These essays in the form of letters to the powerful and struggling suggest that understanding about contrasting views emerging from historical and intellectual contexts can gain votes for those politicians ready to pause in the fighting long enough to listen. The first open letter, “Democrats in Power to Protesters in Streets: Mutual Prods to Peace,” focused on listening across the divisions in the Democratic Party between centrists and progressives, and this one is devoted to listening between Democrats and those Republicans and Independents who are not quite ready to vote for Kamala Harris. Listening is not just nice. Walter Lippmann used a version of this approach for a political application of “The Golden Rule.” Listening provides a political edge from learning historical contexts. Listening supports democracy with citizen engagement. And listening can be a vote getter.
Dear Vice President Harris:
Just about everyone credits you, Madame Vice President, with winning the presidential debate on September 10th. Congratulations.
Just about everyone, that is, except former President Donald Trump and his keenest supporters. Characteristically coping with a setback by tapping his abundant self-confidence, Mr. Trump tried to turn your invitation to debate him again into a loser’s lament, portraying you crying after a prize fight, “I WANT A REMATCH!” This screaming response actually reinforces some of your campaign points, that Trump seeks strength based on “who you beat down,” and that he engages in untruths, in this case claims of debate “victory” with little support from polls and commentators, including Republicans. Good points, but to little effect unless you can persuade some Trump-leaning citizens to vote your way.
Your campaign does not have the luxury of basking in debate victory as a step toward November victory. As you have repeatedly reminded voters, the election will be close. This means that, to state the often-overlooked obvious, about half the country supports Trump, no matter what he said in debate or with other strains on truth. A recent Monmouth University poll after the debate shows that 44% of registered voters will “definitely” or “probably” vote for Trump. Averages of polls from just before to the days after the debate show you gaining 0.3% in voter preference over Trump. Still more recently, horse-race ratings show your chances for victory declining.
Ridiculing Trump’s supporters may be kinda fun for your supporters as with this masterful spoof depicting “Sound of Music” nuns singing “How Do You Solve a Problem Like a MAGA?” Very clever, but not a way to gain new voters. While politics has always had elements of performance, American political populism has veered still further with elements of entertainment. Republicans have been particularly adept with this style of politics. For example, Ronald Reagan justified his Hollywood preparation for politics by saying “I don’t understand how anyone could do this job without having been an actor” Democrats can learn from history to see how Trump has capitalized on these trends by infusing his comments with compelling drama, even if often also with the fiction of the big screen.
Fact checking is a frequent response to public pandering with stretches on truth. This brings the virtues of truth and clarity, but even sensible corrections remain weak reeds in the face of forceful and compelling rhetoric. The challenge for Democrats is not about politicians making false statements; those have been a dime a dozen as my father would say. The challenge is in the way those statements register with many voters. Fakery produced is a problem, but fakery consumed is an even bigger problem. Checking facts mows down fake news, but it does not address the appeal at their roots, with those feelings ready to spur more fakery. Analysts of the former president’s appeal have focused on the challenges of mass psychology or faults in voters’ thinking. These are important inquiries. But the path to persuasion does not start with ridicule or correction of people’s false views. Persuasion starts with figuring out why those views appeal. Ms. Harris, if your campaign can figure out how Trump’s comments appeal and then present Democratic ways to address those impulses, you might be able to persuade hesitating Trump leaners and swing voters to support your bid for higher office. This calls for reading the emotions even in rational statements.
Using an Unlikely Political Advisor, William James
What’s at the root of fake news appealing widely?
In my quest to understand how the Trump half thinks, I draw upon my research on William James, a founder of American psychology and the philosophy of pragmatism.
Democrats could benefit from his insights about the powerful sentiments in our rational thinking. He applied these insights in his own life and in his theories, and they can be applied to the path of persuasion in politics.
As a confused young man, James figured out how to deal with his constitutional ambivalence about sharply contrasting views by leaning into his own traits, weak as he then felt them to be. He developed a decisive ambivalence, with no less uncertainty about the competing contrasts, but with a willingness to listen to what each side has to offer. That included both readiness to mine the contrasts for their respective assets and scrutiny of their potential shortcomings.
