When presented with a danger or threat, cortisol is released into our bloodstream, producing heightened alertness. We are more receptive. It’s why fears relating to immigration and identity were used during the Brexit campaign; why fears relating to a breakaway “black state”, “beaches being taken away” and “separate laws, separate economies and separate leaders” are being propagated by the no campaign; and why Peter Dutton is using words such as “suspicion” and “deceive”.
Should the yes campaign respond with their own fears? No. It never worked for us in the UK. When the government’s contingency planning document for no-deal Brexit, Operation Yellowhammer, was leaked to the press, it was a veritable smorgasbord of horror stories. Yet while factual, it was labelled as Project Fear (as would be the case in Australia) and was quickly forgotten about.
Maybe a more balanced approach is correct then? Well, no. Balanced presentations can fuel unbalanced views. It’s called biased assimilation. People take what information supports their original view and dismiss information that does not.
What about the logical argument? Yes and no. When I started at the People’s Vote to campaign for a second referendum we had a strong logical argument. “It’s not reasonable – or fair – to force the government’s Brexit deal on us without a People’s Vote because we now know the promises made for Brexit have been broken, we now know the real facts about the real costs of leaving the EU, we now know the deal guarantees no clarity about the future, just a crisis that goes on and on.” But contrast this with our competitors: take back control, deliver the will of the people, leave means leave, enemies of the people, get Brexit done.
The key for the yes campaign is to maintain a logical argument but focus on the safety and rewarding aspect of the instinctive mind, place greater emphasis on what Aristotle would call pathos (the emotive argument) and ethos (the trustworthiness of the person delivering it). The latter can matter more than the message itself.
Bursting the bubble
I remember how good it felt to receive thousands of retweets and millions of impressions. I remember welcoming coverage in already supportive newspapers and seeing social media focused on the quantity of likes, not where those likes were coming from.
We had built a bubble. Paul McCartney said he knew the Beatles had made it when he heard the milkman coming up his path whistling From Me To You. Someone outside his immediate circle. We, it seems, would have been happy with Epstein tapping his feet.
In polarised campaigns, bubbles are dangerous. There is a distinct possibility of adding to the polarity by talking only to your supporters, predominantly about yourself and what you are doing. On a dating website, what makes people interesting is not what they say about themselves, but what they don’t say about themselves. It’s the same with campaigns. If you have formed a bubble and are only attracting your supporters it is likely you are not interesting to those outside. Beware the bubble.
Clarity of leadership
At People’s Vote, I was working with renowned strategic communicators Alastair Campbell and Tom Baldwin, former director of communications for the UK Labour party.
Both were acutely aware of the importance of leadership, strategy and teamwork yet neither could prevent factions forming within the campaign. Ultimately it was the calling of a general election (and predictable victory by Boris Johnson) that ended it but internal and external division were a big part. When you are up against populists who are seeking to polarise and who are strategically using confusion and post-truth (If You Don’t Know, Vote No), leadership and clarity of message are vital.
And leadership is also a key factor when it comes to the media. Former BBC journalist Emily Maitlis said of the impact that populist rhetoric is having on her profession: “Politics has changed, but we as journalists have not yet caught up” and that she felt journalists “were becoming anaesthetised to the rising temperature in which facts are getting lost, constitutional norms trashed, claims frequently unchallenged.”
I interviewed former senator Nova Peris in 2014 as part of helping Alastair Campbell for a book on leadership. Something she said has remained with me ever since: “In sport I climbed mountains. That was the feeling. Reaching the top of the mountain and screaming out a big ‘Yeah!’ In politics the challenge is not about climbing the mountain, it is about moving the mountain, especially in Aboriginal affairs. Due to what has happened in the past, the systemic policies that have failed Aboriginal people, I find I am confronted with a mountain but it is not about climbing it. It is about moving it and can I do this. I believe I can, but I will do it stone by stone.”
Stones are moving but it will take an emotive and instinctive argument in addition to the logical one, a focus on those outside the bubble, and clarity of leadership to move the mountain. There is still time.
Kevin Keith is a UK/Aus citizen, writer, campaigner and former director of the People’s Vote campaign
