There's an interesting article in today's Sioux Falls (SD) Argus Leader. In his column, political reporter David Kranz reviews three books, including "The Political Brain" by psychologist Drew Westen. Among other examples of "what happens when reason competes with emotion in politics.", Westen cites "the Daschle-Thune debate on NBC's 'Meet the Press'" on Setpember 24, 2004. I watched that debate live, and I will never forget it. Here's the transcript of the climactic moment:
MR. THUNE: His words embolden the enemy. I think they do. I think when you've got political leaders in your country, Tim, in a time of war, when you've got young men and women on the ground, South Dakota men and women, Guard men and women, active duty personnel, who are putting their lives at risk for the United States of America and you've got a leader from your state who is getting up and attacking in a way that completely undermines the morale of our troops, that's wrong.MR. RUSSERT: This is a very serious charge. Your words: embolden the enemy.
SEN. DASCHLE: That's disappointing. That is very disappointing, Tim. John's attacks on me, where I come from, would earn a trip to the woodshed. He knows that's wrong. His effort to demonize me won't work in South Dakota. It's not only an attack on me--I take this personally. It's not only an attack on me, it's an attack on where I'm from. I got my values from my mother and dad to tell the truth, to play by the golden rule, to play by the golden rule, to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Love of country, flag, work and dream but work harder than you dream--that's South Dakota. To do it the right way, to do the right thing, those values are as important to me as my arm. And I think that John ought to reflect on that before he makes a charge like that again.
You know, even three years later, Thune's charge against Air Force veteran Daschle still makes me extremely angry. And I'm sure it still makes Tom Daschle extremely angry as well. The problem is, according to Westen's book on "The Political Brain," Daschle didn't do what he needed to do in the moment. Instead, Westen asserts that Daschle's response - and I'm not meaning to criticize Tom Daschle here, because I think Tom Daschle is great - to Thune's "low blow" was "weak."
"[Daschle] used cautious, gentle words such as 'disappointed' and 'saddened'. It's fine to be saddened at a loss, but you don't express sadness or disappointment when someone slugs you. You express rage, and you start slugging back," Westen said.What did the author suggest? Daschle should have asked Thune to "show us how to make a proper salute."
He says that is not easy to do for someone who has not been in the military, and it would have sent a powerful message to veterans.
And, the author adds, "Daschle would likely still be in the Senate if he would have taken a tough stand against someone who had never served in the military."
On the same note, I wonder if George McGovern, a highly decorated hero of World War II, would have been elected President if he had slammed Richard Nixon in the same way back in 1972 (although at least Nixon served in the Navy). How about Purple Heart recipient John Kerry vs. George W. Bush in 2004? How about our own US Senate race last year in Virginia, with pro-Allen forces accusing Jim Webb of, among other things, pedophilia!!!
The bottom line is this, according to Westen: in politics, reason often competes with emotion, and reason often loses out. That's not an argument against using reason - "facts," as George W. Bush disparagingly calls them - but it IS an argument for fighting fire with fire, punching right back against bullies and Swift Boaters.
Hopefully, whoever Democrats nominate for President in 2008 will full understand that.