Throughout his career, he applied that method, noticing its ability to stimulate creativity by enabling use of valuable qualities from different perspectives. And he applied this method to the arts of persuasion, with listening across differences for “putting yourself at the other fellow[’]s point.” Then once within the other’s territory, reasoning can actually register, enabling “moving the point.” While on the contrasting turf, the other person is more likely to be “following” to your own point than with statements announced from your own rather alien territory. This means persuasion based on finding ways to express one’s own positions in terms of some commitments in the positions of the opposition. James the political advisor would ask, What are the sentiments that compel beliefs even in the face of factchecking? Then present your plans to address those appeals. For politicians eager to win in a close election, this path can persuade voters so much more than ridicule or fact checking.
Consider, Ms. Harris, the power behind Trump’s factual phoniness. He has been effective in diagnosis about the hurts of many citizens. The Democrats’ challenge is to acknowledge the diagnoses and to offer more truthful and effective ways to address those problems. One of James’s students, Walter Lippmann, applied his teacher’s ideas about searching for the “moral equivalence” to appeals that are popularly attractive but destructive. The younger man pointed out that if some politicians gain traction by presenting “indigestible food,” yes, point that out, but realize that citizens are no “less hungry” after getting “the wrong food.” Some vivid but false ways of addressing the hunger “may be silly,” but your campaign, Ms. Harris, can address those concerns, in the spirit of Lippmann, by recognizing citizen “discontent and project[ing] their hopes” in healthier directions.
Gaffes in Presidential Debates, the Disastrous and the Appealing
After the recent debate, PolitiFact found some exaggerations on your part, Madame Vice President, while they rated a dozen of the former president’s statements “half-truths,” “false,” or “pants on fire” false. Trump’s most notorious statement was about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating park geese and household pets. This comment bears all the hallmarks of primitivist stereotypes about non-whites. It amplifies stories promoted by white supremacists with members of the Proud Boys and Blood Tribe marching in the city to spur more hostility toward immigrants and non-whites. With tragic and painful predictability, these stories have encouraged attacks on the Haitian community in that small city, with shops closing and over a hundred bomb threats. While there had been some tensions between native born and recent arrivals, the scene escalated dramatically with the false pet-eating story. Officials report no evidence of any pet theft or mistreatment of animals in the community.
So, why would the Harris-Walz campaign want to pay attention to a strange comment, beyond perhaps some gloating over an opponent’s misstep? Campaign precedents would suggest doing just that. When debating Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter during the tight 1976 campaign, incumbent President Gerald Ford overreached in defending his support for the Helsinki Accords, which confirmed European borders after the Second World War. Addressing challenges that he had conceded overmuch in Cold War rivalry with the Communist Bloc of eastern Europe, the president tried to assure his audience by saying, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” That was not accurate to the reality of the military facts on the ground, and the comment reinforced Ford’s reputation for poor understanding of issues. For presidential debate watchers, this misstatement has become iconic, as the type of gaffe that drags a candidate down. Traditionally, untruths unwind a candidate, so why focus on their potential appeal?
Even a “gaffe” can gain influence if connected to an appealing story. Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Senator J. D. Vance provides a clue about the play of untruths in these times with his vigorous defense of the pet-eating charge: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that is what I am doing to do.” Without disowning the false charge, Vance suggests that such dramatic stories are ways to “focus … the American media to talk about [Springfield] residents hav[ing] their lives destroyed,” and he supplies a ready answer about why so: because of Haitian immigrants. The dramatic narrative highlights two important themes of the Trump-Vance campaign: elites ignoring the concerns of average citizens, and immigrants as sources of those problems. After some due diligence to confirm the lack of facts about vulnerable pets in Ohio, addressing those issues should be Job One for the Harris-Walz campaign, with an opportunity to pull the real citizen concerns away from the flimsy and treacherous immigrant accusations.
