Aristocracy. People look up to celebrities, they listen to them and idolise them. It is desirable to be a celebrity. It is a great way to connect with audiences as well. A celebrity can be made out of anyone, and by looking at the front cover of News week, the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh has been made to look like a celebrity by changing the lighting, and looking at his pose. By using these devices an audience can recognise that person as ‘one of their own’ and enable them to empathise with him (Evans 2005). Lembit Opik agrees that there is access to public interests and therefore greater chance of engagement by becoming a celebrity, after his big highly publicised relationship with Gabriela Irimia, one of the Cheeky Girls (Beckett 2008).
However this poses a question that argues that is helps disengage audiences. Opik confirmed that it was a problem when trying to discuss issues such as fox hunting and Ireland because the media was more interested in the ‘soap opera‘ of his relationship. Politicians find it hard to pass the gossip and trivia that audiences are engaging and interested in, leaving the politics on the sideline. As well as this, the image and message that ‘the celebrity’ conveys is not a positive one. Celebrity culture today is all about self-improvement and self-development rather than being famous because of hierarchal privilege (Evans 2005). There is no long any effort in becoming a celebrity, as it represents no real achievement as success can be achieved without any real work (Marshall, 1997 cited in Evans 2005 p16). And according to Boorstin (1992) celebrities today suffer from a narcissistic self-obsession. Firstly, a lot of politicians are privileged by birth; look at David Cameron or George W. Bush for example, the former being an Eton boy and the latter in a wealthy oil family. Secondly, audiences need to know that these celebrity politicians actually work, and finally politics is about representing the people, being a self-centred politician does not lend itself kindly to a positive image of being a representative. Ankersmit (2002) also suggests that this self tailored image creates an aesthetic barrier between the represented and the representation, causing alienation.
Something else that is evident is that the reverse is happening, with celebrities becoming political. This is not a new occurrence, with Ronald Regan’s life prior the West Wing was based in acting. Contemporary examples are George Cloony’s involvement in the Darfur crisis and Jamie Oliver’s School dinners, and it shows that politics “is not a game played out by managers [. . . but] when thinking of politics and leadership, people need something to believe in” (Lilleker 2006, p26) and need some form of physical representation. If these ‘self improved’ celebrities born from ground routes manage to encapsulate what Lilleker suggests then it is not a wrong road for politics to go to engage audiences.
The idea of the politician as a celebrity fits under the umbrella of George Ritzer’s McDonaldization theory. Focussed on politics, McDonaldization makes communication more focussed the receiver and in a more efficient way. There is greater control by the sender however the standards and techniques are predictable and quantity takes over in importance of quality (Lilleker, 2006). It is just an easier and more efficient method of completing tasks (McDonaldization.com). This more personal and direct approach to political communications links in well with use of positive emotion and humbling aesthetic roots of politicians in feeling a more personal connection with the messenger. This as well as a candidates’ face, tone of voice and gestures (Western, 2008) does lead to a more interested an engaged because the audience feels more emotionally attached and they identify with them because of these qualities. This identification leads to trust and authenticity. And this in-turn leads to an increased engagement by the audience.
“The political brain is an emotional brain” (Western) and this cannot be changed so it should be appealed to. Politics affects us all, and the people close to us; our children, parents, grandparents and friends. Everybody, even the already politically involved, keeps these emotions and people in mind, and audiences are not calculators, objectively searching for policies, facts and figures to make reasoned decisions. And it is no surprise to see that the two Democrats to win re-election in the last eighty years were highly emotive and used a lot of the techniques discussed in this paper.
We live in a media oriented world and politics has to appeal to that. “The politicians must come up with the images and narratives to feed the celebrity-driven media. Or else, the media will fill the space with negative human interest stories about politicians. You have to fill the vacuum” (Beckett, 2008, p1). There is more reason now than ever to use emotion and aesthetics in contest for election (especially in British politics) as they are the only differentiators in politics seeing as there seems to be a merge of policies between parties (Banks, 2008) This is because all the parities sit in a similar place on the political spectrum, they all have similar ideas, similar policies and similar takes on current affairs and it is boring and uninteresting for audiences. Using these tactics gets the audiences engaged which then opens up the window to the opportunity of looking in detail the party differences.
In conclusion, emotion and aesthetics do engage audiences and are essential in winning elections; Now more so than ever. We use emotions as the north star directing us where to go and this as well as the media world lived in has to be appealed to. Politicians have to be careful though that their emotion and actions are seen as genuine otherwise it can lead audiences to question their authenticity, but also to retain substance in what they are communicating as not to get mixed up in a gossip parade in papers or TV. This is when it is disengaging because the substance is not politics and followers are alienated. However the correct form of emotion and self styling has to be used otherwise it can disengage audiences. It is a political tool that has to be used correctly, but whether it is used or isn’t, there is no denying that it is a tool that does win elections, whether it does engage or not.
Gordon Brown stated that “My children aren't props - they're people." It will be interesting to see the results of this obvious anti-aesthetics stand - or could be a diversion around the introduction of his family?
