Why Republicans Win

More

Why do Republicans win so many elections?
For years, this question has puzzled me. At a rational level, their policies clearly favor a wealthy minority and penalize the middle and lower classes; i.e., the vast majority of voters. Nevertheless, Republicans have won 7 of the last 12 national elections. The traditional explanation – more money – has been pretty much debunked, at least at the Congressional and Presidential levels. And the alternative explanation – they’re smarter and tougher – never seemed persuasive. So what is going on? Here’s the explanation that makes sense to me.

How Our Brain Works

Over the course of our 300,000 years as Homo sapiens, we humans have evolved exceedingly effective survival mechanisms including, very importantly, an exquisite attunement to one another. While we were weaker and slower, we were instantly able to understand the meaning of a fellow hunter’s head nod or change of expression, at 50 yards. Living as hunter/gatherers – our reality for all but the last 10,000 years – this ability was key to our evolutionary success, the result being that we are fundamentally affiliative beings, wired to be in intimate connection with, and to care for, one another.
But this is not the full story. Like other mammals, we also have a second emergency system: Fight or flight. Because it is designed to deal with mortal danger, our fight/flight brain is fast, 10 times faster than our thinking brain. A vehicle cuts across your lane without warning, and what happens? You swerve, superfast – your fight or flight brain in action. Only then do you realize that a car cut in front of you – your thinking brain.
Importantly, when our fight/flight brain is activated it takes control. It shrinks our thinking brain – which might, after all, inhibit a fast reaction by over thinking the alternatives. It also secretes chemicals, adrenaline and cortisol, putting us on hyper-alert and keeping us there until that part of our brain is sure the risk has past; hence our inability to reason our way out of a state of fear or anxiety.

Fight/Flight in Our Species’ Recent History

So what does all this evolutionary and neurobiological theory have to do with the Republicans’ ability to win elections? That gets back to our species’ history over the last 10, 000 and 200 years.
As hunter/gatherers, our days were spent on the mundane tasks of survival, with only occasional and isolated episodes of terror. But then, about 10,000 years ago, as Jared Diamond describes in Gun, Germs, and Steel, we learned how to domesticate crops and animals. The effect was seismic. Now, for the first time in our history, one group of people – through control of the food supply – could forcibly exercise control and dominion over others on a vast scale. The result: We ceased to exist as small, isolated groups of hunter/gatherers. City/states, nations and empires became the norm.
This new way of living required new techniques for those in control to maintain and expand their power. And when we remember fight/flight’s powerful effects, it is not surprising that strategies activating that part of the brain became key tools. Demonization of the “other” became – and has remained – a mainstay of governance. Why? Because when fear propels people into a fight or flight state, their willingness to follow and to be controlled by a strong, decisive, and ruthless leader is greatly increased.
But while the use of fight/flight for political purposes has a long history, its impact has greatly increased in the last 200 years. The reason? Because technology has shredded the taken for granted rhythms of life that, throughout our history, dictated extended downtime and, with it, a natural reversion to our base-line affiliative state. In these years, we have eliminated:

  • Winter – with central heating;
  • Night – with the electric light; and
  • Summer – with air conditioning.

We have also obliterated the downtime previously dictated by distance – with the telegraph and telephone; trains, cars and planes; and, more recently, emails, text messaging and the Internet.
Now, we can be “on” all the time. And, compounding the situation is the fact that we live in a world that places so much emphasis on compete and win, dominate and control – states of mind that trigger our fight/flight states. Thus, we are literally at risk of having this auxiliary, emergency system become our new, base-line state of mind, supplanting our more natural affiliative state, day by stress-filled day.

The Republican Advantage

So why do Republicans win? Because, in contrast to more progressive politicians, Republicans wholeheartedly embrace and promote compete and win, dominate and control, the values that predominate in our culture. And because fear, anger, and attacking behaviors – the activators of fight or flight – so effectively promote these goals, they can, and do, embrace these tactics without reservation. In both their message and tactics, Republicans are fully congruent with these historical trends.

Progressives’ Opportunity and Challenge

In saying all this, I want to emphasize that I am not a pessimist. The powerful and enduring political advantage, enjoyed by true progressives, is that their policies are far more congruent with our true nature as affiliative beings.
For this reason, policies and tactics that push us toward chronic states of arousal are inherently limited in their appeal. Why? Because they provoke chronic states of mind – fear, anger, vulnerability, a hyper-alert state – that are physically and emotionally draining. In the end, politicians with a more humane approach to governance have, I believe, the better of the argument.
But we need to recognize that we now live in a culture that is dangerously out of sync with our biology. Thus, while the Republicans can simply exploit current trends, progressive politicians have far more difficult task: To mount a challenge to the status quo that persuasively presents a more decent alternative.
Living in a fight/flight-permeated world, progressives need to recognize they, too, are infected with this mindset, to a greater or lesser extent. The result: They are typically at odds with themselves, wanting to model and advocate a better way even as they, like their reactionary counterparts, engage in the knife fight that is our political norm. Thus, their challenge is two-fold: To tease out a coherent progressive agenda from this mishmash of confused motives and, then, to craft effective strategies to implement it. In a future blog I hope to offer some ideas about what such a program might look like.
Jeff Garson is a Philadelphia-based attorney, psychotherapist, and activist. A principal at the Decency Group, offering collaborative, values-based consulting to individuals and businesses, he writes extensively about Radical Decency, an inclusive approach to change. You can contact him by email at wjgarson@comcast.net or through his website, www.radicaldecency.com.

