The Hero’s Journey in Politics:  Lightsabers, Wands, and Brooms

The Hero’s Journey in Politics: Lightsabers, Wands, and Brooms

“Ok, enough about polarization. Got anything else?”

Leave it to a friend to let you know when you’ve beaten a dead horse.

Fine, I went to see Wicked last weekend with my daughter, wife, and another 50 or so theater kids.

As is tradition, I leaned over during the show to share my profound wisdom  whispering, “You know this is basically Star Wars, but with brooms. Harry Potter, but with brooms.” My daughter, naturally, rolled her eyes. (To be fair, she rolls her eyes at me constantly, but I could actually hear it this time—even in the dark.)

Let me explain.

The Hero’s Journey

When I teach Advanced Campaign Strategies and Paid Media at the University of Florida, I include a module on the Hero’s Journey. My students, having not signed up for a literature class, often tilt their heads at me like confused puppies. But once they see how it applies, they understand its relevance to politics and public affairs.

The Hero’s Journey is one of the most enduring and versatile narrative structures in storytelling. It serves as a blueprint for understanding stories that transcend culture, geography, and time.

And because of that, in my opinion, it’s essential for any public affairs, government relations, or political operative to understand its power.

Why Study the Hero’s Journey?

      • Cultural Universality: From The Odyssey to Wicked, this framework reveals the shared storytelling traditions of humanity. It underscores the innate human need to explore transformation and meaning through narrative.
      • Psychological Depth: Rooted in Jungian archetypes, the Hero’s Journey resonates with individual psychological growth, presenting challenges as metaphors for personal struggles.
      • Adaptability: It applies to virtually any story—literature, film, or personal narratives—making it an invaluable tool for creators and analysts alike.

The Basic Structure of the Hero’s Journey

The Hero’s Journey unfolds in three acts, each encompassing key stages:

ACT 1:  Departure: The hero leaves the ordinary world, guided by a mentor, and steps into the unknown.

ACT 2:  Initiation: They face tests, allies, and enemies, culminating in a transformative ordeal.

ACT 3:  Return: The hero comes back, bringing newfound wisdom or an “elixir” to benefit their community.

The Hero’s Journey: A Refined Structure

The three main acts can be broken down further using Joseph Campbell’s monomyth outline,  a universal framework for storytelling, structured around the hero’s transformation. Below is an expanded explanation of its 12 stages:

ACT 1:  Departure

      • Ordinary World: The mundane life the hero begins in.
      • Call to Adventure: A challenge disrupts their ordinary life.
      • Refusal of the Call: The hero resists due to fear or doubt.
      • Meeting the Mentor: Guidance from a mentor prepares them for the journey.
      • Crossing the Threshold: The hero steps into the unknown.

ACT 2: Initiation

      • Tests, Allies, and Enemies: The hero faces challenges and builds alliances.
      • Approach to the Inmost Cave: They confront deep fears or conflicts.
      • Ordeal: A life-or-death trial leads to transformation.
      • Reward (Seizing the Sword): The hero gains knowledge, power, or treasure.

ACT 3: Return

      • The Road Back: The hero returns, facing residual dangers.
      • Resurrection: A final test solidifies their transformation.
      • Return with the Elixir: The hero brings back something to benefit their world.

That’s it.  That is most of Hollywood explained.  The challenge is once you learn the structure of the Hero’s Journey, you start understanding how ubiquitous it is.   It is everywhere.

For example, here’s a breakdown with Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Wicked:

A Hero’s Journey: light sabers, magic wands, and flying brooms.

