Author: ken

“I’m not a policy person. I’m a language person”

So says Frank Luntz in Sunday’s Times Magazine, interviewed about his role in crafting Republican opposition to Obama’s yet-to-be-revealed health plan.  This has to be a parody of the new consultants who specialize in manipulating unconscious opinion with words.

Responding to the point that no plan has been proposed yet, he explained “We want to avoid a Washington takeover.”   This must be a demonstration of his skill with all-purpose scary words, designed to drive innocent voters back into the arms of conservative defenders of “freedom,” “liberty,” and “family values.”

There is a long tradition of such word mongers who effectively molded public opinion against “liberal” and “progressive” policies.  George Lakoff joined the fray on the other side during the presidential campaigns in 2004, with his more sophisticated parsing of the metaphors that shape voter opinion. He pointed out that democrats tend to respond to the concept of the nurturant and protective family, appealing to the tender hearted as well as the down and out, while republicans favor the strict family model designed to prepare its members to survive in a hostile world.  That helped to make sense of the improbable republican coalition of the religious right, those favoring a strong defense, the right to guns, deregulation, and the dismantling of social safety nets.

In the last election, Drew Weston helped make democratic politicians and their advisors even more aware of the unconscious factors driving voter opinion, this time using brain imaging techniques to track voter responses.  Awareness of the unconscious aspects of electoral politics is becoming more and more complex and pricey.

And now comes Frank Luntz.  According to the Times, his new 28 page memo, “The Language of Health Care,” has been distributed to republicans in congress.  But who is behind this initiative?  Who does he work for?  Clearly, he is not a policy person, but what are the policies he favors?  Sounds like words without meaning.

He has a self-deprecating manner, but even his humor lacks a certain precision and grace.  Asked if he was married, he replied: “No. I may have perfected the language that gets people to vote certain ways, and buy certain products, but I haven’t perfected the language to get some woman to buy me.”

It is true that wordsmithing influences unconscious perception, but it requires a bit more talent than these examples suggests to have an impact.

But We Can Be Happy

Dan Gilbert, the Harvard psychologist, points out on today’s OpEd page of the New York Times that if we know what we have to adapt to, we can be happy.  It is uncertainty that is the true source of our misery.  In “What You Don’t Know Makes You Nervous” he describes research that reveals how even grim and painful certainties are easier to cope with than variable hopes.

This might suggest to some that we are more in control of our fates than we usually think.  If we can adjust our expectations, accept what we don’t have, we can live with it better.  Money will not buy happiness, but knowing how much money you have — or don’t have — gives you a shot at it.

But we can’t just decide not to worry.  We really have to know what is in store for us.  As he points out, those who have undergone painful and irreversible colostomies know what they have to live with, and, knowing that, they can accept it and become happy.  But those of us who face losing our jobs or our homes  — or our vacations or retirement savings or health insurance — cannot adjust to what has not yet happened but  might easily still be in store for us tomorrow.

There is superficial cheer in the thought that our minds have so much power to make us happy.  But a moment’s reflction reveals that the underlying implication of this is highly disturbing.   Those  living in an economy of constantly shifting highs and lows and a society of unreliable benefits and uncertain safety nets, are not only doomed to unhappiness but  anxiety as well.

Our right to the pursuit of happiness may, in fact, ensure that we cannot end up happy after all.

What To Do?

Jason Zweig noted in the WSJ a few weeks back that groups can make very good and very bad decisions: How Group Decisions End Wrong Footed (April 27).  He cites Robert Sutton, an organizational psychologist at Stanford University: “The best groups will be better than their best individual members, and the worst groups will be worse than the worst individual.”

That is very true. Often preoccupied with their own relationships and emotional needs, groups can contaminate their thinking and go off track.  (Those interested in some further examples of this might want to check out my paper, “Corrupt Groups,” which you can get to by clicking the menu on the right.)

But instead of dealing with the real reasons why this happens, Zweig offers a recipe of “proven approaches” to improve decisions.  But that is not likely to work for a group that is really caught up in a destructive process.  They will all too easily convince themselves that they are following the rules and doing it right — until they discover that they got it wrong again.

There is no alternative for a little self-reflection:  Are members really speaking  their minds?  Are unpopular ideas being voiced?  Is everyone participating?  What is not being said?  The Yale sociologist Irving Janis noted the power of Groupthink over 35 years ago, and that is the approach he recommended to counter its effects.

More work, yes, and greater anxiety, as well.  But better outcomes.

Just When We Need Clarity and Humor

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that Donald Trump is suing the writer of a book about him for “defamation.” (See story) The alleged crime was reporting his net worth was between $150 million and $250 million.

At various times, Trump has publicly proclaimed that his wealth ranges from 3 to 6 billion, and in his deposition made over a year ago, he claimed that the 4 billion figure did not include his “brand value.”  The deposition, according to the Journal, goes on to say, “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feeling.”

What refreshing candor!  I think we could all say the same, though we might be too embarrassed to say it if we knew we’d be quoted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.  But such fluctuating feelings — and estimated values — clearly lie behind many if not most of our economic decisions.  If so many of us had not felt exactly the same way, we would not be facing foreclosures or defaults now. And the economy would be in better shape.

And yet there is no doubt that what he says is true.  Our perceptions do fluctuate with our feelings.  The difference is that for Trump, apparently,  his feelings dictate the truth.

And Rising Risk

The WSJ’s “Heard on the Street” today notes again the skewing of the data on economic recovery. Opportunities for investment are rising, but many indicators suggest we are still sinking deeper into a recession. (See article)

A dramatic slump in rail traffic points to sluggish industrial activity. Many commodities, including electricity, are decreasing in output as well as profitability. And while analysts are predicting a rebound in earnings, that looks to be at the expense of capital investments, wages and benefits. The article concludes that “spending power is leaching out of the economy,” while investors eager not to miss out on the rebound “pump money into riskier asset class.”

As if to reinforce the point, the Journal’s front page headline proclaims: “From Stocks to Junk, It All Sells Well Now.”

In short the evidence is mounting for a psychological bubble of optimism, a bubble that will drive a wedge between the few who may be able to make some short term speculative gains and those still looking to survive the recession – and set the stage for another bust.

What we don’t know we know here is how much we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated into believing that the worst is over.  It is all there in the difference between the front page and the back page.