What Obama and Romney Need To Do To Win In 2012

The following is my attempt to lay out a winning campaign strategy for each of the presidential candidates this November. These are themes I will return to in the weeks to come, as the campaigns unfold. These themes are based less on the personal wishes of this observer, and more on election strategies that have won in the past.

Appeal To Hope, Avoid Fear


Hearts and minds are swayed by hopes and fears. Hope is more powerful than fear. But in the absent of hope, fear will have to do. President Obama's campaign message is increasingly molding around fear; fear of the rich "1-percent" who are "not paying their fair share in taxes"; fear of the 1-percent's ultimate representative, Mitt Romney, and how he will harm the country if elected. Early in 2011, the president's campaign aids were asked what their strategy will be in 2012 - they answered - "kill Romney!" They are making good on this promise, but it is not bringing in the desired results.


Since 2008, the majority of Americans have lost faith in President Obama's leadership. The trend that has emerged from Gallup and Rasmussen polls for June and July shows the "dead-heat" to be over. Romney has established a 5-point lead among likely voters and is now neck-and-neck with Obama among registered voters.


Considering the president's faltering esteem with the electorate,  his appeal to fear of a Romney presidency is depressing the electorate. Many people are saying to themselves, "I don't like the guy we have, and the other guy looks bad. I don't think I'll vote this November." Some say voter turnout will be lower this time, but one trend is noteworthy: Democrat voters are far less enthusiastic in 2012 than they were in 2008. A recent Gallup poll shows:


Democrats (and Democrat-leaning Independents) 39% (more enthusiastic) - 44% (less enthusiastic) Republicans (and Republican-leaning Independents) 52% (more enthusiastic) - 34% (less enthusiastic).


This means Republican voter-enthusiasm has a 13 point lead over Democratic voter-enthusiasm. People are looking for the candidate who offers them hope, and the president's message of fear is turning them off. Mitt Romney has yet to make the most of this advantage, but the advantage is ripe for the taking. What he must do (and soon) is craft his message as one that offers hope for a better future.


Avoid Class Warfare (Americans Do Not Like It)


The president's demonizing of the wealthy is an old card known as "class warfare." Obsessively, the president's speeches have stressed that life for the majority of Americans will not improve unless greater resources are being contributed from the wealthy classes. The most recent IRS records show that individuals in the top 5 to 10 percent tax-brackets are paying well more than 50% of their earnings, in taxes. (This has nothing to do with the capital gains tax). Income taxes in America are "progressive." This means, the more you make, the higher the percentage you pay. If the rich are not paying their fair share, what is the fair share? 70 percent? 90 percent? If so, where is the incentive for individuals to risk, invest, and grow the economy by creating jobs?


Class warfare has been a tool used by prominent American politicians as far back as Andrew Jackson in the 1820's. It never works unless it is wielded by a leader with a substantial record of accomplishment and who, already enjoys high esteem with the voters. Class warfare sounds shrill, desperate, and whiny coming from a leader with a lackluster record of accomplishment, and whose esteem is plummeting in the polls. If President Obama wants to win, he must ditch this card immediately.


The politics of class warfare has always been stale in America. The argument that the rich always get richer by making the poor poorer, never much resonated with the tens of millions of immigrants who came to this country for a chance to own cheap land, get a job, feed a growing family, and hopefully have a little change left over. Even in the blackest despair of the Great Depression, support for socialist and communist parties was weak. (Socialist and communist parties are known for trumpeting "soak the rich" slogans.)


Consistent polling across several years has shown Americans to be 40% conservative, 20% moderate, and only 20% liberal. Taken together, conservative and moderate ideology drives the kinds of government policies most Americans want. Liberalism tends to favor major political and social change in the direction of socialism (which entails increased government control over all key institutions of society.)


But with all this in mind, how did the [liberal] president, Barack Obama, get elected in the first place? The simplest answer is: sometimes circumstance temporarily shoves the usual trends off the chessboard. President Obama won the election of 2008 for one reason above all others: a global economic crisis erupted after nearly a decade of foreign policy crisis. Accrued catastrophe of such magnitude compels the electorate to want to throw out incumbents. In the midterm election of 2006, and in the presidential election of 2008, incumbents throughout the system got the ax.


After that, failure on the part of the new incumbents to improve matters, brought the ax to many of them, in 2010. This dynamic is likely to be a force this November, but the conservative and moderate forces that ordinarily drive the electorate are also beginning to drift back onto the chessboard. This manifested itself in the first 'tea party' protests during tax time in April 2009. Much of the rancor was over the explosion of the national debt in the wake of President Obama's 'stimulus' spending, which dumped billions into the economy in order to resuscitate it.


