How To Win In 2016: Debunking The Five Myths That Will Lead to Republican Defeat
Page 3
Myth #5: Consensus Language Spells Victory
All of which brings us to the largest myth of all: the notion that running a harsh campaign backfires. We have heard the odd idea that negative campaigning fails over and over again – but the truth is precisely the opposite. Over the past few election cycles, negative campaign ads have risen from just under 30 percent of campaign ads in 2000 to well over 60 percent of campaign ads in 2012. Those ads are often run by independent groups, which is the most effective means of doing so: candidates avoid punishment for “going negative” while reaping the benefits of negative information making the rounds about their opponents. As Conor Dowling and Amber Wichowsky wrote in the American Journal of Political Science in 2015, “We find that candidates can benefit from having a party or group ‘do their dirty work,’ but particularly if a group does, and that the most likely explanation for why this is the case is that many voters simply do not connect candidates to the ads sponsored by parties and groups.”
But putting aside negative campaign ads themselves, what about candidate language? Banking on the fact that Republicans have been portrayed as “uncaring,” many observers suggest that Republicans spend outsized time and effort attempting to appear more caring.
How should Republicans do this? Pollster Frank Luntz rightly believes in the power of words. He utilizes focus groups to find the most popular words to use, understand that words are gateways to the emotions:
80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think. I can change how you think, but how you feel is something deeper and stronger, and it's something that's inside you. How you think is on the outside, how you feel is on the inside, so that's what I need to understand.
Luntz may not go far enough, however. He rightly says that hope defeats anger – but then he concludes that the answer for Republicans is to turn away from anger almost entirely, instead investing in the “inclusive conservatism” of George W. Bush. Arthur Brooks, in somewhat the same vein, argues that Republicans must be less “oppositional,” and suggests that Republican politics be “joyful, optimistic and in the service of people.” He also says that Republicans should argue from “empathy and compassion.” All of which sounds great, except that the media coverage of Republican politicians forecloses such joy and optimism, as well as such empathy and compassion when Republicans call for smaller government. Media coverage routinely portrays Republicans as corrupt, stupid or evil – and it’s very difficult to overcome that narrative with just the smile on your face.
Similarly, political observers like Jennifer Rubin object to strong political language, believing that such language polarizes. She writes, “the intensity with which one utters disapproval is not a measure of one’s conservative bona fides…hyperbole can make you sound like a nut….playing victim is unattractive….Conservatives who want to win elections and promote conservative ideas should be able to separate political exploitation and entertainment from serious policy debate. That means making compelling and lively arguments, employing good humor and showing respect for fellow citizens’ intelligence.”
Mitt Romney did all of these things, and got trounced. Meanwhile, Barack Obama used language of intense disapproval with regard to Republicans, utilized hyperbole regularly, played victim consistently, and disrespected his audience’s intelligence entirely. He kicked Romney’s ass.
Of course, that’s not the entire story. Barack Obama was joyful, even if Republicans didn’t see it; voters did perceive him as “in the service of people.” Why? Because politics is a study in contrasts, not absolutes. Compared to Romney, he was the good guy. This is where these particular insights of Brooks, Luntz, and Rubin must be extended.
Fact: Strength Achieves Victory, Warmth Without Strength Achieves Defeat
At the outset, we should note that candidates must indeed avoid appearing too harsh themselves, unless they are incumbents; negativity should always emanate from allied groups, rarely from the candidate. Republicans who understandably insist on relentlessly negative candidates in order to channel their own frustration with the establishment have the right idea, but the wrong vessel: that’s what super PACs and campaign surrogates are for. Presidential candidates should only in rare circumstances get down into the mud themselves.
But Republican candidates should throw their opponents in the mud. If you’re going to speak the language of morality, someone has to be the bad guy. It’s not enough to simply declare yourself compassionate, or even to exude compassion: if your opponent is suggesting openly that you are a racist and a bigot, your compassion quickly turns to tinsel in the eyes of the public. The battle to appear compassionate and caring isn’t one-sided: it is a battle with a real opponent.
In their book Compelling People, Matthew Kohut and John Neffinger of KNP Communications talk about the qualities political candidates must radiate in order to attract the public: strength and warmth. These two qualities often exist at opposite poles: those who are strong appear cold, and those who are warm appear weak. But sometimes, rarely, there is a marriage between strength and warmth, in which people show that they are capable of connecting with you at the same time they show they are capable of leading. Ronald Reagan had this quality; so, too, did Bill Clinton. Barack Obama is not warm, but he is strong.
Today’s Republican leaders have reacted to the candidacies of John McCain and Mitt Romney – both strong, but cold – by pushing for more warmth at the expense of less strength. They find the soft tones of Ohio Governor John Kasich more compelling than the fire and brimstone of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX); they can’t, for the life of them, explain why Donald Trump has skyrocketed in the polls.
That’s because Republican leaders have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Republicans are generally not going to “out-warm” Democrats – Democrats’ entire appeal is their supposed warmth with other people’s money. But by focusing on warmth to the exclusion of strength, Republicans risk allow Democrats to win the strength argument as well as the warmth argument.