Hero’s Journey Stage
Ordinary World
Call to Adventure
Refusal of the Call
Meeting the Mentor
Crossing the Threshold
Tests, Allies, and Enemies
Approach to the Inmost Cave
Ordeal
Reward (Seizing the Sword)
The Road Back
Resurrection
Return with the Elixir
Star Wars (Luke Skywalker)
Tatooine, working on a moisture farm.
Message from Princess Leia via R2-D2.
Hesitates due to family obligations.
Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Leaves Tatooine after family is killed.
Joins forces with Han Solo, Leia, and others; faces Darth Vader.
Sneaks into the Death Star to rescue Leia.
Confronts Vader and the Empire.
Destroys the Death Star.
Returns to the Rebel base as a hero.
Emerges as a leader of the Rebellion.
Joins the fight to restore balance to the galaxy.  (setting up the sequal to come)
Harry Potter (Harry Potter)
Living in the cupboard under the stairs.
Receiving his Hogwarts letter.
Initially unsure how to navigate his new world.
Hagrid and later Dumbledore.
Boards the train to Hogwarts.
Befriends Ron and Hermione; faces Malfoy and Snape.
Faces challenges in the Forbidden Forest.
Battles Quirrell/Voldemort for the Philosopher’s Stone.
Saves the Stone and secures peace at Hogwarts.
Faces the prospect of another year at Hogwarts with new challenges.
Learns to overcome self-doubt.
Brings hope and inspiration to his friends and peers. (setting up the sequal to come)
Wicked (Elphaba)
Growing up as an outcast in Munchkinland.
Invited to attend Shiz University.
Doubts her ability to fit in at Shiz.
Madame Morrible and Glinda.
Arrives at Shiz and begins magical studies.
Befriends Glinda and Fiyero; faces prejudice and the Wizard.
Discovers the Wizard’s corruption.
Stands against the Wizard’s oppressive rule.
Gains self-acceptance and her powers.
Flees to avoid persecution.
Fakes her death to achieve freedom.
Leaves Oz but transforms Glinda into a leader. (setting up the sequel to come)

Conclusion


Said, another way, my little trip to see the movie wasn’t an ordinary trip, it was an epic Hero’s Journey.

      • Ordinary World: A typical Saturday, before watching UF rout FSU.
      • Call to Adventure: “Dad, you’re coming, right?”
      • Refusal of the Call: “Couldn’t I just stay home and smoke some ribs?”
      • Meeting the Mentor: My wife, reminding me I’d enjoy it and spending time with my daughter.
      • Crossing the Threshold: Boarding the car with excited daugher and said wife.
      • Tests, Allies, and Enemies: My daughter’s withering eye-rolls at my whispered commentary.
      • Approach to the Inmost Cave: Waiting for Defying Gravity.
      • Ordeal: Sitting still for nearly three hours, buttery fingers, singing theatre kids, and hearing the eye rolls.
      • Reward: Sharing the joy of a movie/musical with my daughter and wife.
      • The Road Back: Riding home, processing the message and trying to sing Popular not knowing any words.
      • Resurrection: My daughter admitting (begrudgingly) that my “Star Wars with brooms, Harry Potter with brooms” comment wasn’t entirely wrong.
      • Return with the Elixir: A newfound appreciation for musicals and a silver dad medal.

See? The Hero’s Journey really is everywhere—even when you’re just a dad at a musical before a football game. (in which UF crushed FSU by a score of 31–11!)

All kidding aside, understanding the Hero’s Journey is critical for political professionals. Whether crafting campaign narratives, shaping public perceptions, or building coalitions, the ability to harness this timeless storytelling structure can be the difference between shaping influnce or falling on deaf ears.

PS.  Reminder, most of the time, it’s not about the policy, it’s the Vibes.

The Slow and Consequential Death of Local Newspapers

The Slow and Consequential Death of Local Newspapers

News Deserts and Civic Erosion: The Consequences of Losing Local Journalism

 

Local newspapers are closing at an alarming rate. Not only are they disappearing, but many are also merging or consolidating operations (looking at you Gannett).

Since 2005, approximately 3,200 local newspapers in the United States have either shut down or merged with other publications. Even more troubling, the rate of closures has accelerated in recent years:

  • In 2022, about two newspapers closed per week.
  • By 2023, the rate increased to 2.5 closures per week.

If this trend continues, by the end of 2024, one-third of the newspapers that existed in 2005 will be gone.

