Kevin Baldeosingh
Many people have been criticising the No-Rowley campaign for being crass, base, and vicious. Which it is. At the same time, most of these critics have no problem with PNM spokesmen who call Kamla Persad-Bissessar an alcoholic or their not-so-coded rhetoric which asserts that the UNC and Hindus are agents of Satan. Political analyst Selwyn Ryan, for example, condemns the No-Rowley ads as "cynical, comical, and disgraceful," but describes the PNM Women's League attacks on Kamla as "brilliant, sharp, and destructive." Which are two out of three adjectives that have never been associated with the FAB.
Now, it is perfectly justifiable to criticise the UNC's campaign on the bases of ethics, principles, or even advertising standards. But this has nothing to do with whether a campaign strategy is effective or not. As political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita explains in The Dictator's Handbook, "We put ideas of civic virtue and psychopathology aside as central to understanding what leaders do and why they do it...Understanding what people want and how they get it can go a long way to clarifying why those in power often do bad things. In fact, bad behaviour is more often than not good politics."
So, in respect to the No-Rowley strategy, only a very conceited or very deluded person would go from ought to is–ie, arguing that principle is synonymous with effectiveness. It seems, however, that most political commentators and commenters are both (conceited and deluded, I mean, not principled and effective).
But, whatever else they may be, the UNC's managers are not fools. And, even if they were, fools who are highly motivated become smart very fast: and, when it comes to electoral victory, the incentive is hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as lack of worry about going to court. (I specify court, not jail, since incarceration is a fate unlikely to befall any politician in this place in the foreseeable future.)
So a more reasonable assumption is that the UNC's managers have done their research and concluded that attacking Keith Rowley is the most effective method for winning–or at least not losing too badly–the next general election. In order to do this, they would presumably have hired professional political strategists and conducted polls. And, while neither the strategists nor the commentators will know who is right or wrong until the election results are announced after September 7, there is ample research which shows that the UNC's basic strategy is, politically speaking, correct.
Admittedly, this research has mostly been done in the United States, so you might argue that the American political culture is too different from Trinidad's for the same techniques to apply here. The counter-argument is that human nature does not vary drastically between societies so, with culture-specific adaptations, what works in the US should be effective here.
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen cites studies from American elections which show that "people's positive and negative associations to a candidate were better predictors of their voting preferences than even their judgements about his personality and competence." He lists managing these associations as the second most important goal in an election campaign, but it is clearly the primary foundation of the No-Rowley campaign, which has no purpose except to promulgate a threatening image of the PNM leader.
"Fear ads are useful for scaring up support in the unlikeliest of places," writes political scientist Ted Brader in his book Campaigning for Hearts and Minds, "and enthusiasm ads are useful for shoring up support closest to home." This is the blueprint for the parallel campaign to portray Kamla as the caring grandmother figure.
The first most important goal in a campaign, Westen writes, is "to define the party and its principles in a way that is emotionally compelling and tells a coherent story of what its members believe in, and to define the other party in ways that undermine its capacity to resonate emotionally with voters." This is the main strategy being used by the PNM's managers, who of course are using the same political hymnbooks as the UNC. That is why the PNM ads tout a PNM victory as a "return to decency and good governance," despite this phrase echoing hollowly to anyone familiar with that party's first 30 years in office.
In respect to the second clause of Goal#1–to define the other party in ways that prevent it connecting emotionally with voters–the PNM's strategy has been to portray the UNC as racist and the most corrupt administration ever. The determiner "most" is important, since the PNM is also perceived as a corrupt party but, by harping on "most", the sub-text is that PNM corruption will benefit voters for the PNM and not just the clique of party financiers. This is linked to the main message about the UNC being racist.
"Where persuasion is concerned, fear works," Brader writes, "and we can expect rational politicians–especially those who would lose otherwise–to use the tools that help them succeed. Opponents of such tactics will find it hard to prevail on principle alone."
Kevin Baldeosingh in a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a history textbook.