Trump has effectively connected his problems, what traditionally would have been regarded as tremendous missteps, with the concerns of his constituency. His central storyline and the heart of his appeal, despite impeachments, felony charges, and being caught telling false facts, is that powerful liberals are going after him because they are going after you, dear average citizen. He has become a tribune of a citizenry that feels beleaguered by recent social changes, and he wants to pin the pains in their lives to immigrants overwhelming places like Springfield. Democratic policies emphasizing prevention of migration and review of cases for asylum seekers has earned the Republican charge of “open borders” with newcomers lined up to vote for Democrats. Although these charges are not accurate, they have become the tip of the spear of MAGA (Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan) attacks on elite “radical Left and Marxist maniacs” in power and seeking more.
Find the Feelings Beneath the Fakery
Madame Vice President, consider how to address the feelings beneath the fakery by presenting ways your values and your policies will respond to the very things that Trump and Vance present as their motivation for amplifying the pet story. Vance’s sympathy for struggling constituents is the solid stance in his comments while the lurid words encourage hostility while making no contribution to addressing those valid points—and will likely make them worse. Democrats, pay attention to those working-class citizens who “can’t afford housing [and] can’t afford healthcare,” real problems that Vance latched onto unreal pet issues, not to mention the loss of jobs in Ohio from companies moving away. Move past the pets comment quickly with your own solid alternatives to the dire talk of your opponents. In effect, say to those potential voters, I see why you are considering a vote for Trump and Vance. They are offering you a good diagnosis, but a lousy prescription. Here’s a better way to handle our problems.
Listening to still more of your opponents can provide still more clues about ways to persuade more voters. In The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics (2018), Salena Zito and Brad Todd praise Trump, despite his “polarizing style,” for using “unpolished language” to win over “skeptical voters” who had been growing increasingly impatient with both parties for favoring elites. These journalists point out that many mainstream commentators take Trump literally, leading to fact-checking and outrage with his false statements. Then they generally remained surprised that outing his falsities has not been enough to dissuade many voters from supporting him. Instead, Zito and Todd suggest taking Trump’s comments seriously instead of just literally.
The serious appeal of Trump, beneath the literal bluster, is that many of his constituents have been dissatisfied with elites benefitting from mainstream policies that have been leaving working-class people feeling abandoned and slipping in status. Democrats could even reclaim “Deep State” critiques from Republican charges of liberals seizing power. Ten years ago, congressional staffer Mike Lofgren popularized the phrase to describe what he witnessed in collaborations of the powerful in business and government to manage decisions for their own benefit. Writing on the heels of the 2008 recession, he cited businesses too big to fail as central examples of what he called “beltway business.” The working class, commanding ever-smaller slices of the economic pie in wealth and income, has been left with “job losses, the rise in crime, the meth and heroin problem, [and] society essentially losing hope,” as Zito and Todd quote an Ashtabula, OH, voter who turned away from supporting Democrats to cast her ballot for Trump in 2016. Lofgren portrays “elected leaders provid[ing] a fig leaf for those who really hold the levers of power.” Are you ready, Ms. Harris, to take the bull by the horns—really the GOP elephant by the tusks—to reclaim the charge of the “Deep State,” to credit Trump with reminding of that diagnosis, and to offer a Democratic prescription for releasing politics from the grip of powerful interests without scapegoating immigrants or other groups that Republicans love to hate?
In The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of America’s Middle Class (2020), Jim Tankersly addresses the laments of the working class since the 1970s by tracking their declining ability to gain middle-class status, including working-class men and women, and whites and non-whites. The working class has been most hurt in the last few decades of economic change, while by contrast, “it’s been very good at the high end” for those with college training. He points out that whites in the working class have actually been faring better than their non-white peers, even as the whites feel they are doing worse as they witness improvements for non-whites. Citizens white and working class are ripe for the Trump prescription about their woes, with blame directed at non-whites and immigrants.