There is good news for Republicans here, however. As Kohut and Neffinger write, “great strength can also generate warmth.” Leadership generates following. Donald Trump generates warmth because he is so overpoweringly strong in his persona. Meanwhile, warmth in men often denotes weakness in subtle signals – that’s why the all-too-warm Bill Clinton needed a Sister Souljah moment, and the genial Ronald Reagan needed his Mr. Breen run-in.
So, how can Republicans generate warmth from strength? By recognizing that their own warmth isn’t as much of an issue as perception of Democrats’ warmth. An old joke goes like this: two men are running from a bear. One of them stops to put on tennis shoes. The other looks at him and asks, “Do you really think that’ll help you outrun the bear?” The first guy replies, “No, but it will help me outrun you.”
That’s the nature of politics. Republicans don’t have to be the warmest candidates. They have to be the strongest, and they have to be seen as warmer than the Democrat.
Good news: that’s easier than it looks. Neffinger and Kohut utilize a metaphor: sumo wrestling. “Your first job,” they write, “is to get in the circle” with the audience – to let them know that you care. Luntz, Rubin, and Brooks all articulate this notion well. Brooks observes, “Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support—care for the vulnerable—to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.” That’s step one: placing yourself inside the political circle with people, showing that you care.
But then there’s a second step: kicking your opponents out. It isn’t enough to simply explain that you care, or show that you care. You have to show that your opponent doesn’t. The art of successful politics lies in articulating something with which 100 percent of people agree – and then explaining that your opponent doesn’t agree with that principle.
Barack Obama has practiced this
art to perfection. Compare, for example, Obama’s 2008 slogan with John McCain’s. In 2008, Obama ran on the slogan “Hope and Change.” Everyone likes hope; everyone is for change. But, Obama said, McCain opposed both: he wanted to keep America stuck in the George W. Bush rut. Meanwhile, John McCain ran on the slogan, “Country First.” First, a large of contingent of Americans do not believe America should come first – these internationalists believe that such slogans reek of xenophobia. Second, McCain didn’t even have the guts to claim that then-Senator Obama disagreed with the slogan. In fact, McCain explicitly stated that Obama cared deeply about the country. In his 2008 nomination acceptance speech, McCain actually called his opponent the embodiment of the American dream: “We’re dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights…I wouldn’t be an American worthy of the name if I didn’t honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.”
It’s tough to imagine why McCain lost.
And then, incredibly enough, Mitt Romney followed in McCain’s footsteps. Obama again ran a cohesive campaign around the theme “Forward.” Everyone agrees with the notion of moving “forward” – who exactly wants to go “backward”? But according to Obama, Romney did: he and his supporters wanted to return America to the 1950s, with all of its attendant racism and sexism. Meanwhile, Romney ran under the banner, “Believe in America” – and then, once again, refused to say that Barack Obama didn’t believe in America.
Warmth at the expense of strength connotes neither warmth nor strength in politics. Voters want a leader, and they want that leader not to back down in the face of hardship. They would rather have the arrogance of Barack Obama than the humility of Mitt Romney; they’d rather have the swagger of George W. Bush than the stolidity of Al Gore. For Republicans, strength translates as warmth – and consensus language, without throwing your opponent out of the wrestling circle, translates as weakness.
Conclusion
So, can Republicans win in 2016? There’s little doubt that Democrats have a major advantage in the electoral college going into the cycle. But Republicans are on the verge of a major breakthrough if and only if they fight smart. Republicans must recognize not only where their voters are, but where the opposition’s voters are. They must focus on their audience rather than on satisfying their own desires, whether for media accolades or rabid supporters.
Most of all, they must focus on their opposition. They must scout the Democratic candidate, whether it is Hillary Clinton or another leftist du jour. They must analyze that candidate’s weaknesses and strengths, and determine vulnerabilities. The dynamics of politics are too fluid for the one-size-fits-all strategy suggested by so many pundits, but stability of principle is a precondition for victory.
The Republican efforts in 2012 face two dueling desperations: the desperation by conservatives to save the country in the face of a devastating attack on its central bases by the left, and the desperation by establishment Republicans to gain power in the face of that devastating attack. These two desperations have, unfortunately, been at odds for years.
Grassroots conservatives believe that if they articulate conservative principles with full vigor, they will surely win. That’s not true, because emphasis makes all the difference in politics – conservatives are far better pushing crime than privatization of social security, for example.
On the other hand, establishment Republicans seem to believe that only by dumping key Republican principles can Republicans win. That’s not the case, either: Democrats have been moving to the left for years, even as they campaign to the right. Barack Obama, for all his wild leftism, campaigned as a left-leaning Republican in 2008: pro-traditional marriage, copping out on abortion, against tax hikes, and in favor of a strong national defense. Republicans have been losing, even as they uncomfortably shift away from their most deeply-held principles. Why, exactly, should Americans vote for a Republican who wants to expand Medicaid using Obamacare while proclaiming that God calls for big government, if they can just vote for a Democrat?
Happy talk won’t suffice to achieve conservative victory in 2016 and beyond. Moral narrative, moral narrative, and moral narrative: that’s the entire game. Conservatives have been in retreat for decades because they mistook foreign enemies for the greatest threat to America; leftists have been on the advance for decades because they attacked conservatives as the greatest threat to America. It’s time for conservatives to finally fight back.