Should politicians show emotions?

Emotion refers to a strong feeling extracting from an individual’s circumstances, mood or relationship with others. Emotion can generally range from hope and joy, swinging to sadness, despair and tears. 

 Firstly, there is a common notion that politicians showing emotion may highlight a sense of understanding and empathy from the politicians on how members of the public may feel on particular issues such as gun crime for example. Famously after a school shooting had taken place in Santa Barbara in 2014 in America, Obama failed to hold back tears of sadness during a speech he was making to the family of the victims who tragically lost their lives in the unfortunate shooting. Arguably you could argue that supporters of Obama may have felt touched by that emotional moment and made the case that simply a politician like Obama understands and “gets their struggles” of losing a loved one to gun bullets. However, his opponents would be less forgiving and instead jump on the opportunity to highlight his weakness arguing for his powerless status of not being able to do anything to solve the issue of gun crime.

More importantly the point being contested is that through politicians showing emotions makes them more “human like”. Recently during a gun control forum in Iowa Democrat candidate Andrew Yang was moved to tears by a woman who narrated her story of how her 4-year-old daughter was killed by a stray bullet. CNN editor Chris Cillizza wrote in his column on how that moment of supposed pure emotion by Andrew Yang was a positive entity as he argues we need “more empathy, more humanity and authenticity”. This point would reiterate the fact that by showing emotion politicians appear more connected to us as members of the public. Nonetheless Chris Cillizza does acknowledge that emotion from politicians aren’t always received in a positive manner especially for female politicians where they are accused of going “over the top” when they express emotions in public with Theresa May and Hillary Clinton being prime examples. They both received negative coverage and reaction for Grenfell tower incident and New Hampshire rally respectively. Nevertheless, however through reasons of personal connection and empathy with the public politicians should show emotions.

However, though some critics would argue that politicians portraying emotions can have complications. Laura Jenkins from the British journal of politics and international relations who cites Stoker (2006:70) argues that some form of emotions employed by politicians such as hope can sometimes turn to “cruel optimism”. She argues that there are many occasions where messages of hope have “unanticipated reality that one can do little to change”. This point would highlight that in particular moment’s emotion from politician isn’t a welcoming factor. Obama vowing to close down Guantanamo Bay whilst in office which appealed to human rights activists and importantly gave hope to the 41 detainees of that prison was tragically unachievable. This promise and hope of it closing was seen as a form of hope expressed from the president but for it fail would have no doubt been difficult to digest for the electorate. Recently in the December 2019 election in the United Kingdom when the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn offered hope and alternative to young members of the public in opposition to the Conservative government. There was a sharp increase in youth voter registration with a whopping 68 % of youth voters registering late in order to vote in the election. With Corbyn giving real hope and promising “real change for all” enticed many young voters only for the British electorate to brutally punish Corbyn as the Conservatives won a comfortable majority. All that hope offered by Corbyn turned into dejection and real bitter taste in young voters and left them feeling devastated at the painful election result. This point is further supported by political author Susan Bickford where she supports this claim of some hopes displayed by politicians as being misleading by stating “emotion is regarded either as misleading rational perception or as the privileged mode of perception, as disruptive of or central to the meaningful activity of the self”. These are the types of emotions portrayed by politicians that can end up in total cruel optimism as mentioned by Jenkins which can sometimes leave a lasting effect of feeling powerless by members of the public. Through Laura Jenkins criticism of emotions being displayed by politicians we can reach the sensible conclusion that politicians should not show emotions as it can some sometimes inadvertently leave more damage than good.

Furthermore, some commentators would argue that politics is a stressful arena only intended for the emotionally strong and has no place in an atmosphere where you must act like a leader and deal with difficult tasks such as terrorism for example and reassure the public when such incidents take place. Arguably critics may argue in cases such as terrorism politicians would need to be strong and appear masculine. This point is highly supported by political scientists such as by Andrea Carson et al in race to the top where they argue that female politicians tend to be viewed less prime ministerial compared to their male counter parts. Andrea Carson et al citing Kark Waismel- manor and Shamir quoting “This incongruity disadvantages women in that it assumes women as less suitable for leadership positions, or as unnatural or unbefitting as decision-makers when displaying expected and favoured leadership traits Further, women have the additional burden ‘of overcoming preconceptions that they are not well equipped enough to lead”. This point possibly suggests that women are more likely to behave emotionally weak compared to men enforcing the gender bias notion when it comes to the point of if politicians should show emotions. This point is further supported by Myisha Cherry where in her column titled “the politics of emotional dismissal” she stated whilst mentioning the philosopher Sue Campbell “When a man gets angry, (i.e. Mitt Romney at the first debate and Obama at the second debate), that anger is translated as toughness, leadership, getting serious about the issues. However, when a woman gets angry, her anger is dismissed as passion, hysterics, or irrationality”. This quote reiterates the contention that there is hypocrisy in judging female politicians when it comes to showing emotions which can lead to torrent of abuse being hurled at the retrospective politician meaning through the analysis and understanding of Sue Campbell, Andrea Carson et al and Myisha Cherry we can argue to a degree of great extent that as a result of the unfair abuse directed at female politicians they should not show emotions.