Arlie Hochschild recognizes the appeal of that prejudicial message and adds that the working class of all races has been hurt by powerful figures neglecting whole communities left with “worse health, more trauma-related deaths, … lower school enrollment… industrial pollution,” and more damage to their lives and hopes. While privileged citizens bask in technological progress and tax breaks, she points out that powerful figures in business and government operate as a giant “marginalization machine” to those with little hope for social mobility. The art of persuasion will not reach all those losing hope, and in fact, the most bitter on this path are the most committed MAGA voters or still more extreme with white nationalist views, as Kathleen Belew explains in Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America (2018). When “the dream stopped working” for white workers in the last few decades, they have felt like “strangers in their own land,” sentiments Hochschild shows amplified in her recent book (2024) on the “shame and the rise of the right,” that adds to the disappointments from withering opportunities. Those are real conditions and real feelings that Democrats can recognize by offering paths beyond despair and instead of hateful racism. For example, despite their poor conditions, many non-white workers view their status in relation to the depths of historical racism and recent increases in rights. Tankersley points out with irony that non-whites actually retain more hope for the American Dream of rising social status than their white counterparts. All these disaffected citizens, as Hochschild points out, “have a lot of affinity with the left, if [they] could only cross that bridge” into territory that the Trump campaign has populated with reasons for resentment. The Republican standard bearer provides anger points to address these feelings. Speak to those feelings, Madame Vice President, and show how the anger answers are artificial.
Lessons from Everyday Life for Political Persuasion
The appeal of dramatic and outrageous campaign comments resembles the way people watch horror movies. We know the scenes are untrue, but they appeal because they address real fears in ways fun or at least in low-stakes settings.
Watchers hooked on the screens know that Jason isn’t going to leap out at them in their comfortable seats. But in that darkened room, those dreadful stories appeal because the dramatic fakery offers versions of real feelings with real fears about really big troubles. Then in a few hours, back to normal life. Since most voters don’t follow politics and policies very thoroughly, they can vote in the same spirit. Trump provides some horror-movie scripts; the drama in his delivery about stolen pets or about “not hav[ing] a country anymore” if he loses, points to real feelings. Then after the election, the lights go on in most people’s mental movie houses. Democrats should pay attention to the feelings that draw people to the political theater and present stories that address the actual fears on display.
Through the stain of prejudice, the sour feelings of shame, the big fears, and the irrational clinging to hope, millions of voters hold horror-movie feelings of resentment for elites with high status continually enabling still more wealth and power. James’s insights about the sentiments shaping our rational expressions, are echoed by Hochschild in her recognition of the “feels-as-if story” that provides a “subjective prism” for understanding experiences and political talk. While focused on fact checking wild Republican comments, Democrats run the danger of overlooking the feelings that shape the thinking—and encourage the voting of many citizens. The lurid words about pets don’t register primarily for their truth or falsity, as advisor James reminds. They have an impact because they offer a dramatic story tapping citizen feelings about utter disappointment and outrage while hunting for hope, as powerful figures impose economic and political losses in their lives.
Dismissing Trump supporters is not very democratic and will hardly win votes for Democrats. Rather than treating them as crazies for believing strange stories and writing off any hope of persuading them to vote for you, Ms. Harris, consider ways to address their feelings rather than only the stated comments. Parents witness these dynamics regularly. When a particular incident sparks a child’s full-throated broad accusation, generally, the issue is not the issue. When Johnny says, “You’ve always loved Suzie more,” the young man likely knows your consistent affection for all your children. The wise parent looks beneath the anger of the moment to find the feeling and its possible sources. Consider some potential recent slights that could have served as sparks spurring spurts of fake family news about total parental failure gushed out in verbal torrents. Consider the ball games missed, for example, or a passing comment on some poor grades. These are factually small but emotionally large.
In the same way, the comments on pets are indeed factually small but they can make big impressions on some citizens because of their real fears and broader concerns. And as with horror movies, most voters are not much concerned if the statements are literally true, but the grip of these horrible statements needs addressing because the feelings energizing them are imposing grave consequences in Springfield and beyond with little impact on substantial working-class problems.
Feed the Fear with Hope
When Democrats ridicule often far-fetched stories, they spur still more anger, with Trump’s supporters then thinking, “Here we go again with those elites not just ignoring us, but now also making fun of us!” Better to take the fears seriously, and better still to provide better ways to address those fears than with the policy of fear amplification of the Republican nominees. Democrats can actually benefit from the strange Pet Heist Chapter of this campaign season by recognizing those citizen feelings and presenting policies that actually counter those powerful interests, with pet-free commentary on the economics of workers, both immigrant and native-born.