0 thoughts on “Why Republicans Win

  1. Mr. Garson, Your bio outs you as one of the new democrat propaganda experts. I was an old democrat in the days when we knew about Communism and it’s evils, Now that the CPUSA has complete control, they have sugar coated their agenda and history! Us oldsters also knew about the agenda published in 1934 and 1960. The point in discussion is the line : “to get control of at least one of the major parties” it was the democrat party, completed in 1971, I was shocked by the agenda’s and candidates promoted by the liberal news! My mother made me watch the McCarthy hearings, I can see where your party has re-written history, Having read “None Dare call it Treason” I realize why the state dept acts like it does! Some of my mentors were Jews that escaped Russia after the takeover. The stories they told are hair raising. I also watched Castro take control and carry out the Communist Agenda in Cuba. Marx looks good in theory, but in practice it doesn’t work! It needs a constant state of terror and government oppression to make it work. Castro had a solution: deport all who don’t agree with him. And imprison the others! I translated some of Che’s works to show my friends how Communism actually works! We will soon know the truth when after Martial law, Obama declares the constitution VOID! (and yes, I know that Obama is only a figurehead, and controlled behind the scenes) You have done a good job, most of this generation doesn’t even know about Communism (or care) But we who know recognize the signs, you don’t even hide it anymore when you use the terms: Progressive, Neighborhood Organizer, Probably in private you use the term Comrade also. Communism only works if you suppress the dissidents! These youngsters would be shocked if they knew about how PURGES work! I’ll bet you don’t tell them that!

  2. I find it odd that someone who is writing an article called “Why Republicans Win” about US elections, does not once mention the word “Democrats.” Instead, the author opposes the term “Progressives” to these “Republicans.”
    Thus, according to the author, there are two contestants in US elections: “Republicans,” who are bad, favoring policies good for the upper crust and “Progressives,” who favor policies good for the rest of us.
    I suggest to the author that he evaluates (I’m not sure he ever did evaluate previously, so I can’t say “re-evaluates”) the unnamed other major party to determine whether it is/was in favor of NAFTA, the new, secretly-being-negotiated Pacific trade agreement, refused to offer us single-payer health insurance, is funding and supporting the NSA, has attacked whistle-blowers, uses drones on American citizens and many others, and so on and on.
    To what extent can this real party — rather than the party of Jeff Garson’s imagination — be legitimately be called “progressive”?

  3. I have problem with the comments I have read so far, but not the article. I am an old timer, one who was born before the Great Depression , and who has learned how to sort the wheat from the shaft. The term “progressive” refers not to a particular political party, but to a way to justice. There was a time when Republicans were “progressive” when Lincoln severed justice by signing the Declaration that ended slavery. In president Theodore Roosevelt we saw justice served with his support for busting monopolies. In Franklin D. Roosevelt we saw justice served by The New Deal made necessary by control by the few of the majority of the wealth of our country in spite of the crystal by the few that decried this action as “socialist”‘ ( a term used to trigger the kind of fear described in the article). And a term used in the comment to hide the justice that prevailed. How long must we wait before become immune to nonsense of those who hate justice?

  4. I find the comments fascinating. No comments yet on the blogs main premise, but several that speculate on the politics (and motives) of me as the author, based on the last 4 paragraphs).
    Comment 1 sees me as an advocate for a “30s/40s” far left agenda and comment 2 views me as an advocate for mainstream Democratic politics.
    Perhaps my use of the word “progressives” is a distraction. Like so many political terms in common use, it triggers a variety of mindsets that “fill in the blanks” for readers, depending on their politics: Some negative (it outs me a a proponent for a 30s/40s leftist political agenda (Comment 1), or as a proponent for the essentially mainstream agenda of the Democrats (Comment 2); and-some positive (my use of the term associates me with certain policies of Lincoln and the 2 Roosevelts (Comment 3).
    I do have a political perspective that I hope to share in a future blog. It builds out from Radical Decency (see my earlier blog, The Case for Radical Decency). With all the emotional and intellectual freight that the term “progressive” carries, it may not make sense to put in in that bucket (something I started to do, without a lot for forethought, at the end of this blog).
    Maybe part of the problem we face is that our politics is so ossified into these traditional categories; a habit of thought that pulls more creative ideas back into these categories and, thus, within the battle lines that they define.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *