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