Arguably one of the biggest justifications for politicians showing emotions is that it may convey certain political messages as important. Donald Trump’s consistent rhetoric of “make America great again” and “drain the swap” combined with Boris Johnson’s simple but snappy slogan of “get Brexit done” has made both politicians look patriotic and caring about their respective nation. Patriotism can often be linked to the emotion of pride and is popular with the electorate in some parts of the world especially in UK where Jeremy Corbyn the leader in opposition was constantly accused of lacking patriotism by mainstream media. Political authors such as Thomas NA et al support the view that through emotions from politicians it is popular with the electorate. Thomas NA et al mention that “We might be inclined to believe that political campaign advertisements serve to inform citizens; however, research has indicated this is not necessarily the case [Huber Ga- identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising]. As opposed to educating voters, political campaigns appear to primarily persuade voters [Huber Ga- advertising the persuasive effects of presidential advertising] by appealing to their emotions, which subsequently influences their voting decisions”.  It is evident that through the display of emotions from politicians it advantages their campaign and is within their interest to display feelings. Therefore, it would be easily perceived and understood to suggest that it is highly essential for politicians to show emotions.

Moreover, some political scientists make the argument that the use of emotions may increase political participation which is a welcoming factor in some parts of the world such as UK where voter turnout tends to be low especially during elections. According to UK political info, general elections had higher turnouts pre-1990’s with turnout being over 82% at one point and dipping at an alarming rate from the 2000’s decade dropping to a low of 59% in 2001 but has picked up slowly post 2010 era. From these statistics it is evident UK is suffering from voter turnout and some critics suggest that there is a link between rising populism and improved voter turnout as well as increased party membership. Paul Whiteley et al carried out hypothetical study concluding that “People who joined the Labour Party for the first time after the 2015 election were more likely to be influenced by anti-capitalist values than were returning and existing members”. Jeremy Corbyn was the leader during this period and it was as a result of his anti-capitalist views that some commentators would argue that the huge surge of new party members of the Labour party between May2015 to July 2016 with 325000 members joining can be linked to Corbyn’s emotional rhetoric of anti-capitalism and pro left-wing cries. Evidently one could argue that what makes Corbyn’s anti-capitalist rhetoric, emotional and connects with large group of the public is because it partly includes an emotional attack on the conservative party with them being labelled as the party of the few and Labour being labelled as the title of not the few but the many. Rhetoric’s like this along with others such as “peace and prosperity” slogan under Labour party gives a sense of belonging and identification for members of the public. 

Here we can reach the vying conclusion based on the evidence presented that through emotion it can help with an increase in party membership which is a positive concept but we must remember this can have negative aspects too such as increase in hate crime. If emotions such as hate is being touted by Politicians like Nigel Farage with his breaking point poster depicting immigrants as dangerous whilst uttering the slogan of” take back control of our borders, as well as xenophobic actions being displayed by Britain first party has all seen hate crime in race rise up by 11% according to statistics from the home office. As political scientists we must acknowledge the negative aspect of emotion and realise that for all the positives emotions displayed by politicians may carry there is an unpleasant attribute to the debate.

In conclusion politicians showing emotions has many positive aspects which would lead us to having a conclusion arguing for the support of politicians showing emotions. The fact that it may increase political participation, build a link between the public and politicians, give people a real sense of hope, improve political participation which reduces partisan realignment is all important and inspiring. However, though you get a combination of negativity such as rise in hate crime, over exaggerated abuse aimed at politician’s especially female politicians in particular and cruel and unrealistic hopes raised which lead to disappointment with the public, would all point to arguments against politicians showing emotions. Having considered all the points with range of analysis on both sides of the debate I would wholly argue to a certain extent that politicians should show emotions. Above all they are human and it is a great concept for politicians and the public to have a common sense and ground which is important. The negatives of the debate can be partly controlled by shutting down hate through mainstream media and politicians themselves by controlling what parties can do or not do in campaigns. They also can reduce the unrealistic hopes promised through independent fact checks organisations fact checking and measuring the realistic chances of such policies being achieved.  We can reach the collective conclusion that the positives outweigh the negatives marginally so therefore politicians should be able to show emotions if the negatives can be reduced drastically.