I was fascinated at the lessons from the cooked-up story about the pizza delivery man making waves as a part-time libertarian senate candidate.
Sean Haugh - the Libertarian Party’s Senate nominee in North Carolina - is sitting at about 8% support, almost all achieved from a low budget YouTube campaign.
In a style reminiscent of Ross Perot, he produces campaign video clips railing at the incoherence of mainstream politics while sipping craft beers at a home bar.
What is attractive about his style?
- It’s novel: there’s no cookie-cutter perfection to his delivery. He has a very unique form of verbal expression - distinctive and alluring.
- It’s new: he has new ideas, and attractive ways of comparing and contrasting that appear logical.
- It’s ordinary: his choice of beers, locations, clothes and expressions are conscious, but not self-conscious - and they connect. He is not claiming to be ‘everyman’, but his connections with ordinary life are closer than most politicians.
- it’s smart: he’s a clever and witty guy - coming up with ideas that voters can attach themselves to and use to justify their own dissatisfaction with the mainstream politicians.
- It counters the mainstream: his colourful approach, and his assertive pillorying of the main parties is possible because of the drab safeness of his opponents.
- It’s not too serious: there’s just enough levity in his material to signal that he doesn’t take himself too seriously - but just seriously enough to be worth a vote.
These are qualities found in many successful political challengers and underdogs, but don’t of themselves mean success.
The key is, as always, getting a very simple message out widely enough to run alongside the name and face, in an environment where voters are, or can be, motivated to change the incumbents.
I’m doubtful, for example, that a youtube campaign can break through to the masses without a massive amount of latent discontent among voters.
Sean will be interesting to watch.
It’s common for politicians to attempt the moral high-ground, but because they live in a “them versus us” world, they rarely attain it.
A pledge by NZ’s Labour Leader David Cunliffe not to “sledge” (abuse of a personal nature) opponents this election was destroyed on the day he made it by one of his MPs, Clare Curran.
Curran told a student magazine that Prime Minster John Key was her least favourite MP, one National Minister was ‘nasty’, and other National MPs were ‘foul-mouthed’ and ‘homophobic’.
Running a positive campaign is a feasible strategy, but Cunliffe’s ‘pledge’ turned strategy into public grandstanding. I’ve said it many times; strategies should be lived, not talked about publicly. Anyway, the pledge was going to be undermined the moment an MP got heated about their opponents.
Many politicians approach politics tribally. They identify themselves with a group, and with its ideas. Because their livelihoods and egos depend on the success of the group, they willfully forget that quite reasonable people can have completely different ideas about how to live. To believe in the superiority of their idea, they denigrate those who don’t share it.
Research suggests this ‘better than others’ belief is more likely from left-leaning politicians than conservatives. So it was more likely that a sledge pledge from a party which preaches tolerance, diversity and peace would be undermined by members being nasty about fellow human beings.
Cunliffe’s idea was nice, but he should never have mentioned it publicly, and it was never going to work anyway.
A US study hints that New Zealand’s strong voter turnout in national elections is because we handle stress better.
Work by University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO), the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) and Rice University, has shown that stress hormones are predictors of political participation. Reports of the studies claim it shows tolerance of stress is a predictor of voter turn-out.
The study concluded that cortisol is related to a willingness to participate in politics - as it is with willingness to participate in most social engagements.
Researchers analysed the saliva of over 100 participants who identified themselves as highly conservative, highly liberal or disinterested in politics. Cortisol was measured in saliva collected from the participants before and during activities designed to raise and lower stress.
"High-stress activities led to higher levels of cortisol production, but that political participation was significantly correlated with low baseline levels of cortisol,"
"Participation in another group-oriented activity, specifically religious participation, was not as strongly associated with cortisol levels. Involvement in nonvoting political activities, such as volunteering for a campaign, financial political contributions, or correspondence with elected officials, was not predicted by levels of stress hormones."
It’s hard to believe the physical act of voting is intrinsically stressful. But maybe its the requirement to make a decision - and a decision on which much of the public debate seems to rest?
This was an American study, where less than 50% of the public vote in national elections. In New Zealand, between 70 and 90% of us do.
Do New Zealanders handle political stress better? Is our approach to election day less dramatic? Or are we more relaxed about the outcome?
One thing on which we are certainly now clear from these sorts of studies; the old-school assumptions about voters are wrong - socioeconomic status has far less impact on voting or political leanings than biology.
We are in fascinating new territory for political strategy.
The fuss over David Cunliffe’s apology for being a man revealed the extent to which the nation’s leaders are modified by the beltway.