Some view this decline of traditional media as a necessary step forward—a form of “creative destruction” that clears the path for innovation and more engaging alternatives. Others, however, see it as a sad but inevitable transition, where nostalgia is being replaced by newer, seemingly “better” options that align with individual preferences.

But in the world of politics, this isn’t just a shift in how we get our news—it’s a seismic change with far-reaching consequences.

Research shows that when local newspapers fade away:

  • Local Political Awareness Erodes: Citizens know less about local issues and are less likely to participate in state and local politics.
  • Nationalization of Politics Intensifies: All politics becomes national politics.
  • Democratic Accountability Weakens: Local corruption thrives when no one is watching.
  • Civic Engagement Declines: Voter turnout decreases, especially in smaller communities.

Now, new findings tie the death of local newspapers to something even more worrisome: increased polarization and an increase in straight-ticket voting.

Let’s dive into the academic research that unpacks these intriguing connections.

Study at a Glance

  • Title: Newspaper Closures Polarize Voting Behavior
  • Link: Journal of Communication
  • Peer Review Status: Yes
  • Citation: Darr, Joshua P., Hitt, Matthew P., and Dunaway, Johanna L. 2018. “Newspaper Closures Polarize Voting Behavior.” Journal of Communication 68: 1007–1028.

Paper Introduction

The researchers sought to answer a pressing question: what happens to voting behavior when local newspapers shut down?

Specifically, they examined the effect of these closures on split-ticket voting—where voters pick candidates from different parties for different offices.

The hypothesis? Fewer newspapers might mean less local political news, leading voters to rely on national, partisan sources instead. Spoiler alert: the hypothesis holds water.

Methodology

This study employed a quasi-experimental design using genetic matching.

It compared counties with and without newspaper closures between 2009 and 2012 while controlling for demographic and economic factors.

The researchers analyzed 110 closures and measured changes in split-ticket voting by looking at differences in votes for presidential and senatorial candidates in 2012. Their main dataset came from the National Digital Newspaper Program and other demographic sources.

Results and Findings

Here’s where things get spicy:
      • A 1.9% Drop in Split-Ticket Voting Counties that lost a local newspaper saw a decline in split-ticket voting, meaning voters were more likely to align their choices strictly with party lines. While the percentage may seem small, this represents a meaningful uptick in polarization.
      • The Role of National News Voters in affected counties appeared to turn to national media, which is brimming with partisan rhetoric. Without local reporting to highlight nuanced, community-specific political issues, voters defaulted to “us versus them” party cues.
      • It’s Not About Information Loss The researchers ruled out the idea that voters simply lacked enough political information. Instead, they suggested that nationalized media drowned out diverse perspectives, emphasizing polarized party identities.

Critiques and Areas for Future Research

  1. Is 1.9% really that large? This study look at changes for national offices.  At the local level (congressional & state legislatures), it is likely that a voter lives in a safe district, and 1.9% isn’t likely to make a huge difference.
  2. Generality of Results:
    The study used counties as its unit of analysis, which may mask individual-level differences in behavior. Future research could incorporate voter surveys for a more granular view.
  3. Limited Time Frame:
    The analysis stops at 2012 (darn peer review….), and it’s unclear whether the trends persisted or grew stronger in subsequent years as media consolidation continued.  The
  4. Geographic:
    Regions with robust alternative media sources might experience less polarization than those with few news outlets.  Exploring the rural/urban divide specifically and expanding the dataset to include these factors could yield deeper insights.

Conclusion

Local newspapers are more than just sources for restaurant health reports, high school football scores, and lottery numbers.

They serve as a vital check against potential corruption and the increasing influence of nationalized, hyper-partisan news outlets.

This study presents a clear message:  local journalism is about more than mere nostalgia – it’s about mitigating the growing political divide in America.

Sadly, I believe the decline of local newspapers is now irreversible.

