working on a political campaign

Friday 12/17/04 02:41 PM | Category: Core | Comment on this

Political Campaign 1

Running head: WORKING ON A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

Using Communication Theories To Examine Working On A Political Campaign

Jennifer Rich Spring Arbor University

Political Campaign 2

ABSTRACT

Working on a political campaign can be both fulfilling and frustrating.

It is a communication experience that can test a person’s ethics, values and judgment on a daily basis. In 2002, I was the manager of a Michigan State House of Representatives campaign that was successful in getting the candidate elected to office but which, in light of my recent communication studies, has caused me to re-examine my communication efforts. I am able to use some of the theories to understand my communication actions and give me a better perspective. Both the candidate and myself are Christians and therefore our values are comparable. But in reflecting on methods I used to promote the campaign under the microscope of the communication theories of cognitive dissonance, social judgment-involvement, coordinated management of meaning and interpersonal deception theory, I now understand the reasons behind my actions more fully and also realize I was not the best Christian communicator I could have been.

Political Campaign 3

Looking My Communication Efforts Through Theories As a campaign manager I was responsible for developing a variety of approaches to gain name recognition and publicity for my candidate, a former school superintendent running for a political office for the first time. My efforts concentrated on developing campaign literature like brochures and advertising, figuring out ways to get media exposure and setting up fundraising events. While always being mindful of my Christian ethics and our desire to run a positive campaign, I admit using the communication theories we are now studying has given me new insight into ways I could have handled my communication efforts differently. Cognitive Dissonance Theory During the primary, my candidate faced three opponents. While he clearly had the higher name recognition, we wanted the results of the primary to be overwhelmingly in his favor to send a message to the eventual opponent he would face in November that he was a winner. The candidate and myself mentally set our goal for the primary election as a 15 percent lead over his nearest opponent. As Festinger’s theory suggests, we surrounded ourselves with like-minded people on the campaign – our supporters and fellow campaign workers – who assured us that 15 percent was an easily attainable goal. “Like-minded people buffer us from ideas that could cause discomfort” (Griffin, 2003, p.211). In the manner in which we accepted opinions and advice, we guaranteed we would receive positive feedback for our prediction (Griffin, 2003).

Political Campaign 4
But with the huge amount of tension and anxiety to have a good showing in the primary, we did some exit polling to try and make sure our prediction was a good one. This was an example of what Festinger describes as a need for reassurance. (Griffin, 2003). Unfortunately, we were not as successful as we had expected and although my candidate won the primary, the margin of victory was only 8 percent, not the 15 percent we had predicted. To quickly resolve the conflict between our feelings and reality, my “spin” to the media was that my candidate clearly won and the vote totals showed strong support by the electorate. My candidate and I clearly shifted our attitudes to meet the election results, another component of cognitive dissonance theory. (Griffin, 2003). However, the social judgment-involvement approach would argue this change of attitude is cognitive-motivational and behavioral as well. (Sherif, Sherif & Nebergall, 1965). According to this approach, the 7 percent difference in my candidate’s actual win margin from the one predicted was not in our range of acceptance and therefore caused our attitude change. (Sherif, Sherif & Nebergall, 1965). Coordinated Management of Meaning Fundraising was an important component of running a campaign and one idea the candidate and I developed was having a joint fundraiser with several other candidates from the same party running in other races. These candidates were incumbents and therefore had more name recognition than my candidate but they also were his friend and willing to join him for some joint promotion. Although they were all from the same political party, the three candidates involved did not have similar stances on issues like abortion and tax restructuring. But, illustrative of Political Campaign 5 the coordinated Management of Meaning theory, through discussion among the candidates and their advisors we were able to craft a fundraising event that was successful. Issues on which the three candidates disagreed were not discussed at the event, as agreed beforehand at a planning meeting. A social constructionist would say that since the candidates shared core convictions, they were able to create their own social environment. (Griffin, 2003). As Escher’s drawing represents, the candidates at the fundraising event created a different relationship there, one that was mutually beneficial to their goal of getting elected. (Griffin, 2003). The candidates, in hopes of creating an event that would be successful for their individual campaigns, excluded topics they knew they would disagree with in order to present a unified course of action. Interpersonal Deception Theory As you can imagine, it is often tempting to step over the line in seeking ways to gain favorable publicity in a political campaign. Griffin’s description of deception involves successfully manipulating information. Buller and Burgoon who devised the Interpersonal Deception Theory look at the basis of the deceiver’s motives, not the act itself (Griffin, 2003). In the campaign, while we often took advantage of news events like a cut in education spending to promote my candidate’s views on education, we never overtly manipulated information in order to gain press coverage. At least I did not think so until I studied Buller and Burgoon’s four characteristics of manipulation intent. The first one – uncertainty and vagueness – certainly struck a responsive chord (Griffin, 2003). In developing speeches to various groups for my candidate and in some of the campaign Political Campaign 6 literature, we intentionally kept answers short and sometimes vague enough to be noncommittal. For example, a stance on agricultural issues said the candidate was “pro farmer” and in favor of maintaining rural areas. But we did not explain in what way or how this would be achieved. This was partially based on a lack of legislative insight by the candidate and myself as to how the problem could be solved. I also admit that we understood that including those brief statements would strike a sympathetic chord with the voters of his district. As a Christian, I should have realized what Bok describes as the “moral domain of intended truthfulness and deception (Bok, 1999, p. 6).” Intent is the issue and if excluding the information about my candidate’s stance on an issue was done to make it appear that he was more knowledgeable and understanding of that issue than he really was, then the intent to deceive was present. Conclusion Understanding the sometimes-complex theories that describe a variety of communication techniques is helpful in looking back at communication events like working on a political campaign. The rapid pace and immediacy of this type of communication event often calls for quick decisions and judgments. Using communication theories to evaluate decisions, judgments and actions has allowed me to gain personal insights into my efforts to be a good Christian communicator. I realize that sometimes my immediate “human” response is not always the best and that I need to continue to evaluate my communication efforts and how they correspond to God’s will and my values as a Christian. There is little discussion about politics today from a Political Campaign 7 Christian viewpoint, according to Blamires, who believes that instead of compromising and adopting a secular viewpoint we should use our Christian values and beliefs to justify our actions and others. (Blamires, 1963).

Political Campaign 8

REFERENCES Blamires, H. (1963). The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think? Servant Publications: Ann Arbor, MI. Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Vintage Books: New York, N.Y. Griffin, E. (2003). Communication: A First Look At Communication Theory. McGraw- Hill: New York City, N.Y. Sherif, C. & Sherif, M. & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. W. B. Saunders Co.: Philadelphia & London.