Heart Over Head: The Persuasive Strategy of Barack Obama

As I watched the democratic debate tonight on CNN (transcript here or here), I could not help but realize again that, at least in my opinion, Hillary Clinton is offering far more in terms of substantiative policy. Her grasp of the details of policy has always impressed me (although I have, of course, not always agreed with her). So, why is Barack Obama so appealing? Why has Barack Obama overcame so many disadvantages (e.g., money, inevitability, Clinton name, race) to move into a position of being the likely nominee and very possibly the next president?

As I reflected on these questions, I could not help but think that it is due in large part to Barack Obama's inspirational appeal and--here is the key persuasive point--ability to connect with voters on a heart level instead of a purely head level. He, unlike so many traditional politicians (of which Hillary is certainly one), Barack is in a league of his own (at least in this election).

Now, as I have always tried to do in this blog, before I brought my thoughts to you, I wanted to see if anybody else was thinking the same thing. Sure enough, there are other (including academics) who have done work in the area of persuasion and heart/head appeal and have consistently shown that appeals to the heart are more effective than appeals to the head.

In a front-page article in the February 11 Wall Street Journal, Monica Langley wrote:

On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.

"Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!" Telling her husband his "over-thinking" during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: "Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head."

In a recent and fascinating Newsweek article (which I highly recommend you read) entitled When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins, columnist Sharon Begley writes:

It is a core tenet of political psychology that voters know nothing.
...
The fact that people have what is euphemistically called cognitive-processing limitations—most cannot or will not learn about and remember candidates' records or positions—means voters must substitute something else for that missing knowledge. What that something is has become a heated topic among scientists who study decision-making, and, of course, campaign strategists and pollsters. Some answers are clear, however.
...[political scientist Richard Lau of Rutgers University notes:] "That's when you get people voting by heuristics [cognitive shortcuts] and going with their gut, with who they most identify with, or with how the candidates make them feel." What has emerged from the volatile and unpredictable primary season so far is that the candidates who can make voters feel enthusiasm and empathy—and, perhaps paradoxically, anxiety—are going to make it to November and maybe beyond.
...
With these and countless other instances of voters following their guts, the debate about whether the electorate is guided by its head or its heart, by reason or emotion, is over. "More important than what people think is how they feel," says Luntz, a view expressed by almost every expert NEWSWEEK interviewed.