Despite recognizing the effects, I confess I cancelled my own subscription to the local newspaper.  The “local” newspaper had lost its local focus, and honestly, the overall product is terrible. (To add insult to injury, the cancellation process was appalling. After paying online, I was forced to speak with a persistent salesperson who tried to pressure me with “special deals” “just for me.”)

Nevertheless, it’s essential that we grasp the significant consequences of this trend.

Understanding Political Polarization: Causes, Impacts, and Why It Matters

Understanding Political Polarization: Causes, Impacts, and Why It Matters

Introduction to Polarization

I’ve written about polarization many times over the past year. It’s one of the most significant factors in U.S. politics today, if not the most. Typically, I focus on one individual study or paper, but today I want to zoom out and examine the findings in a broader context.

Neo-Beginnings

Every graduate student in political science since the early 2010s has likely written a paper reconciling the academic “disagreement” between Morris Fiorina and Alan Abramowitz.

As far as academic “disagreements” go this one was…combative and sharp.   It was / is a doozy.

The argument in a nutshell:

    • Fiorina argues that polarization is primarily an elite-driven phenomenon, with political elites (politicians, activists, media) becoming more polarized while the mass public remains relatively moderate. For the general public, he suggests that there is more sorting than true ideological polarization—voters align their party identification with their preferences, but they are not deeply divided on most policy issues. (Fiorina et al, 2011)
    • Abramowitz, on the other hand, emphasizes that polarization is widespread among the electorate, especially among the most engaged citizens, who have become more ideologically consistent and politically divided. He argues that as the electorate becomes more polarized, affective polarization (i.e., the emotional dislike of opposing partisans) increases. (Abramowitz, 2017)

For me, it was strange argument because their views are compatible with each other, when you ask the question, “Under what circumstances can both of these positions be correct?”  (Especially when we have the ability to consider additional research?)

Among political elites, Abramowitz is right—polarization is high, emotional, and often extreme. Among non-elites, Fiorina’s position holds more weight, but research suggests he may be looking in the wrong place.

Most of the general public doesn’t deeply care about politics. This is estimated by some to be 20-30% of the people (Kalmoe, 2020).  I have seen some that estimate it as low as 15% (Speaking of Psychology: The psychology behind our political divide, with Keith Payne, PhD., n.d.).

However, when polled about policy, many give moderate responses—what they often mean is, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.” This middle-of-the-road answer satisfies the pollster but doesn’t represent how they’ll vote.

Instead, their behavior is guided by cues from political leaders or social circles. These cues encourage distrust and dislike of the opposing party, making voter behavior appear polarized even when personal ideology isn’t.

Said another way, it is really difficult for any pollster to capture an answer posed about the funding mechanisms of charter schools when the answer is likely closer to:

“meh, I don’t really care about this issue and/or I am not knowledgeable about the issue.  I’ll answer your question with a middle of the road answer because you asked politely – but know I will very likely govern my political behavior by cues received from my political party – especially political leaders – and/or my social circle that I value which are now highly correlated.  And both of those are likely to tell me not to like the “other” party and that is basic human nature anyway, so my political behavior and voting will appear polarized too.” – voter

To add some final nuance: Abramowitz’s view dominates in low-turnout elections, like primaries, where highly engaged voters participate in mostly non-competitive districts. (and well since political elites and political nerds tend to hang out together… their perception is of extreme polarization…leading to more affect polarization…leading the public…)

But I digress, Fiorina’s perspective becomes more relevant in general elections, where turnout is higher and broader.

 

Drivers of Polarization

Let’s shift gears to what drives polarization. Looking at U.S. trends since the 1960s, the literature points to several familiar themes:

 

    • Economic inequality: The growing gap between rich and poor (McCarty et al., 2007; Zacher, 2024).
    • Racial issues: A key driver in the U.S. (McAdam, 2015).
    • Partisan realignment: Spurred by economic inequality and civil rights movements (Highton, 2020; Kuziemko & Washington, 2018).
    • Media fragmentation: The rise of ideologically selective media (Prior, 2005; Iyengar & Hahn, 2009).
    • Geographic sorting: Americans increasingly live near like-minded neighbors (Cho et al., 2013).
    • Uncompetitive districts: Less competition leads to more extreme partisanship (Stonecash et al., 2018).

