When a newly prominent politician says “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” my first thought is to ask: What do the cold/hot feeling metaphors mean to him?
Individualism conceptually means: I am my unique self, I decide and act independently, I take full responsibility for my life. To the politician, that feels cold and “frigid,” and he is appealing to those who feel the same chilly alienation.
Collectivism conceptually means: I am part of the We, all of us decide and act together, everyone will take care of me and vice versa. That feels comforting, “warm” to the politician, and he is emotionally bonding with those who also want that feeling of safety and comfort.
Further: If one’s political rhetoric stresses how words make us feel, they we de-emphasize facts, data, and history of how more individualist and more collectivist societies have fared. We tap into a traditional cognitive dichotomy: the “warmth” of subjective emotion over the “coldness” of objective rationality. We decide more by feeling, and less by reason.
Note also word “rugged.” Note that the dictionary’s antonyms for “rugged” are: “weak,” “fragile,” “enfeebled,” and this long list:
flimsy
weak
delicate
worn
tender
weakened
emasculated
wasted
exhausted
diseased
sensitive
infirm
vulnerable
unsound
frail
debilitated
crippled
puny
incapacitated
susceptible
nonhardy
worn-out
enervated
temporary
run-down
transient
sapped
yielding.
Word choices reveal a lot.