aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Mortality Salience and Hillary

Cass Sunstein observes that “A focus on mortality--which voters obviously associate with terrorism--seems to have a quantifiable effect on our beliefs and our judgments.” And probably how we vote:

For many Americans, the words “terrorism” or “September 11” make mortality highly salient. The likely political consequences have been carefully tested in a serious of studies by Mark Landau and his colleagues. In a 2004 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, they offer three remarkable findings:

(a) Suppose that people are merely reminded of their own mortality--by being asked, for example, to describe “what you think will happen to you as you physically die and once you are physically dead.” After that reminder, and in answering seemingly unrelated questions, they showed stronger support for President Bush and his policies in Iraq.

(b) After people were reminded either of their mortality or of the September 11 attacks, they became more favorably disposed toward Bush and less favorably disposed toward John Kerry.

(c) Both mortality salience and a reminder of the September 11 attacks had similar effects--in increasing support for Bush among liberals and conservatives alike. Astonishingly, the reference to the terrorist attacks increased support for Bush among liberals even more than among conservatives.

So, says Cass, “Karl Rove knows exactly what he is doing.” My supposition is that, then, so does Hillary:

To understand the current situation, we need to understand why, exactly, mortality salience and the September 11 attacks have worked in the favor of Republican leaders.

There are two possibilities. The first is that, across the political spectrum, many people believe, on reflection, that President Bush is simply likely to be better in protecting national security and hence in protecting people against the threat of dying from a terrorist attack. When the debate centers on education or clean air or social security or even Iraq, Democrats may win; when it focuses on terrorism, Republicans have won. And the reason has to do with people’s considered judgments about which party would do best on particular issues. If this is right, then the task of Republicans and Democrats alike is to try to shift those considered judgments in their favor.

The second possible explanation hinges on more unconscious judgments--that a reminder of mortality, or of the September 11 attacks, triggers a kind of visceral fear and outrage, and that visceral fear and outrage lead people to support the leader who seems firmer, stronger, and more aggressive. If this is right, then the challenge for candidates of both parties (and a harder task for Democratic candidates) is to show the same kind of firmness and resolve--and capacity for aggression--that people have associated with Bush. The social science is not entirely clear here, but the best reading is that visceral fear and outrage are responsible for the tilt in Bush’s direction.

I’m thinking that dynamic helps Clinton. No Democratic candidate projects greater firmness and resolve. She is battle tested politically with the American public personally (Lewinsky) and politically (health care, Whitewater, the Senate).

She’s been working on aggression, too, methodically and successfully building her warrior queen persona at home and abroad. In this context she’s got the war vote precisely right.