Neil O’Farrell points out that losing an election is not about a failure of communication.
—
We are told that after the presidential election of 2012, which the Republicans felt they would win so handily, and thus were so surprised by losing, that they put together a secret 100-page long “autopsy,” which has been largely ignored since. From my years in Washington, I know these white paper reports typically end up on shelves rather than being read and internalized, much less become a blueprint for action.
This so-called autopsy report indicated that one problem Republicans had was that they didn’t know how to communicate with women (leaving aside for a moment their communication problems with immigrants, the poor, persons of color, and LBGTQ persons whose parents must have been Martians). I lived in Washington, DC, for 25 years. I know without a doubt that if one cannot communicate with many different types of people, you will be hopelessly unemployable—and unelectable.
The difficulty in communicating with women is the one that leaves me whacking the side of my head, as if some water from the shower is stuck there. As a demographic fact, most persons are women, and the rest—men—are all the sons of women, frequently marry them, and become fathers of daughters. It would seem to me that being able to have a successful family dinner on any given night requires that Republican men know how to communicate with women.
Also, most workplaces are melting pots. All different manner of person is found in the workplace. Conceivably, friendships develop, colleagues are made, projects are completed, and work—well, it works. Communication takes place daily. How to communicate with people who are different than you are should not be a problem.
So here’s where I can share some wisdom as a minister. Let me extrapolate: I know there are lots of reasons that people are not a member of a church. Among those reasons is not that people don’t know what Christianity is about or what churches are like. No, the problem I have in growing my congregation has to do with very ingrained perceptions. Convincing someone who isn’t a member of a church requires erasing their internal chalk boards to convince them that your congregation is different and better. Church growth requires me to confess some bad stuff, but also to convince people the good outweighs the bad. It’s not simple, but it’s a communications transaction that is easy to understand.
So back to the Republicans, the autopsy, and their communication problems. It’s my gut talking here, but I think pretty much everyone knows what Republicans stand for. It’s just a lot of potential voters don’t like the message. People certainly can be fooled—for example, those many who vote against their own best interests because of a doctrinaire opinion or allegiance. Most good political consultants will tell you it’s a problematic election strategy to depend upon the counter-factual behavior of voters. A good many voters tend to have better regard for reality, probably in such numbers that winning or losing may depend upon it. Increasingly, in our news-saturated world, it’s better to posit a smart voter than a dumb one.
If you fail to win an election, it is not a problem about communications. It’s a fact that a lot of persons are invested in election outcomes in a very personal way. A Thesaurus isn’t a political solution. Real solutions for real problems: that’s both an election strategy, which will make a good transition into effective government.
Let’s get back to the word “autopsy.” A pathologist’s report, in black and white, usually leaves little room for interpretation. A fatal bullet wound is caused only by one thing—a bullet.
As an example, Head Start allows many women to work a few hours or to catch up on other chores. Cutting Head Start is not helpful for winning the votes of Head Start parents. They may not be a huge number of persons, but they have relatives, neighbors, and employers—in short, cutting Head Start becomes much more than merely cutting Head Start. No amount of trying a different communications strategy will alter that reality.
Many Republicans keep stubbing their toe as soon as they leave the gate. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds—is that a winning platform, particularly among women? Unless your voter is already anti-choice, a new communications approach is not going to tip the outcome in your direction, and probably will do just the opposite.
Consider making it harder for poor children to receive the health care they need—are poor persons the only ones touched by this? Will communicating differently make people change their mind about children’s health care?
As a personal anecdote, regarding a person whom we love, José, who has cut our grass for years—it doesn’t predispose me to support a politician or political point of view that will make it more difficult for him to stay in this country with his wife and children. José can’t vote, but we sure do, and so do his other many clients. Immigration doesn’t just interest immigrants. Communicating in a different way about immigration reform (or lack thereof) is not going to change the minds of those people who have a relationship with José and his family, and think he’s a very competent yardman, and want our government to find a way to recognize his real contribution to life in the U.S.
Trying to communicate that a bad public policy is a good public policy doesn’t change the efficacy of the policy. It just raises one more question: Is the speaker telling the truth or lying? Communications doesn’t take place on a neutral field. It takes place on an ethical field. It’s about telling the truth. Perhaps autopsy is the best word to describe trying to run a political campaign on some other basis than truth.