Instead of feeding fear with fear, Democrats can feed fear with hope, for example, by highlighting the party’s policies for social and environmental programs in the home countries of migrants, with prevention of impulses for migration preempting fights over arrivals from abroad. And in February, Democrats and some Republicans proposed immigration reform to strengthen border enforcement, add judges to sift through cases more fairly, and prevent the flow of drugs and human trafficking, but Trump called the proposal a “horrendous” example from the “Radical Left,” despite the legislation’s support from business leaders, boots-on-the-ground border agents, and an initial endorsement from Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader. Also, Democrats can point to ways that immigrants from Haiti and beyond actually help the American economy. That’s supported by the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office, which calculated that the added spending for new arrivals pales next to the increases in revenues for businesses and governments. And that’s supported by examples in Springfield itself, with stories even more compelling than the theatrical horrific references, and with tales more enduring. After facing those short-term costs, the rise of Haitians in town has brought long-term benefits. For example, Ross McGregor, CEO of a manufacturing company in Springfield says, they “routinely have Haitian employees,” because “they come to work every day, they work hard, they want all the work they can get.” Democrats can also tout their environmental measures not just for nature’s benefit, but also for securing long-term economic prosperity from ecological services when nature remains healthy. And Democrats can tell stories with parallels between the lives of current immigrants and the lives of many southern and eastern European grandparents of current workers (and those risen to the middle class) who also faced prejudice but who worked their way to social acceptance and economic improvements. The crowning context in the campaign to win the hearts and minds of voters is that the problems with immigration are like shadow puppets compared to the impacts of the nation’s wealthiest citizens accumulating wealth often with damage to public purpose—for Springfield or for average citizens across the land. This trend has been in place since the late twentieth century, with recent accelerations. Since the Great Recession, the top fifth in net worth has increased their wealth by 13% while those in all the lower tiers witnessed more than 20% decreases. No wonder the Trump-Vance diagnosis registers with so many voters, even if delivered in the form of a horror-movie script.
A Democratic Charm Offensive—Backed Up with Policies to Support the Working Class
Vice President Harris, after recognizing the admiration many voters feel for Trump, with respect for the former president in his astute diagnoses of many American problems, then look Trump voters in the eye and say,
Your current choice for president has done a good job of identifying your fears but a poor job of addressing the real reasons to be fearful. The story about pets is not just false; it’s a side show distracting from the real changes creating real social inequality and real downgrading of working-class life. While Republicans present policies favoring those with big investments and soaring incomes, Democrats will bring you economic development with more opportunities for workers on the job and better living after work.
Ms. Harris, debating to ridicule speaks mostly to those who already agree with you. And it basically reinforces Trump’s type of appeal by replicating his style. But debating to persuade can gain voters—and better yet, it can build support for policies that can actually address problems. If you are ready to govern by reducing the power of the actual Deep State of government and business siphoning power from the lives of average citizens, try this on the stump and be ready to back it up. Say it out: My dear fellow Americans, don’t just vote your fears. Vote for steps out of reasons to have those fears.
On September 10th you debated to win. Now a more important victory will come if you can debate to persuade.
Paul J. Croce, Senior Professor of History and American Studies at Stetson University and past president of the William James Society.
Author of Science and Religion in the Era of William James (University of North Carolina Press, June 1995); and Young William James Thinking (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018); author interview.
Presenter on Learning Across Differences, The 2020 History of Psychology Wallace A. Russell Memorial Lecture, American Psychological Association. Creator of the Public Classroom: essays with brief accounts of scholarly insights, presentations on learning across differences, and podcasts on healing our cultural wounds.
Contributor to the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the philosophy blog Civil American, the public interest platform Public Seminar, history pages including History News Network, Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, and US Intellectual History Blog, in town, the West Volusia Beacon West Volusia Beacon, and with a lighter touch, the satire, “New University Logo: NO TESTS.”
0