The Power of the Subconscious

Obama has a clear lead in the polls, yet the gnawing doubts persist: will America really elect a black man?

The greatest danger to Obama in the final weeks of the campaign isn’t posed by John McCain, but rather by the widespread belief that he has already won. Obama has a clear lead in all polls, helped by the continuing financial crisis that makes Americans look to government, and therefore to the Democrats, for a solution.

As it is with stocks, however, so is it also with votes: what matters isn’t the temporary highs reached but its value on the day it’s cashed in.

But what are polls worth in view of an election unlike any other yet seen in America? In plain language, will America give the lie to the polls and actually put a black candidate into the White House?

Several years ago, two American psychologists presented a list of names of sports and entertainment personalities to a test group, asking whether those on the list were Americans or not. The list included tennis player Michael Chang and television personality Connie Chung, as well as actors Elizabeth Hurley and Hugh Grant. The test group had no difficulty in identifying Chang and Chung as Americans and Hurley and Grant as foreigners.

The psychologists then presented the group with a group of American symbols like Mount Rushmore, the United States flag and the Capitol building, as well as foreign symbols such as the UN building in Geneva, a Ukrainian banknote and a map of Luxembourg. Respondents were told to quickly decide which of the personalities identified in the first test belonged with the symbols shown in the second test. Lo and behold, many in the test group associated the British actors with American symbols while linking the Asian personalities with the foreign symbols. From this, the researchers concluded that people subconsciously associate ethnicity with the American identity. Foreign whites were therefore judged to be more “American” than Asian-Americans.

On Monday, the Washington Post reported that the researchers had repeated the experiment using John McCain and Barack Obama as the personalities. The test period ran through last week. The results confirmed those of the first experiment: the test group considered both McCain and Obama to be American, but in the groups’ subconscious, McCain was perceived as more American than Obama.

That begs the question whether such subconscious resentments carry over into the voting booth. Does Obama have to be concerned that his toughest opponent in the voting booth is the subconscious?

America has some experience with black candidates. The name “Bradley” is synonymous with an American trauma. Tom Bradley was Mayor of Los Angeles in 1982 when he ran for Governor of California; he led in the polls right up until election day. Then he lost. All the polls got it wrong. In all probability, many white voters were unwilling to tell pollsters they wouldn’t vote for a black. Since then, this phenomenon is called the “Bradley Effect” in America.

If this pattern is repeated, Barack Obama could end up losing despite his ten percent lead in national polls because in swing states like Ohio, Virginia and Florida his lead is much smaller; in some cases paper-thin. A little “Bradley Effect” and the new President could be John McCain. Even shame can be a powerful factor in elections.

Granted, the Bradley election debacle lies a quarter century in America’s past and the country has changed a lot in that time. In many cities and even in some states, minorities have become majorities. The acceptance of many different cultures has become part of the American social fabric; multiculturalism is even taught in schools. America today is without doubt more tolerant. It is perhaps the most tolerant of the Western nations. In Germany, for example, the son of a Kenyan wouldn’t try to become Chancellor.

Precisely because America has centuries of slavery and racial discrimination behind it, the nation is highly sensitive to even the slightest hint of racism. Researchers from the University of Washington detected somewhat of a Bradley Effect in the primary elections. They began with the hypothesis that they would find the effect in their observations. True to their expectations, they did find it, but in only 3 of 32 states: California, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

In twelve other states, the researchers ran up against a completely unexpected phenomenon: the Reverse Bradley Effect. Obama received clearly more votes in these states than had been predicted by the polls, actually seven percent more. In Georgia, he actually got 18 percent more than predicted.

Psychologist Anthony Greenwald, a pioneer in this kind of study, speaks of a “mutation of the Bradley Effect.” It is discernable above all in the Southeastern states. Greenwald chalks the inaccurate polls up to “social pressure,” where respondents preferred to give the answer they thought would be expected of them. In those former slave-holding states, that would certainly be a vote for the white candidate. Once in the voting booth, however, they actually voted just the opposite. If Greenwald and his colleagues are correct, that would account for Obama receiving more votes than predicted.

It would also explain polls in which Americans claim they would vote for a black provided he’s qualified, but don’t think their neighbors would do the same. It would appear that Americans still don’t trust in their own progress.