Appeal to emotion

[Masterhawk]

Truth is reached through facts and logic. Appeal to emotion does not do that. Appealing to facts is about convincing others that your idea is meritable. Appeal to emotion takes the shortcut and goes straight for the emotions. This is very common in the world of politics because it's effective, especially for populists.

Let me be clear here, appeal to emotion is not always a bad thing. Facts and logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. You do need some emotion to apply those facts into proper decision-making. The issue arrives when emotion completely takes over and rationality is thrown out the window.

Most commonly, politicians will appeal to fear, fear around children whenever possible. The "think about the children" trope deserves a thread of its own but here's what I'll say. Children have frequently been used to push an agenda to muster up support for a certain action. Oftentimes, the threat against children regarding a certain issue is exaggerated or nonexistent (not always but often enough that you should question its validity).

Anger is another popular emotion that politicians play to. Oftentimes, it's over a certain indignation or perceived injustice.

When put together, you have movements which are difficult to oppose without coming across as a horrible person. Some such instances have led to a moral panic which is an event where a large number of people believe that society is under assault from a corrupting force. Common subjects include crime, terrorism, child abuse, immigration, and new media. Throughout history, witch hunts have served as examples. In the 50s, there was the red scare in which people could have their entire lives destroyed by the accusation of being a communist. Much more recently was the panic following 9/11 which mainly targeted Islamic terrorists and other muslims but was also used to justify the DEFENSE Act and a tightening of airport security.

A similar thing had happened in Germany in the 30s which brings us to our third emotion: pride. Nationalism is a very common way to rally the masses. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with national pride. The problem comes when people assume that their country is inherently great and that nothing could make it better.

After WW2, it came time to try those responsible for carrying out a systematic effort to eliminate certain groups such as the Jews, Romas, Poles, and Slavs. One of those people was Hermann Goring who gave some insight into how the Nazis got into power.

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.​

When the interviewer pointed out that this is much harder in democracies, Goring said the following in reply:

That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.​

This is effective because of two things. The first is that when it comes to potentially big threats, we tend to throw thinking out the window. Our brains evolved to err on the side of caution. There's a selection against false negatives (don't notice a predator) but not false positives (it was nothing). Thus, we're less likely to measure how common the risk is. It could cause death for only 1 in a million and it would still induce a moral panic.

The second is that no one wants their life ruined for being labelled as a communist, unamerican, or being pro child abuse. Those who aren't panicking may just go along out of self preservation.

The third is that we tend to be weary of new things. This is perhaps why the war on drugs didn't affect alcohol or tobacco. It's also why panics tend to only center around new media such as TV, video games, or social media.

 

[Allan]

Very good OP @Masterhawk

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the father of our current Prime Minister, was an intellectual who believed strongly in the concept of 'reason before passion'. This approach was important as during his time in office Canada weathered terrorist attacks from the FLQ and a growing separatist movement in Quebec. He was fortunately a very good communicator and was able to get his message out better than those who would have appealed to scare tactics and bigotry.

Your OP reminds me of a movie - "Our Brand is Crisis" in which a political consultant, saddled with a flawed candidate, resorts to inflaming passions against his political rival. The strategy works and results in the election of a politician who's a worse human rights violator than the incumbent.

We can see examples of appeals to emotion every day, on the news, on this forum. The outcome is election of leaders who can sometimes be deeply flawed, and the casting aside of leaders with character.

 

[ChezC3]

The entirety of the left’s argument summed up in 3 words.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The entirety of the left’s argument summed up in 3 words.

That is actually not true. It just works on value system that many conservatives find unimportant or less important than what they would prefer to go with. Most conservative arguments look entirely emotional from the liberal perspective as well.

The truth is that both sides are operating from different sets of moral instincts.

 

[bongsaway]

Very good OP @Masterhawk

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the father of our current Prime Minister, was an intellectual who believed strongly in the concept of 'reason before passion'. This approach was important as during his time in office Canada weathered terrorist attacks from the FLQ and a growing separatist movement in Quebec. He was fortunately a very good communicator and was able to get his message out better than those who would have appealed to scare tactics and bigotry.

Your OP reminds me of a movie - "Our Brand is Crisis" in which a political consultant, saddled with a flawed candidate, resorts to inflaming passions against his political rival. The strategy works and results in the election of a politician who's a worse human rights violator than the incumbent.

We can see examples of appeals to emotion every day, on the news, on this forum. The outcome is election of leaders who can sometimes be deeply flawed, and the casting aside of leaders with character.

Let's take your comment to the final step, republicans are the ones responsible for emotions above reason. Think not? Then explain the purge of anyone who won't commit to the big lie.

 

[Allan]

Let's take your comment to the final step, republicans are the ones responsible for emotions above reason.

I wouldn't disagree with this statement. Biden relies more on persuasion - why something will benefit the citizen, the country. Republicans aren't strong on policy right now so they have circled the horses and are screaming "the sky is falling" as they run around with their hair on fire.

 

[Masterhawk]

Very good OP @Masterhawk

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the father of our current Prime Minister, was an intellectual who believed strongly in the concept of 'reason before passion'. This approach was important as during his time in office Canada weathered terrorist attacks from the FLQ and a growing separatist movement in Quebec. He was fortunately a very good communicator and was able to get his message out better than those who would have appealed to scare tactics and bigotry.

Your OP reminds me of a movie - "Our Brand is Crisis" in which a political consultant, saddled with a flawed candidate, resorts to inflaming passions against his political rival. The strategy works and results in the election of a politician who's a worse human rights violator than the incumbent.

We can see examples of appeals to emotion every day, on the news, on this forum. The outcome is election of leaders who can sometimes be deeply flawed, and the casting aside of leaders with character.

Reminds me of a tactic known as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). This typically involves dubious or misleading claims to dissuade people. We see this on the right very often.