At the moment, David Cunliffe can’t get an even break. Like Ed Miliband, his hapless goofy UK counter-part, the media is fixated on mischievously misinterpreting everything Cunliffe does.
It’s easy and predictable, because like Miliband, Cunliffe is running through a banal right-on political liturgy. He is allowing the media to cast him as a paint-by-numbers Labour politician.
In another time, apologies for being men have gone down well with feminists. Cunliffe was reading from a successful old Labour script. But that was then, and now bolshie interest groups in the community are demanding more.
Cunliffe doesn’t have the networked crew to tell him what interest groups or the public want, nor the inventiveness to create something new.
To be fair, it appears that his speech went down well at the Women’s Refuge forum, including his remarkable request that men “out there”, “stop this bullshit”. Nice - now go along to a pub in Hamilton East on Tuesday and say that.
His use of the common vernacular was a pandering attempt to co-opt the the ordinary man in an effort to win over this conference attendees. I doubt many ordinary men would be impressed to be used that way, but I also doubt they even gave it a moment’s thought.
John Key’s comment that Cunliffe’s apology was ‘quite insulting' showed him to be as much a product of the beltway as Cunliffe.
"Insulting" is a beltway word - claimed to be felt by people on behalf of a group, when they’re aiming for some sort of advantage.
Few men would have felt “insulted” by Cunliffe. We might have thought him a dick, or an embarrassment - and that doesn’t give him any strength to insult us. Moreover, most men are only familiar with insults that are delivered directly and question your masculine self-image.
While Key described Cunliffe’s words as “odd” and “silly”, he felt obliged to also pander to Cunliffe’s target market and quickly added “the issue of violence is a very serious issue,”
Both men were guilty of pandering, but in politics it’s all about how you do it, so only one got caught out.
There’s a popular myth that disasters help politician’s reputations because they give them a chance to be seen, to be active, and to be associated with the (complicated) emotions of recovery.
Like most misconceptions, it makes initial sense: people like politicians who DO something - who rally and organise people, who actually help make things better, and who embody the communal attitude.
While those components may be true, the fact is that disasters are almost always negative for politicians.
This blog has previously discussed research that shows disasters are moments for political revolution. In one study of US tornadoes, support for the political incumbent fell every time. Another US study showed the electorate assessed the relative roles of politicians and punished or rewarded accordingly.
In one study of political events in the year or two following almost 100 large scale natural disasters, researchers found almost complete upending of the previous political order. It didn’t establish causal links, but the proximity of disaster to the extent of the subsequent change cannot be replicated in other circumstances. We have plenty of other studies that show the dissent and disconent that emerges from disasters.
Now a study in the June/July issue of Social Science Research, has busted the myth the Obama won his second election off the back of Hurricane Sandy.
Two days after Hurricane Sandy the researchers asked almost 700 voters about their exposure to the storm and related media coverage, as well as their voting intentions.
They found that prior to the positive news coverage for Obama (Oct 31), there was no influence of Sandy on Obama’s vote share.
There was also no influence on his vote share the day after his well-publicized embrace with New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie while touring the hard-hit Jersey Shore (Nov 1).
There was a very slight improvement for Obama three days later (Nov 2 and 3).
But by the election, this trend reversed. By then news coverage of the storm had turned to focus on loss of life, slow repairs, and power cuts.
So the researchers said:
"The data suggest that people going to the polls Nov. 6 with the hurricane on their mind would have been less inclined to vote for Obama,"
They said the effect of disasters:
"depends on a number of variables and the effect may change over even shorter stretches of time.
They took the opportunity to chastise the shallowness of pundits:
Yet pundits tend to seize on certain ‘laws’ such as presiding over a disaster makes an incumbent look presidential. But each event like Sandy deserves to be studied as a unique occurrence to help answer questions about the impact of unpredictable, large-scale events as they unfold.”
While it is continuously surprising how pundits use shallow top-of-mind rules of thumb to make their assessments, there aren’t many political advisers who think so deeply either. They were advising their politicians to jump head-long into the disaster.
It’s counter-intuitive, but the evidence suggests that the stronger the politician’s alignment with a disaster, the worse it is for them.
I’d say that incumbent politicians are best to man the sandbags rather than position themselves at the top of the disaster response hierarchy.
Meanwhile Opposition politicians should be, from their position at sandbags down the road, working hard to push the recovery spotlight onto the incumbent.
Joshua Hart. Did Hurricane Sandy influence the 2012 US presidential election? Social Science Research, 2014; 46: 1 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.02.005
UK authorities are warning they will prosecute anyone taking a photo of themselves in polling booths in this weekends EU elections.