In 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama shrewdly made the most of the 'anti-incumbent' advantage by presenting himself as a moderate. He downplayed his past [liberal] sentiments, and played-up his desire to reverse the major crises and restore prosperity: hope and change. For example, his desire for major health care reform took a backseat to his heroic posture to save the financial and automotive industries from collapse. However, soon after inauguration, it became clear that his more liberal agenda was the main focus of his attention. 

The fight over Obamacare has consumed American political culture for the last three years. (The only other issue to come in second has been the fight over the debt ceiling). With all the major challenges facing the future of American prosperity, it is reasonable to ask if so many eggs should have been placed in one basket.


In sum, 'anti-incumbency' elected President Obama in 2008, not a liberal electorate. The polls are showing that his rhetoric of class warfare is grating against the sentiments of a culture that never had much use for it.  These same polls show that 40% of Americans now view President Obama as "very liberal." This will bode ill for him in November.

Lower Taxes


Some people grimace at the thought of taxes being lowered for the benefit of the wealthy, but a promise to lower taxes for Americans across-the-board has never been an election-killer. Lowering taxes has never hurt the economy. Allowing people to keep a larger share of their earnings is a very healthy incentive for risk, investment, and job creation. 

Every dollar spent by consumers is a contribution to someone else's livelihood. But consumers need extra cash in order to spend it. Investors need extra cash to invest it. Each dollar soaked up in taxes is a dollar taken out of the economy. It is a dollar taken away from producers. It is a dollar taken away from consumers. It is a dollar taken away from a wage-earner due to a necessary pay-cut. It is another dollar taken away on the road to a lay-off. Taxes are necessary, but economies grow when taxes are being lowered, not when they are being raised.


Ease Regulations and Financial Obligations On Businesses: This Will Give Employers An Incentive To Invest and Create Jobs


Excessive environmental regulation kills economic growth and endangers the environment. The Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 was a catastrophe that can be prevented in the future if oil industries are allowed to drill off-shore. Since 2009, off-shore drilling permits have become almost impossible to obtain. Consequentially, drillers are forced into deep-sea drilling, which is far more difficult and far more hazardous to the environment when accidents occur, hence the catastrophe in the Gulf.


Excessive financial obligations on businesses, for instance, requiring more small businesses to pay for their employees' health care (if well-intentioned) kills investment and job growth. More Americans are employed by small businesses than are employed by large, corporations. If employers have to pay more for health care, they will need to hire fewer employees. Obamacare will set in motion increased requirements for small businesses to pay a larger share of their employees' health care.

Avoid Divisive Social Issues 


In an age when more than 50 per cent of Americans are classified as living at or below the poverty line, getting a job and putting food on the table are foremost in their minds as election day approaches. Divisive social issues such as gay marriage and free contraception [which has replaced abortion, an issue the Democrats have largely abandoned as a campaign-able issue] will not be issues 1 through 5 when they head to the polls.


Immigration reform, though a strong issue with many Americans, will not be a dominating one in this election. It will go to the back-burner and re-surface at a later time. Immigration tends to be a bigger issue in midterm elections. It is never a dominating one in presidential elections.


Even foreign policy issues (a dominating force in certain past elections, for instance, 2004, 1968, 1952, 1940), though not on the back-burner, will not be front-and-center this November. Most Americans think the Iraq War is a thing of the past, and they have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan. Sadly, in another year or so, they may forget where Afghanistan is located on a map. Nevertheless, U.S. relations with Israel, Iran, China, and to some extent, Russia, will be important (if secondary) options for political advantage this November, considering the global stakes surrounding choices to be made by these states.


An America-First Foreign Policy


Despite the growth and influence of international institutions (like the United Nations) voters in most countries are still nationalistic. They want their own country to have a competitive advantage in the world economy, and this consideration influences the terms on which a country joins an international institution. Americans need not be ashamed to put the fortunes of their own country first and foremost when they decide how to vote. 

This is not at all to say that Americans want to invade other countries out of bloodthirsty power-lust. On the contrary, Americans are weary of the cost paid by Americans when military intervention takes place, as it has consistently, for the last decade. "America-first" does not translate into "more war." 

If anything, wars are costly gambles for American presidents. Harry Truman couldn't run for re-election in 1952 because the Korean War had sucked away his popularity. For the same reason, Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run again in 1968, over Vietnam. The same thing would have happened to George W. Bush (over Iraq) if he had come up for re-election in 2005 instead of in 2004. As it was (in 2004) a majority of the public still perceived his leadership in fighting terrorism to be essential enough to carry him through re-election.