Human Nature and Affect

While these structural factors matter, in my take of the subject if I zoom out: basic human nature and human psychology are the real driving forces.

Most polarization today isn’t driven by ideology but by emotion and affect—a gut-level dislike of “others” (Young & de-Wit, 2024). Party and geographic sorting (Cho et al., 2013) make it easier to identify “them” as “others”, and human nature does the rest. We’re hardwired to distrust outsiders.

This is where Fiorina was looking in the wrong place for polarization.  For many, politics is not not a well thought set of political ideology or issue stances (Kalmoe, 2020).

Rather for many, politics is driven by a gut reaction and the details are outsourced to elites (Lenz, 2013), who are happy to exploit these emotional divides for power and re-election (Karol, 2015).

Impacts on Governing

The consequences of affective polarization are severe:

 

  1. Growing contempt: Americans increasingly distrust “others” (Geiger, 2014).
  2. Exaggerated perceptions: We overestimate how extreme our opponents’ positions really are (Lees & Cikara, 2020; Ruggeri et al., 2021).
  3. Declining cooperation: Dislike makes compromise nearly impossible (Geiger, 2014b).
  4. Government dysfunction: Legislative gridlock is the norm (Binder, 2004).
  5. Eroding trust: Polarization harms trust in government (American Academy, 2023), media (Shearer, 2024), and even each other (Hetherington & Rudolph, 2017; Lee, 2022).
  6. Risk of violence: At its extreme , polarization creates “an environment in which political violence is more socially acceptable and frequent”  (Piazza, 2023).

What’s Next?

Can anything be done about polarization?  Can we stop this polarization?  Is the current polariation any worse than the polarization seen pre-1960?  All questions for another blog post.

I’ve briefly touched on this topic before in What is the Solution to Extreme Divisiveness? You can check it out here. Spoiler: one solution might involve sharing scotch with someone you disagree with.

But what’s next topic deserves another deep dive. Stay tuned.

References

Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.

Binder, S. A. (2004). Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Brookings Institution.

Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Hui, I. S. (2013). Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers103(4), 856–870.

Highton, B. (2020). The cultural realignment of state white electorates in the 21st century. Political Behavior42(4), 1319–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09590-5

Distrust, political polarization, and America’s challenged institutions. (2023, May 17). American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Academy of Arts and Sciences. https://www.amacad.org/news/distrust-political-polarization-and-americas-challenged-institutions

Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2011). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Geiger, A. (2014, June 12). Political polarization in the American public. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public

Geiger, A. (2014b, June 12). Section 4: Political compromise and divisive policy debates. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-4-political-compromise-and-divisive-policy-debates/

Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2017). Political trust and polarization. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274801.013.15

Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. The Journal of Communication59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x

Kalmoe, N. P. (2020). Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology. Political Psychology41(4), 771–794.

Karol, D. (2015). Party activists, interest groups, and polarization in American politics. In American Gridlock (pp. 68–85). Cambridge University Press.

Kuziemko, I., & Washington, E. (2018). Why did the Democrats lose the South? Bringing new data to an old debate. American Economic Review108(10), 2830–2867. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161413

Lee, A. H.-Y. (2022). Social trust in polarized times: How perceptions of political polarization affect Americans’ trust in each other. Political Behavior44(3), 1533–1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09787-1

Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour4(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4

Lenz, G. S. (2013). Follow the leader?: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, D. (2015). Be careful what you wish for: The ironic connection between the Civil Rights struggle and today’s divided America. Sociological Forum (Randolph, N.J.)30(S1), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12173

Piazza, J. A. (2023). Political polarization and political violence. Security Studies32(3), 476–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2225780

Polarized America: the dance of ideology and unequal riches. (2007). In Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 44, Issue 06, pp. 44-3551-44–3551). American Library Association. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-3551

Prior, M. (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science49(3), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00143.x

Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N., Barea-Arroyo, P., Berge, M. L., Bjørndal, L. D., Bursalıoğlu, A., Bühler, V., Čadek, M., Çetinçelik, M., Clay, G., Cortijos-Bernabeu, A., Damnjanović, K., Dugue, T. M., Esberg, M., Esteban-Serna, C., … Folke, T. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour5(10), 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x

Shearer, E. (2024, October 10). Americans’ views of 2024 election news. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/10/10/americans-views-of-2024-election-news/

Speaking of Psychology: The psychology behind our political divide, with Keith Payne, PhD. (n.d.). Apa.org. Retrieved November 22, 2024, from https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/political-divide

Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Mariani, M. D. (2018). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Routledge.

Young, D. J., & de-Wit, L. H. (2024). Affective polarization within parties. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12973

Zacher, S. (2024). Polarization of the rich: The new Democratic allegiance of affluent Americans and the politics of redistribution. Perspectives on Politics22(2), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592722003310

The Importance of Realistic Goals When Influencing Low-Motivation, Partisan Audiences

The Importance of Realistic Goals When Influencing Low-Motivation, Partisan Audiences

Introduction: Why Fast Results Aren’t Always Realistic

A potential client reached out a few months ago with a challenging request: they wanted us to “change minds… fast.”

After a deeper dive, it became clear they were really hoping to quickly alter a specific, public behavior.

Their ask? Develop a plan to make it happen. NOW.

In our first meeting, the client (who, let’s be honest, had zero patience for a long process) and I spent some time unpacking the factors at play with their target audience. Here’s what we agreed on:

      • Motivation? Pretty low. This audience had a lot going on, and the client’s issue wasn’t exactly top of mind.
      • Partisanship? Through the roof. This issue had become a political flashpoint, not something easily shifted.
      • Strength of Beliefs? A mixed bag—likely low overall—but most were sticking hard to their partisan lines.
      • Target Audience? The masses. We weren’t dealing with individuals but a collective mindset.

Through some honest conversation (and a few tough pills to swallow), the client started to grasp the limitations. Coercion? Not happening.

It became clear: expecting a quick, dramatic behavioral shift wasn’t realistic. (The client didn’t love hearing that.)

Eventually, we shifted the goal. Instead of “changing minds fast,” we landed on something more feasible: Mitigating resistance and opening the door to considering new information.

Understanding the Challenge: Low Motivation and High Partisanship

Here’s the thing: if you want to influence public opinion, you have to understand who you’re dealing with.

In this case, the audience’s motivation was rock-bottom. People were juggling a million priorities, and this issue wasn’t even on their radar.

Then there was the partisanship. When people tie their identity to a political party or movement, changing their opinion feels like threatening their sense of self. Political polarization? It’s a fortress. Trying to break through? Like turning a battleship with a canoe paddle.

Strength of beliefs was another layer. Most weren’t deeply invested in the issue itself, but they leaned heavily on partisan cues. Their engagement wasn’t critical or thoughtful; it was reflexive. To move the needle, we’d first have to untangle those layers of identity and affiliation.

Why Coercion Doesn’t Work: The Limits of Influence

Here’s a truth bomb: coercion doesn’t work. Sure, you can force compliance in the short term, but it doesn’t change minds. In fact, it often entrenches resistance even deeper. Push too hard, and people dig in. Throw partisanship into the mix, and you’re not just meeting resistance—you’re fueling it. Coercion can break trust and destroy relationships, which is exactly what you don’t want when trying to create lasting change. And in this case, the client had no real leverage. Instead of forcing the issue, we took a different approach: reducing resistance and creating space for people to choose to engage with new perspectives.

Reframing the Objective: Mitigation and Openness

Once we let go of the “change minds fast” fantasy, we could focus on a realistic goal: mitigating resistance and fostering openness.

The idea wasn’t to flip opinions overnight. Instead, we aimed to soften the ground—to create an environment where new information could take root.

Think of it like planting a seed. Growth takes time, but with the right conditions, it happens.

