Dear Democrats: Seeing Is Not Believing

As televised hearings in the impeachment of President Trump commence, Democrats are pinning their hopes on “seeing is believing.” Is that true and is it enough?

Persuasion is not merely a matter of providing information or even seeing something for ourselves. People cling to the status quo, often seeking to think and act in ways consistent with what they’ve said or done before or with the views of people important to them. We observe through “lenses” born of beliefs we harbor even if we can’t remember their origin. We’re creatures of habit – some of us more than others. So, to actually change our opinions, and certainly our actions, requires more than hearing that we might be wrong.

Then there is the problem of hearing something once. Among the perspectives on attitude and behavior developed over the last fifty years is one articulated in the 1970’s by then Yale University social psychologist William McGuire. The view stresses that people have many needs which attitudes must gratify. In other words, people hold certain attitudes because doing so brings about valued consequences. This is the case even when another attitude might make more sense. Our attitudes, which guide our actions, are rooted. One tug at them is rarely enough. If you’ve ever tried to yank a large weed from the ground, you know that roots can make extraction pretty tough.

So, what’s the takeaway here? Effective persuasive messages address habits of thought and the extent and reason for entrenchment. It’s not enough to present new information, no matter how compelling. The information must make uprooting an attitude a better means of gratifying high priority needs than leaving things as they are. Helping people come to this conclusion is crucial. This means actually knowing what matters most to the people whose attitudes and actions you wish to change. It isn’t how they should think that matters in persuasion, but how they actually do think.  That’s the core of your message.  Otherwise, you miss the mark.

Then there is the importance of clarity. Democrats have muddled about over terms like quid pro quo, bribery and extortion when describing the reason for impeaching the president. Which is it? And which term is the public likely to clearly understand? Once that’s decided, it needs to be repeated and repeated. Not because people are stupid, but because they’re busy and often can’t study hours and hours of televised hearings and articles in credible sources. Repetition can be annoying if not done right, but ambiguity is the kiss of death in bringing about change. Confronted with it, people retreat to the status quo.

The ball is in the Democrats’ court. They can show the world hours and hours of testimony, but their choice of words as a party, clarity regarding how the president’s actions were both illegal and dangerous violations of what Americans truly care about – state-by-state, county-by-county, as well as their willingness to repeat, repeat and repeat will decide if their efforts will make a difference.