Don't Worry About The Base; Go After Independent Voters


President Obama's divisive rhetoric is red meat for his party's base voters. Statements he has made about congressional Republicans, for example, "Their plan is for dirtier air and dirtier water" rings warmly in the hearts of hardcore Democrats, but sounds absurd in the ears of an independent voter. Any objective mind has to think, "Gee, Republicans want themselves and their own children to breathe dirty air. They also want to drink dirty water, and have their own children do the same. Hmm... This sound like non-sense."


Voters who understand and appreciate the distinctions and nuances between conservatism and liberalism already know who they are voting for - the battle for their hearts and minds is over. The independent voters are the ones who are up-for-grabs. 

Independent voters are less interested in ideology and philosophy, and more interested in results. They are up-for-grabs because they think more about what they see, rather than what they believe. If they see that the status quo is working, they will vote to maintain it. If they see that the status quo has failed, they will vote to overturn it. It is no accident that untold millions of campaign dollars are flooding into states like Ohio and Florida, the "battleground" states, which are up-for-grabs. In 2012, the independent voters will decide the outcome of the election. The winning candidate will craft his message for their appeal.


What President Obama Needs To Overcome In Order To Win


For all the reasons explained above, President Obama must find a way to appeal to Americans' sense of hope for a better future; ditch the fear and the class envy he is stirring up; reverse his efforts to raise taxes on high-income earners; lower taxes for everyone; ease regulations and financial obligations on businesses; avoid divisive social issues; embrace an "America-first" foreign policy; let the party-base take care of itself; go after independent voters.


President Obama is in a horrible bind. Most Americans are finding his conduct and his record of accomplishments wanting (for further exploration of this theme, see my post from July 19, entitled Is
A Non-Partisan Critique of President Obama Possible?). 

He must find a way to appeal to the people's hope, as he did in 2008. Unfortunately, if he does this, he will find himself in the extremely awkward position of having to explain why he couldn't get the job done in his first term, and how it will be different in his second term. He knows this, and so, he has fallen into the default temptation to play on the people's fears. As he sees it, his only shot left is to scare everyone about his opponent. If he makes the election about Mitt Romney and the 1-percent, maybe, just maybe, Obama will squeak through November. For President Obama to win, the election must be about anyone and anything other than Barack Obama.


What Governor Romney Needs To Overcome In Order To Win

Aside from all the policy strategies outlined above, Governor Romney needs to craft his message as one of resonating hope. The opportunity is ripe for him to do so. Yet, many voters do not feel a strong attachment to Mitt Romney. He comes across as trying too hard to appear cool and hip, but he isn't fooling anyone. He is not cool, not hip, and must communicate to Americans that such characteristics are irrelevant to strong leadership. He is a reserved businessman, and must appear comfortable in his own skin. In the process, his authenticity will form a bond of trust with the people. This may need to take place even before he can appeal to their sense of hope. 

Romney must stop appearing embarrassed by his own success. He always looks worried and caught off-guard when questions are asked about his tax returns, overseas investments, and Swiss bank accounts. Such attacks on him are ridiculous. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is claiming that Romney hasn't paid any taxes in years, and that this information is coming to him through trusted, un-named sources. 

Reid and others are demanding that Mitt Romney make public the entire history of his tax records, even though such an all-encompassing demand has never before been made of a presidential candidate. If Governor Romney's conduct in his personal, financial investments has followed the spirit of the law, he has nothing to be ashamed of. 

It is nobody's business if a person has a net worth of a 100 million or more, so long as that wealth was made legally. John Kerry, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, had a net worth comparable to Mitt Romney's. It was not even made an issue in that election! Are we supposed to believe that Senator Kerry and his Heinz heiress, Teresa, do not have overseas investments? Mitt Romney needs to make it clear that personal attacks on his wealth and success are a superficial distraction in an election when millions of Americans can not earn enough money to put food on the table.


In sum


President Obama has a harder case to make before the electorate, but the attacks on Romney may work if that candidate does not show a strong response to them. In this election, the big issues are as follows: (1) jobs (2) Obamacare and (3) the national debt. Governor Romney will have an easier time positioning himself on those issues because he hasn't been responsible for the way things have turned out on them. President Obama will succeed only if he can make the election about anything other than those issues. The "fear" card is not working for him, so he will need to do some serious outside-of-the-box thinking to try and appeal to hope for a better future.




Jason A.