How Conservative activists completely misread moderate Canadians

According to conventional wisdom, there are three groups of people on the political spectrum: the left, the center and the right – each with its own set of core values. If somebody on the left or right edge wants to win an election, he has to appeal to the ‘moderates’ in the middle, and the way he does that is by watering down his more ‘extreme’ policy items until the moderates feel comfortable with him. This theory explains that the reason moderates don’t vote for the fringes parties is because they are repelled by their ‘extreme views’.

This analysis is completely wrong, and here’s why:

Political junkies on the right and, to a lesser extent on the left, completely misread the character of the voters who inhabit the ‘center’ of the political spectrum. The reason they do so is because these people approach politics completely differently from the political junkie. Let’s compare the differences: The activist has a strong interest in politics, with a abiding desire to see deeply held principles applied; the centrist is bored by politics and wants to think about it as little as possible. The activist is guided by a more-or-less coherent set of principles; the centrist doesn’t care as long as things run smoothly. If things are falling apart, he reaches for the most plausible solution offered at the time. In short, the centrist is a normal person. It is us political junkies who are weird.

This means that you can’t appeal to moderates by watering down policies. This tactic fails because most moderates are simply unaware that policy platforms exist in the first place, and to the extent that they are aware, they are bored. This is why conservative politicians almost always spiral downwards when they start jettisoning their core values: they enrage their base while the people they seek to woo merely shrug their shoulders.

So what does appeal to moderates, if it isn’t policy?

Personality and leadership, that’s what. Human beings are hard-wired from hunter-gatherer days to be attracted to a winner; to somebody who exhibits leadership ability; to an alpha presence. How do you communicate that in a campaign? Not by saying you are a leader. Anybody can do that. You can do it partly by resume. This is why victorious generals, successful CEO’s and past political leaders with winning records make good candidates. The trouble however with relying only on the past is that people are more concerned with the future. What reaches the moderate more effectively is the leader’s behaviour on the campaign trail. Does he handle himself like a leader or not? John Tory was doomed in the last Ontario election not because of the faith-based funding issue – that was merely the catalyst – but by how he handled it. The more they saw him dig the hole deeper for himself, the less leaderlike he appeared and the more he was despised. And despise is the right word. The cruel fact is that the flip side of our natural attraction to leaders is our contempt for non-leaders. The moment Tory jettisoned the faith-based funding issue (an issue he had proclaimed to be a fundamental guiding principle for him) was the moment his fate was sealed. Anybody who abandons a cherished principle for expediency is weak. Don’t vote for him! A good counter-example from the left can be found in David Miller’s first mayoral campaign in Toronto. In that election, Miller campaigned resolutely against the building of a bridge to the island airport. While this issue concerned few Torontonians, they saw his resoluteness as evidence of leadership and rewarded him accordingly.

And to be fair, the disengaged person in the mushy middle is more right on this point than the principled policy wonk. Exhibited leadership skills are usually a better indicator of future performance than a perfect policy platform (that will only be torn up at the first speed bump). This is why Mitt Romney has a hard time selling himself to Republicans in spite of his impeccable policy positions. He has flip-flopped so much that conservatives fear he is a craven panderer.

Another way to win over a moderate voter is to take a problem of the day, clearly explain the solution in terms he understands, champion that solution through thick and thin and don’t worry about whether the chattering classes christen it moderate or not. The moderate voter doesn’t care whether a solution is moderate or not. His approval is affected more by whether it makes sense to him. But if it does make sense to him and he sees you fighting for it, he will respond favourably to you. This is what Ronald Reagan did; this is why he was called the Great Communicator and this is why his popularity increased precisely at the moments when he championed solutions that were on the fringes of political discussion at the time.

Want more evidence?

As I keep pointing out, look at Toronto – heartland of big-L liberalism. Fearless, hard right Mike Harris and Rob Ford thrive here. Nice, safe Ernie Eves and John Tory failed miserably. This dynamic also works (albeit to a lesser extent) on the left. This is why left-wing Jean Chrétien was successful, but fiscally conservative and socially liberal (all together now - “just the way Canadians like their politicians!”) John Turner and Paul Martin failed.

The only time a policy pronouncement sounds extreme to the moderate voter is when he hasn’t been convinced that it solves the problem de jure. Or worse, when it solves a problem he doesn’t acknowledge in the first place. Exhibit A: Obamacare.

So the moral of the story is this: convince the voter that the conservative policy you champion solves a problem he acknowledges, and don’t worry if it is ‘centrist’ or not. The moderate voter will thank you for it.

 

Comments

[bmatkin]

That would be "du jour"

[Paul]

This post is PURE GOLD. Thanks!