Blunt force wasn’t going to work here.

The Power of Incremental Change: Fostering Open-Mindedness

Big, dramatic changes don’t stick, especially in a politically charged climate. So we went small. Real small. The goal became about introducing little bits of new information—no overwhelming data dumps, no aggressive pitches. Just tiny nudges that gently challenged existing views without triggering defensiveness. It’s like getting someone to try a new food. Offer a small taste, and they might be curious. Force-feed them? They’ll spit it out—and maybe even puke on you.

Strategies for Influencing Low-Motivation, Partisan Audiences

When dealing with low-motivation, partisan audiences, success isn’t about sweeping changes. It’s about crafting strategies that meet them where they are.

 

      • Appeal to Shared Values
        Tap into the universal concerns that unify people: family, security, fairness, community pride. Frame your message to align with these priorities—it’s harder to dismiss what feels familiar and relevant.

      • Leverage Trusted Messengers
        The messenger matters. Use individuals or institutions the audience already respects—community leaders, influential peers, or trusted organizations.

      • Deploy Narrative Framing
        Facts don’t persuade; stories do. Develop narratives that reflect the audience’s experiences or aspirations. A compelling story can cut through defensiveness and make the message relatable.

      • Demonstrate Social Proof
        People follow the crowd. Highlighting others within their social circles who are engaging with the issue normalizes new ideas. Multiple touchpoints matter here—one voice isn’t enough.

      • Focus on Incremental Change
        Aim for small wins. A petition signature, a webinar click, or even a casual conversation can build momentum over time.

Managing Expectations: Setting Realistic Goals

Let’s be real: shifting deeply held beliefs is a marathon, not a sprint.

Instead of aiming for instant results, focus on small, measurable wins. Over time, these steps add up, creating meaningful progress.

Every little nudge moves the needle.

Conclusion: The Long Road to Influence

The lesson? Sometime, you gotta slow down and examine if the goal is realistic and proper. And in our case of dealing with low-motivation, partisan audiences, realistic goals are essential. By reducing resistance and gently opening the door to new perspectives, you can lay the groundwork for long-term change. Changing minds doesn’t happen overnight. It’s slow, deliberate, and frustratingly incremental—but it’s also the only way to achieve lasting influence. Frankly, most don’t want to hear there are no silver bullets – only work and resources.

Epilogue: The Outcome

We didn’t win the engagement.

Another firm swooped in with a flashy, budget-friendly “disruptive solution.” Their pitch? “Hyper-engage” the audience with a game-changing, “AI-driven framework.” Because nothing screams credibility like jargon laden buzzwords.

The client bit. And hey, quick fixes sell—whether they work is another story.

I am starting to believe we stink at marketing.  Maybe, instead of a thoughful plan, we just come up with the newest innovate, strickly proprietary of course, AI trained persuasion blackbox.  

Eventually, the reality of shifting partisan beliefs will catch up. It always does.

Changing short term behavior let along hearts and minds? Not for the faint of heart. Godspeed.

Your Momma Was Wrong: When being a Jerk can be the Key to Persuasion

Your Momma Was Wrong: When being a Jerk can be the Key to Persuasion

Alright, listen up, you knuckleheaded jerkfaces—political debates today aren’t exactly shining examples of polite discourse.

They’ve turned into verbal cage matches where name-calling, trash talk, owning each other after destroying each other, and cheap shots are just another day at the office.

But here’s the million-dollar question: does all this incivility actually work to change anyone’s mind or influence?

Come on, you little snowflake, let’s dive into some research to see when acting the fool might actually pay off.

Title: “Uncivil Yet Persuasive? Testing the Persuasiveness of Political Incivility and the Moderating Role of Populist Attitudes and Personality Traits”

Link: Read the study here

Peer Review Status: Yes

Citation:
Vargiu, C., Nai, A., & Valli, C. (2024). Uncivil yet persuasive? Testing the persuasiveness of political incivility and the moderating role of populist attitudes and personality traits. Political Psychology, 45(6), 1157–1176.