Most election day rules treat people as stupid automatons whose minds would be influenced by seeing a politically motivated poster, rosette or eating a cake.
Electoral reform campaigners argue that selfies in booths might encourage people to vote. They could help make voting fun and encourage others to vote.
But the one election day rule which is absolutely essential is the secret ballot.
If the people are so shallow that elections need to be egotistical entertainment, we might as well turn elections over to Simon Cowell and be done with it.
The motive for secret polls is primarily to stop your vote being successfully influenced by others. It allows you to vote as you intend without fear of reprisal.
The point of fines for breaking secrecy laws is to overcome the value of incentives that might be offered to prove you voted as requested by someone else.
The secrecy is not really about the right of each voter though - because we could (and do) choose to tell people who we voted for. The secrecy is effectively for the country, and for the maintaining the value of everyone else’s vote.
It’s also essential because when votes are paid for, the purchaser wants proof that the vote was bought. A booth photo is the perfect proof.
Westerners safe in the comfort of a slightly longer history of secret ballots than elsewhere may sniff at the idea of inducement and corruption at the ballot box. But the result of corrupt elections is so dangerous that we cannot let this critical element be watered down by a passing fad.
I have no trouble with photos being taken anywhere - inside the electoral hall, outside - whatever. but not in the voting booth. The booth is the one place sacrosanct to democracy; the place where despite the pleadings of politicians, the frippery, snobbery, and self-aggrandisement and self-justification, each voter gets to call it for what it all is; to keep the show going, or to start again.
A US study claims to show that female politicians do better if their face is more obvious ‘feminine’.
The Dartmouth College-led study in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science asked participants to categorise the faces of U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections between 1998 and 2010 as male or female.
Software detects tiny movements in a computer mouse to indicate levels of confusion a person has in processing biological and social gendered cues in faces — such as shape of eyes, cheekbones, jawlines and brows, length of hair, and makeup.
The slower the reaction in categorising the gender of a female politician’s face, the less likely she was to have won her election.
Asked to judge whether they would vote for the politicians, armed with no other information than the face, participants were less likely to vote for the women who created the greatest difficulty in categorising their gender.
…Female politicians with more feminine features tend to win elections, while those with more masculine features tend to lose. The mouse-tracking technique further revealed that whether a female politician was going to win or lose an election could be predicted within just 380 milliseconds after participants were exposed to her face.
The researchers use the study to argue that there is:
a discrepancy between traits used to evaluate male and female politicians.
The key finding is that this bias is one indicator of political success - meaning preference for more “feminine” facial traits is probably a small component of people’s judgements.
Let’s look first at why the finding is relatively insignificant, then look at what we can learn from it as political strategists.
- It’s a natural thing. This bias is deeply rooted - alongside many other forms of bias. The logical, rational, reasoned, voter does not exist. You might wish it different, but it isn’t and won’t be.
- People do not judge each other in a vacuum. In the real world voters use many cues to make their decisions.
- Feminine does not equal attractiveness, and attractive candidates have a greater advantage. It does not equal trustworthiness, and trustworthy candidates have a greater advantage.
- You can tell a lot from faces. People make judgements from faces because experience (and DNA) tells them they can. It’s effectively an unsophisticated and subconscious form of cold reading. Psychologists are finding that people can spot criminals and good parents based only on the face, are finding that attractive people are more likely to adhere to conservative values (because they think its the way to be seen as attractive).
None-the-less, the study shows that a preference for ‘femininity’ does play a part in voting preferences.
Unless philosophically opposed to using any and all cues to connect with people (which would make for a strange politician) female politicians should take at least two steps to signal their femininity.
- Use official photography that accentuates feminine aspects of their face (softer lighting cuts down facial angles)
- Adorn their face with gender-cues such as clearly ‘dressed’ hair and at least one form of make-up.
Perhaps you could simply see it as taking a few steps to look your best.
Politics brings out the traits we most dislike about ourselves.
A recent UK poll revealng the extent to which politicians are reviled has sparked some holiday navel gazing.
An Independent article claimed that people dislike politiians because they are always acutely partisan.
An essay in the Dec 2013 political quarterly argued that the way politicians behave turns people off. The irony is that what seems clever and necessary to them, like point scoring, fence sitting, selective use of facts, and photo opps, is precisely the activity that loses them voter support.
This amounts to a somewht naive call for niceness, or in the words of one pundit, “political civility”.
The issue should be of more concern for politicians because they ought to want to be in a noble and respected career. And because somehere in the solution are lessons for how to win at politics.
The discussion has again flushed out concern for the professionalisation of politics. Those who take up the career find it being conducted in a cynical fashion, but don’t have enough experience or other skills to play the game differently.
