When I first became a lawyer, I would tell my family about my cases. One evening over dinner, I told them about a farmer who sued stating that voltage running through his land was upsetting his cows. “Sucks to be him,” my husband sarcastically commented with no sympathy toward the plaintiff farmer. Exactly the response I had expected. A week later, I told him of another cow/voltage case over dinner. “Outrageous,” my husband exclaimed, stating that the farmer had better get a lot of money for his suffering or there is something wrong with the legal system. Again, exactly the response I expected. Completely different responses – but I had described the facts of the same case.

I did not lie in either description. All I did was use words that evoke different emotional responses. And it worked, even on my husband who is not an overly emotional guy. He was shocked once I told him, even though he could then see that, fact for fact, it was the same story.

That vignette illustrates the power of our choices of words, and it is not confined to a lawyer arguing his case. It happens to us every day – this unseen manipulation of our emotional response to good or bad, right or wrong. It is behind why you’ll plunk down $4.00 for a cup of Starbucks rather than make yourself coffee at home for just pennies. It’s why you’ll pay $12 for a candle from an upscale decorating shop when the same candle is in your grocery store aisle for a lot less.  And of course, it is pervasive in political campaigning.

I watched the presidential debate earlier this week, not for the debate itself (I have already voted), but to see the manipulation of people through word choice.  The purpose of the debates, the campaign rallies, and the campaign ads isn’t to change the minds of voters on the other side, or even to directly sway the undecided. Rather the purpose of these displays is to motivate the base of the “faithful” to make sure they vote and have them speak their views to their friends. The recommendation from a friend on any product is more effective than a thousand ads.

And so I watched as President Obama and Mr. Romney squared off. I was struck that, to a great extent, they were giving the same answers to the questions – but using different words. At the same time, I watched my News Feed on Facebook explode with each “side” cheering their candidate and defiling the other over the exact same exchanges. Later, Romney supporters cried out that the President is stupid because the Navy still uses just as many bayonets, while the Obama supporters did the same over Mr. Romney’s statement that Syria borders Iran and is its only access to a sea.

And the acrimony has continued since the debate, with my Facebook friends slinging heavier and heavier insults, making statements, and sharing memes that would make the toughest playground bully seem like a angel in comparison. Things we would never say to each other in polite conversation, we are blasting out to the world over the internet, all over a debate where, to a great extent, the candidates did not disagree.  We are doing exactly what the campaign professionals intended for us to do.

It is human nature to assert your own world view as being correct. As a result, I suppose none of us can avoid being used as puppet mouth-pieces, by telling us things using words that play into those world views. But it still gives me pause and just like in my novel, Foreseen, I have to ask: Is there a point where the manipulation has gone too far? And if so, have we reached that point?

I find it a difficult question to answer, but one I will continue to explore, even after this vocal election is over. But in the meantime, did I tell you about the farmer and his cow?