A focus on character issues in the 2008 election can be good news for entrepreneurial advocacy organizations.
The day before Super Duper Tuesday the Wall Street Journal wrote, ”In other words, the election of 2008, thus far, is less about ideology and ideas and more about governing style and leadership ability – intangible qualities on which voters are placing a higher priority than on issues.”
On the surface this seems like bad news for issue groups, after all if the focus is on intangibles like who will fight partisan gridlock or who is a strong leader, then how do you get people to vote on the budget deficit, judicial appointments or poverty?
The distinction between policies and personal qualities is an artificial one. Few of us think rationally about issues and cast votes based on who checks most of our boxes. The other extreme, that we are mindless followers of the cleverest sound bite, is equally misguided. Most of us, most of the time, use issues as proxies for values and personal attributes. When Governor Huckabee talks about eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and replacing it with a 23% national sales tax, he is suggesting a policy but more importantly telling voters that he doesn’t trust federal government power and that he will shake up the powers that run Washington at the expense of the rest of America. There are a lot of differences between mandating everyone purchase health insurance, as Senator Clinton does, and those who would make it easier to get coverage but not mandate it, as the other candidates suggest. One critical difference is one’s view of individuals, government and the marketplace. A mandate says “in some things people should not be given a choice to behave badly because that hurts the rest of us”, a choice says “given a reasonable chance people will do what is in their best interest and in the best interest of the community.” The policy difference matters as a policy matter, but in the context of the campaign it also matters for what it signals about the person suggesting it.
Advocacy organizations can align their issues with the images the candidates are trying to convey. The place the start such an analysis is not in the group with the issue (“what do we want?”) but rather with the candidates (“what do they want?”).
For example, Senator Clinton needs to demonstrate compassion and that she can draw Republican and independent voters. Senator Obama needs to prove that he is substantive as well as an idealist and also find ways to appeal to working class Democrats and Hispanics. Senator McCain needs to show he worthy of conservative voter’s trust while not scaring away the independents and moderate Democrats he will need to get elected in November.
The question then is not “how do I get the candidates to talk about my issue?” but rather “how do I align my issue with the image the candidates want to portray?”
Potential answers to follow…