This is true, but the source of the awkwardness lies in the humanity of politicians.
The political sphere is a kind of acid wash, flushing away the softer parts of our natures, leaving behind only the most stubborn of human traits.
We are all self-justifiying, self-righteous, and prone to criticism of others. We all tend to agree with information that fits our beleifs, and hang with people who agree with us. But in normal life these are balanced by family, friends and colleagues - just enough so we appear reasonable to others.
In politics there is little balance. For your ego to survive it must build itself up and cut others down. That can create a personna that is unreasonable and unattractive.
There’s a growing school of pyschological thought that over half of what we are is defined by other people. The actions of politicians are reinforced by the company they keep; even their foes, staff, pundits and media.
I felt recent leaders of the NZ Labour Party were doomed not to survive because their reference points and advice came from people trapped within the same inauthentic and separated political world.
Politics accentuates the less attractive features of the human psyche. Yet, there are few other careers in which your success depends so much on being liked, or on being persuasive.
The secret to civility in politics is balance; to gain perspective on oneself, one’s job, one’s ideology, and what society and a nation needs, and doesn’t need. The solution is to break from the destructive political environment. The solution is simply to get out more often.
Politicians do not have the luxury of explaining away the inconsistencies between what they preach and what they do.
We manage to live with ourselves because our ego is great at pretending to ourselves that we are consistent, capable, and rational. An effect called cognitive dissonance subconsciously invents creative reasons why we do or think things that are different from our conscious picture of ourselves.
Now imagine that your job is to espouse ideas. You are a politician These ideas will be closely linked to how you think the world should be. They will in turn be closely linked to how you think you act to make such a world possible.
Your ideas are recorded or observed by many other people. You make speeches. Appear on television. Talk to many people.
Your ideas appear to be listened to, or at least talked about. The more interesting your ideas, the more you are talked about. So you become more specific. You begin criticising people for having different ideas.
You begin to espouse these ideas more widely and more forcibly. It’s your duty to tell other people about these ideas. You need the resources to get the ideas out.
Before long the idealism for your nation and about yourself becomes a crusade.
But you never stopped being human. It is likely that there is something you do, or have become while on your crusade, which does not match the person you think you are, or the type of world you argue for.
Hence, Len Brown was able to have an affair and use a lot of his work time to indulge it, despite claims to dedicate his life to Auckland and to family.
Hence, Al Gore travels the world, using carbon-belching vehicles, and owns three large houses, while telling everyone else to lower their carbon footprint.
Hence, Ed Miliband used limos and expensive hotels to travel the UK arguing against the wealthy and misuse of taxpayer money.
Ghandi ostensibly lived the life he espoused or move out of the life that his electorate lived. He may or may not have done - I don’t know. But our admiration for his persona demonstrates how unique it is for any of us not to be altered by politics.
The lesson for politicians is not to believe your ideas so much that your duty to pursue them outweighs your duty to live by them.
Rush for the middle to blame for voter rush for the door.
A Guardian / ICM survey this week showed that voters in the UK are increasing disengaged from politics. It found 25% of them were bored by politics, and half say politicians make them angry.
It’s ineffably weird to see politicians fret over public disengagement.
They create half-baked pop-psych theories to explain it. They blame it on people themselves. They propose programmes to make people change.
Politicians never conclude that they, or their service, is not worth hiring.
They never conclude that they have chosen a little appreciated - okay, a much despised - career.
They never conclude that low votes and disengagement means they are currently irrelevant.
It’s not up to the public to like politicians enough to vote for them. It’s up to democratic politicians to be liked, and to put up with vilification that has always come with the job.
Lower engagement is a sign of good times. People have confidence in the ability of themselves, and of the commons, to make life worthwhile. The political struggles of the past have created a social order and an economy which makes political organisation unnecessary. Technology has created physical well being which gives each of us a sense of individual empowerment.
Politics is left with the realm of cultural order and values rather than actual physical and economic improvement. Only those who care about how others live their lives are passionate about this sort of politics.
A Guardian column speculated that the homogenization of political parties and dearth of issues has driven passion out of mainstream politics.
I agree: many professional era politicians and their aides seem remarkably inept at their chosen career. As a result they opt for banal positions on unremarkable issues.
Mainstream Parties have always tried to occupy a middle-ground. It’s the best way of appealing broadly enough to gain sufficient votes to govern. But professionally manned middle ground has a cynical foundation. The middle ground isn’t held to reflect popular opinion, nor to win to put significant policies into effect. It’s held just to win.
No surprises then that many voters choose not to help politicians play this game.