—
Photo: NewsHour/Flickr
Dear Everyone, thanks for your comments. After 20 years as a Washington lobbyist before becoming a minister, I have a pretty good sense of how many of our arguments play out. The Head Start comments I will address like this: I think the studies are right about the longer term benefits of Head Start on individual students, but if a Head Start child feels more confident and comfortable with a classroom on the first day of first grade, I think the program has worked. Consider this: I have a Harvard education. That gives me something of an advantage at first,… Read more »
Tom. Example of the principle of subsidiarity: My wife and I are fill-in drivers for Meals on Wheels. Around here, winter weather gets pretty bad from time to time. We find out if the exercise is cancelled by checking to see if the local schools are cancelled. Problem is, the schools cancel for one of two reasons: Treacherous roads due to snow and ice, or wind-chill endangering kids on their way to school or on the bus stop. In the latter case, the coldest weather generally means the longest wait. In the first case, cancelling the Meals on Wheels is… Read more »
In my opinion it’s hard to be the party of “no, you cannot have another slice of cake.” The Dems figured out (as is evidenced by the piece above) that the more you give stuff to people the more they like you and the more beholden they are to you to keep the cake coming. Flesh it out by telling people they deserve and are entitled to other peoples’ cake and you add a level of emotionality that reinforces the sweet sweet cake. Uncle Sugar will give and give just as long as the party of “free” cake keeps “freeing… Read more »
Not sure why your response didn’t make it but you said in it … “My wife and I have tutored immigrant high school kids. The prospect of a federal program to do that freezes the blood.” Just so happens my parish bulletin recently asked for volunteers for the similar program. My wife is Mexican and doesn’t work, so looks like she may be volunteering sure whereas I’m thinking about it but I have a pretty full plate at the moment. How is it working out for you and your wife? Note: I guess one of the benefits of having a… Read more »
On the issue of “Trans-vaginal ultrasounds” …. although I’m sure people know, I am a womb to tomb prolifer, my comments will not be surprising. I should note that as a pro-lifer, I, nor anyone I know have never interfered with any women entering a clinic. At most, we’ve held prayer vigils with one exception where we picketed a clinic in the area to close of “Good Friday.” Pro-choice has claimed for many years that “educating” the women was first and foremost in their clinics. Granted that Trans-vaginal ultrasounds are invasive, they represent progress in relationship to having a clearer… Read more »
From “Debt.org” …. “One of the clearest policy differences between the parties is the view on government assistance programs and social safety nets. There is a 35-point difference between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats far more likely to support government assistance programs. Republicans tend to give more to charity, while Democrats support publicly funded assistance programs. This could also be explained, in part, by Democrats’ lack of religious devotion, as a large percentage of Republican charitable donations support religious programs and institutions.” Maybe this is where the rub comes from. As a conservative / Republican, I am definitely in that… Read more »
I work with legal immigrants. I’m going to have to figure out how to explain why a bunch who didn’t jump through the hoops suddenly get preference.
Richard, I like the ” failya ta c’mmunicate.” What bugs me is that even a well intended program at times doesn’t work, doesn’t mean that the concept should be thrown out,it needs to be tweeked. And to be honest, I don’t understand why it didn’t work…. all the components were there for it to work. So perhaps the problem isn’t the program but instead the people that are running it on local levels?
But you’re right, there is a failya ta c’mmunicate.
Tom Brechlin,
I beleive HHS sat on that report for several years. Problem is, the intent was good and it made supporters feel good about themselves. Results are unimportant. Still, HHS was being cautious.
I think the ACA is going through the same thing, although with considerably more people having simultaneous real-world experience with it.
That’s a republican failya ta c’mmunicate.
Head Start The HHS-sponsored study that converted Klein was released in January 2010 to relatively little notice, but the report’s findings are startling: the positive effects Head Start has on children (which are mild to begin with) simply vanish by the children’s first year of school. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency housing Head Start, announced that for the first time, its lowest-performing centers will be forced to compete for funding. The bad news came in the study released this month: It found that, by the end of the first grade, children who… Read more »
I hope that Jose and his family will be getting coverage through the ACA.