Interesting post, Oleeb. Democrats tend to appeal to the public through logic and Republicans through emotions. Perhaps that explains how Republicans can have any traction at all right now.

The GOP embedded emotional triggers into their communications strategy long ago. Democrats have been slow to catch on.

The GOP are masters at redirecting blame to Democrats and convincing a change-averse public that what they really have to fear are rules and regulations that might encroach on their freedom. They've learned well which buttons to push to win people to their side even if the policy they're pushing isn't in their best interest or that of the country.

Maybe the Dems are so estranged from the emotional front they have no idea how to manipulate public rage to their advantage (and the country's). This is a critical strategic deficit.

Nice historic connections.

Well, your post really pisses me off! Too bad most people seem to be sated with crumbs when they get fed up with things- recall the week or so where there were demonstrations on Wall St. quickly deflated by supposed limitations on CEO salaries. Anyway, thanks Oleeb!

There's no real difference between thinking something is dangerous and feeling fear. There's no difference between thinking something is a grievous loss and feeling grief.

I can't quite agree.

For example, William James sez...

We feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble ... Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry.

When you see a picture of a bear, you may think "That is a dangerous animal," but unless you are two years old, you probably don't wet your pants.

But defending the James-Lange theory can quickly get weird...

(Jesse) Prinz is committed to the position that flight is the most common best response to danger, and so the most common appropriate choice; and thus the body has evolved structures that cause it to prepare for flight when confronted with danger; but the emotion itself does nothing to ensure or encourage flight.

Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer finally managed to inject a significant cognitive component into the emotional chain by demonstrating that adrenalized test-subjects would not interpret their physical buzz as an emotion, if they knew they had been drugged. Otherwise, they got very "emotional."

This apparently pointless demonstration of "what Rootie learned from Wikipedia" has actually prepared the way for one of those rare instances where a theory may actually explain something, and even more surprisingly, that something is relevant to Obey's diary.

People may have every reason to think, for example, "The bailout is outrageous!" but since our evolutionary mechanism (in layman's terms, our "body") isn't tuned to respond to newspaper headlines with physiological changes, most people don't actually feel rage, and without the force of real emotion, they just go along with whatever happens to be happening.

All I wish to know is what does Dr. Phil think about all this?

I hereby award you the Dayly Blog of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site, given to all of you from all of me.

I shall ponder this further and get back to you.

ITS ALL GREEK TO ME

Well done! Excellent blog! Kudos! :-)

(I can see I've left this place in really good hands.)

Obey,

I am not sure if you have noticed my comments of the last month or two but occasionally I have crossed over to unhinged (for example). I am livid and I do not understand how the populist inertia has been so casually lost, but then how many understand how much money the FED has pumped and what that means.

So I find myself looking to next winter and I am somewhat hopeful that as it becomes clear that jobs are not going to return populist rage will be reignited. (Then again I have lived most of my life deluding myself that justice is on the horizon, it could equally be stoked by the crazy teabaggers). We shall see.

Regardless, thanks for another great post,

Good post Obey. Naturally I am in agreement. The people of this country should be upset and they should voice their displeasure and they should demand a public investigation of the wrongheadedness that has made this mess.

I think congress and particularly the senate is afraid of an open hearing like this. It would shine a light on too many things that would come into question in a critical examination of the events that got us to where we are. Above all else the senate is going to protect itself. Senators just aren't going to have an investigation that will expose their backsides to the ethical corruption that has occurred.

The general public just isn't tuned in to all of this. I've little doubt some portion of citizens really don't want to know how messed up this has become. They would rather remain ignorant than have to face the reality of the wayward path the government has taken. There is a difference between having a general awareness of this and having to objectively acknowledge the details of the general state of dysfunction of our government. In simpler terms, some people are tolerant of a mess while others recognize that sooner or later it has to be cleaned up.

The most significant problem remains the one of political and ethical corruption that might be exposed. There is an explicit and intuitive understanding of where an investigation may lead. Everybody knows what a difficult task this would be and is all too aware of the political crash and burn that would ensue. The pillars of power would be shaken to their foundation and most probably be rearranged in significant ways. The national will to undertake this may not yet have gotten to the necessary threshold to pursue this. It will eventually.

Hi Jade, not sure what to make of this bit:

"Only calmness from release of thought ,can see clearly. Conflict in any form prevents clear thinking."

Do you think all emotion involves conflict? Why? All negative emotion arguably involves some dissatisfaction with the facts (present past or future). But that isn't 'conflict'.

What I maybe didn't get across was the idea that we get emotional about things because we make a judgment about certain things in the world we are concerned by. The idea that the causal relation is the other way around is a mistake imo.