“We’re playing to the reptilian brain rather than the logic centers, so we look for key words and images to leverage the intense rage and anxiety of white working-class conservatives. In other words, I talk to the same part of your brain that causes road rage.”
— At Playboy, an essay by an anonymous Tea Party consultant.
Then I came across this Matisse quote, “I do not literally paint that table, but the emotion it produces upon me.”
And then I got really bothered because it occurred to me that this Tea Party guy is pretty damn close to being an artist. While artists and writers may use a wider range of emotion, and while for the most part we aren’t using our talents for outright political manipulation, art, I think, goes after the reptilian brain just just as much if not more than political consultants. It should be about conveying emotion, right?
And to make things more complicated, art should also, in its own way, be a call to action.
So what’s the difference?
Maybe the difference lies somewhere between manipulating people to do what you believe is right for reasons even you don’t believe and convincing people to act based on what you do believe. That makes me feel a little better, but the problem is that can be a damn thin line.
What do you think?
5 responses
I think there’s a big difference between appealing to genuine emotion *alongside* logic and reason and trying to short-circuit logic and reason so you can get an unreasonably emotional response from someone. There are plenty of things in this world that it makes sense to be angry (or sad, or happy) about and when you’re thinking straight, you support the emotions you have about those things. Art works in this space. And art is great art when it brings your reason and your feelings together into moment of a transcendent meaning. Trying to get people riled up when they can’t even explain what’s angered them is just mob-inciting mayhem, appealing to the worser devils of our nature, and a rotten and immoral thing to do. The only “art” is the artifice of the “bullshit artist.”
I think if Bill Hicks were alive today, he would revise his famous rant against people who work for advertising agencies to include political consultants, and he might be even more ruthless in his dissection of them.
Amy, I think you pretty much nailed it. Thanks for that. I feel a little better about my life now. And Brian, I would love to see that.
“Trying to get people riled up when they can’t even explain what’s angered them is just mob-inciting mayhem, appealing to the worser devils of our nature, and a rotten and immoral thing to do.”
——————–
Um, yeah…I think most Tea Parties probably have a pretty clear idea of why they’re mad! Perhaps those that think otherwise are using “selective hearing” or “selective rational”! Or, maybe you’re reading too much liberal propaganda so you don’t even know any better!?!?!
And to think that the ‘reptilian brain” thing doesn’t work the same way for non-Tea Partiers (yes you, liberals and democrats) is foolish, laughable & naive!
Oh, and just for the record, I am not a member of the Tea Party!
JS — Relax, it’s the Rumpus! Maybe you’re new here. While I am impressed by the number of exclamation marks you used, that kind of thing isn’t necessary here. We’re not going to attack you. We’re not trying to attack you. (Unless you use too many exclamation marks. We won’t stand for that.) Take a deep breath.
That said, what you did say, that the same is true for liberals and democrats, is most definitely true. I’m with you on that, and I don’t think anyone ever said liberal political consultants are better than Tea Party ones. It’s just that they didn’t write an anonymous post at Playboy admitting that they aim for the reptilian brain. But I used to work in liberal politics, so I’ll admit it here: that’s exactly what we went for.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.