A political speech may awaken hope, touch an old grievance or make us feel understood. The relief of feeling seen can make scrutinizing the speaker feel almost ungrateful.
Still, we need to ask: Am I being persuaded – or manipulated?
With November’s midterm elections approaching – the elections held halfway through a president’s four-year term, when all House seats and about a third of Senate seats are contested – this question takes on particular urgency. How we evaluate what we hear will help shape whom we entrust with power.
Ethical persuasion offers reasons we can examine and leaves us free to question. Manipulation uses deception, distortion or emotional pressure to compromise that freedom. Both can move us deeply; a single speech can contain
elements of each.
Aristotle identified three resources of persuasion: credibility, emotion and argument. Emotion belongs in public life. Anger can alert us to injustice; hope can move us to act. Neither tells us whether a claim is true.
Our task is to notice what happens to our freedom to question. Do doubts become signs of disloyalty? Does disagreement threaten our belonging? Are we encouraged to dismiss every source that challenges the speaker?
Feeling unsettled alone proves little: Persuasion can challenge cherished beliefs. The concern is pressure to stop evaluating what we hear. Ask these questions.
How is this speaker making their case?
In his 1952 “Checkers speech," Sen. Richard Nixon answered allegations concerning an $18,000 political fund. He offered a financial defense, then described a gift his family would keep: a dog named Checkers his children loved.
The financial defense contained claims listeners could scrutinize. The dog story risked diverting attention: Questioning political gifts could begin to feel like taking a beloved pet from children. Empathy for a father could displace judgment about a public official without resolving the concern.
Notice: I wanted an answer. Now I feel protective of him, and questioning feels cruel.
Ask: If I set the story aside, does the explanation hold? Can I care about his family and still expect accountability?
What am I feeling and what am I being urged to do?
On Sept. 17, 2001, President George W. Bush described Muslim Americans as physicians, military personnel and parents, urging respect amid national grief and anger after the 9/11 attacks. His appeal to shared humanity supported an argument we can examine: Innocent neighbors should not be blamed for another’s terrorism.
Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s 1963 inaugural address cast resistance to integration as resistance to tyranny. Here, defending racial exclusion became defending freedom. White listeners were invited to feel persecuted while the rights denied to Black Americans disappeared from the argument.
Both appealed to values their audiences might embrace. Calling something “freedom” does not establish whose freedom it protects.
Notice: Am I feeling permission to treat people in ways I would otherwise consider wrong?
Ask: Who is being blamed and does the evidence support that blame? Whose experience is missing? Would I accept this treatment of someone I love?
What is the argument and do the facts support it?
In her 2016 Democratic National Convention speech, first lady Michelle Obama recalled watching her daughters leave the White House for school with armed security. She connected parental concern to presidential responsibility, then cited presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s work for children as grounds for her endorsement.
The story introduced a relevant concern, followed by claims listeners could check and dispute. Still, identifying with Obama as a mother does not establish the soundness of her political judgment. Her warmth cannot settle Clinton’s qualifications.
Notice: Have I examined the reasons, or borrowed the speaker’s certainty?
Ask: Which claims can I verify? What evidence might complicate the conclusion? Would I apply the same standard to a speaker I disliked?
Putting these questions into practice takes emotional intelligence. Our work at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence emphasizes five key emotion skills: recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing and regulating emotions. Applied here, the goal is to notice what we feel without treating the feeling as proof, especially before we respond.
Name the feeling – and what you want. Ask: Am I anxious, angry, hopeful? Am I seeking reassurance, vindication, direction? Notice when those needs seem met. “I feel relieved” and “this claim is accurate” are different conclusions.
Follow one consequential claim. Write down what the speaker wants you to believe and the evidence offered. Check the full passage and original source, then seek credible reporting that tests the claim. Ask what evidence would change your mind – especially when you like the conclusion.
Watch for attacks on your capacity to judge. Work on gaslighting describes the repeated undermining of trust in one’s perceptions and judgment. Watch for denials of documented statements coupled with attacks on the questioner’s competence or sanity. Confusion or disagreement alone does not establish gaslighting. Compare the exact words with the record and look for a pattern.
Make space for your "Best Self." Before sharing, donating or arguing, pause. Perhaps take a slow, deep breath. Picture your best self: the person and citizen you want to be. What would that person do next – check a claim, ask a question, wait before reposting? If you need help, talk with someone you trust who can listen without demanding agreement.
A speech can help us feel seen. Our responsibility is to keep seeing clearly, even when we most want to believe. We can be moved without handing over our judgment.
Robin Stern, PhD, is the cofounder and senior adviser to the director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, and a psychoanalyst in private practice. She is the author of "The Gaslight Effect" and host of "The Gaslight Effect Podcast." Opinions are those of the authors and do not reflect those of Yale School of Medicine. Marc Brackett, PhD, is the founding director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and a professor at Yale’s Child Study Center. He is the author of the new book, "Dealing with Feeling” (also the name of his podcast) and "Permission to Feel.” Caleb Yellin is a high school senior from Los Angeles, driven by his passion for policy, political philosophy and community service. Recently, he’s been researching the psychological underpinnings of political discourse.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Am I being manipulated? Three questions to ask yourself | Opinion