Introduction

Political incivility—rude and disrespectful rhetoric—has become a hallmark of populist campaigns.

This study by Vargiu and colleagues investigates whether (and under what conditions) such tactics are effective in persuasion or influence and whether personality traits or populist attitudes make people more receptive to this behavior.

Current Understanding of Research (Before This Study)

Prior to this research, incivility in political communication was widely assumed to reduce a message’s effectiveness. Studies have shown that:

      • Negative Reactions to Incivility: People tend to view uncivil rhetoric as unprofessional and damaging to a candidate’s credibility.
      • Limited Persuasion: Civility is often believed to enhance a message’s appeal, making audiences more likely to engage with the content.
      • Partisan Bias: Some evidence suggests people are more forgiving of incivility when it comes from their own political group, although this finding has been inconsistent.

This new study seeks to clarify whether these assumptions hold true across different cultures and personality types.

Methodology

The researchers conducted two experimental studies:

      1. Switzerland Study: 1,340 participants.
      2. United States Study: 1,820 participants.

Design: A 2×2 factorial experiment exposed participants to persuasive messages about controversial topics (e.g., gender-related policies). Messages were framed as either:

      • Civil or Uncivil: Respectful versus disrespectful language.
      • Congruent or Incongruent: Aligning with or opposing participants’ initial beliefs.

Independent Variable: Civility of the message.
Dependent Variable: Change in opinion, measured on a scale from -10 (maximum backfire) to +10 (full persuasion).
Moderators: Populist attitudes and personality traits, including psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism.

Participants’ opinions were measured before and after exposure to determine how persuasive each message was.

Results and Findings

General Impact of Incivility

      • Incivility Doesn’t Always Backfire: Across both countries, uncivil and civil messages were equally persuasive on average. This challenges the assumption that incivility universally harms credibility.
      • Message Congruence Matters: In Switzerland, uncivil messages aligned with participants’ beliefs were slightly less persuasive than civil ones. However, incongruent messages (those challenging beliefs) were more persuasive, regardless of civility.

Cultural Differences

      • In the U.S., populist attitudes significantly increased the persuasiveness of uncivil messages, especially those that were incongruent with prior beliefs.
      • In Switzerland, where political discourse is more consensus-driven, uncivil messages were less influential overall.

Role of Personality Traits

      • Populist Attitudes: U.S. participants with stronger populist leanings were more likely to find uncivil messages persuasive.
      • Dark Traits: People with higher levels of psychopathy and Machiavellianism responded more positively to uncivil messages, particularly when the messages contradicted their initial views.

Critiques of the Research or Additional Areas of Study

While groundbreaking, the study has some limitations:

  1. Cultural Specificity: Results varied between Switzerland and the U.S., limiting generalizability to other countries or political systems.
  2. Definition of Incivility: The study operationalized incivility as explicit disrespect or vulgarity, which may not capture subtler forms like sarcasm or passive aggression.
  3. Medium of Communication: The research used text-based platforms like forums and tweets, which may not reflect how incivility operates in live debates or multimedia formats.  Step away from the keyboard and say it to my face!

Future research could explore:

  • Broader definitions of incivility and their impact.
  • Different communication channels (e.g., televised debates, social media videos).
  • How incivility interacts with audience demographics beyond personality traits.
  • How incivility interacts with source credibility.  

Conclusion

As my momma always said: “Jerks of a feather always flock together!”.  Okay, she has never said this, but she did warn me to take care of who I surround myself with.

Incivility isn’t universally persuasive, but it resonates with certain audiences, particularly individuals with populist attitudes or darker personality traits.

This suggests that while uncivil rhetoric can be a risky strategy, it may yield rewards in specific cultural and psychological contexts.

For political strategists, this research highlights the importance of tailoring communication styles to the audience.

For the rest of us, it raises an uncomfortable question: Are we more influenced by insults than we’d like to admit?

Clearly, the answer for some is “damn right, jerkface!”