10-20-2001
POLITICS: Who'll Take the High Road? Even doing something once as mundane as opening the mail, Americans
confront constant reminders of the ways their lives have fundamentally
changed since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. But will the electioneering leading up to the 2002 midterms be
fundamentally-or even noticeably-different from past campaign
seasons?
With the outcome of the war on terrorism uncertain, political consultants
are wary about making many campaign predictions. Some strategists do say
they think that the secondary issues-abortion and gun control, for
example-that in the past have been used to sharpen differences between
candidates are less likely to hold sway in 2002. Or, at the very least,
such issues will be less visible because candidates' ads will stress broad
themes, those strategists predict.
"Right now, we've got two huge issues on the table: one is personal
security and the other is the economy," said Democratic media
consultant Tom O'Donnell, a partner in the Washington-based firm of Doak,
Carrier, O'Donnell & Associates. "I think some of the smaller
issues may have a harder time cutting through."
But other political insiders suspect that supposedly secondary issues will
still push their way to the forefront of campaigns. It is, after all,
still a long time until November 2002.
"People have not forgotten their position on guns or abortion or
protecting the environment," said GOP pollster Fred Steeper, a
principal in the Southfield, Mich., firm Market Strategies Inc.
"Those are still important pieces of information to people who care
about those issues."
Imagine that, say, an anti-abortion-rights candidate is running for
Congress in a district where the electorate tends to be more liberal.
Should anyone be surprised if an opponent who supports abortion rights
points out that difference in a television ad?
"When things get competitive again, then all these issues will be as
important as they ever were," Steeper said. "It's not like
people don't have these hot-button concerns any more."
So, how long might candidates refrain from running negative ads? "I
think that will last about two days," predicted Republican pollster
Jan van Lohuizen, president of the Washington-based survey-research firm
Voter/Consumer Research. Pointing to rising tensions between Democrats and
Republicans on Capitol Hill, van Lohuizen said: "Partisanship is just
below the surface. And it's just a matter of time before it breaks
out."
In the New Jersey gubernatorial race, it didn't take long. Shortly after
September 11, both Democratic nominee Jim McGreevey and GOP hopeful Brent
Schundler aired television spots that called for national unity in the
face of terrorism. Since then, though, both candidates have returned to
more-typical campaign commercials, including attack ads.
In Virginia, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mark Warner, who uses the
same Democratic media consulting firm as McGreevey-Greer, Margolis,
Mitchell, Burns & Associates-also appeared in a campaign ad with a
unity theme soon after September 11. Warner's subsequent advertising has
focused mostly on refuting claims by his GOP opponent, Mark Earley, that
the Democrat supports tax increases.
Ironically, the most explicit endorsement of President Bush in a 2001
campaign ad came in a spot produced for Democrat Stephen F. Lynch, who
this week won a special election for a Boston-based seat in the U.S.
House. In his ad, Lynch said, "I'm proud of our President and his
efforts to stop terrorism."
Against the backdrop of the September 11 hijackings and the U.S. military
engagement in Afghanistan, candidates may be tempted to play up their
national-security experience, if they have any. GOP pollster Steeper said,
"I'll bet you all the consultants for all the candidates are trying
to establish their war-on-terrorism credentials."
Or candidates may simply spend more time playing up themselves. If the
political environment is more subdued than usual next year and
bipartisanship on Capitol Hill filters down to the campaign trail, then
candidates might be more inclined to stress their personal
characteristics, ranging from experience and calmness to honesty and
directness-the type of traits that won widespread acclaim for New York
City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the destruction of the World Trade
Center.
In the view of Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, a partner in the
California office of Morris, Carrick & Guma, "All of these
[personal qualities] may become much more important than what we've seen
since the last Clinton term, which was more about taking issues and seeing
what the polls said were best and using them as metaphors for values
rather than focusing on the individual."
Many consultants suspect that if the public is anxious over the war on
terrorism, both at home and abroad, then voters will be in a
don't-rock-the-boat mood that favors incumbents. "It's going to be
more difficult for people with no record in politics and less to point to
when it comes to experience and problem-solving ability," predicted
GOP pollster van Lohuizen.
If candidates do generally attempt to take the high road in their 2002
campaigning, what about the interest groups that have increasingly
injected themselves into elections by running their own ads and by making
other independent expenditures? For the moment, these groups seem a bit
chastened by the events of September 11 and less likely to run ads that
directly or indirectly attack candidates who are at odds with their
agendas.
September 11, for example, gave the League of Conservation Voters "a
lot of pause looking at the 2002 cycle," said spokesman Scott
Stoermer. "We think positive messages will work much better next time
out."
For decades, the league made a mark in the political arena with its
"Dirty Dozen" campaign, which targeted candidates with
supposedly bad environmental records for defeat. But last year, the league
created another designation, "Environmental Champions," to honor
candidates it perceives to have good records.
In 2000, the green group spent three times as much on its Dirty Dozen than
it did on publicizing its support for Environmental Champions. Next time,
the group plans to do more to stress the positive. "I would suspect
we'll spend more money on Environmental Champions, proportionally, than we
did in 2000," said the league's political director, Betsy
Loyless.
Normally, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
might be playing a visible role in the off-year gubernatorial contests in
New Jersey and Virginia. In 1989, the group waged a significant television
advertising campaign on Washington television stations to urge voters in
suburban Northern Virginia to support Democratic candidate Douglas Wilder
for governor.
But in the aftermath of September 11, NARAL is probably going to stay off
the air in the Virginia and New Jersey campaigns. Instead, the group is
focusing its 2001 efforts on voter turnout. Although NARAL has produced
ads about the Virginia gubernatorial race, President Kate Michelman said
that she is reluctant to use them. In part, she is concerned that the ads'
message might not break through the media's fixation on the war on
terrorism and the outbreak of anthrax on Capitol Hill. She also worries
that some voters might be turned off by ads focused on abortion rights at
a time when the nation is obsessed with issues of national security and
possible germ warfare.
"We're certainly concerned about that," Michelman said. "We
don't want to be seen as thoughtless in any way or not conscious of the
greater stress that people feel. I don't want people to think: `What's the
matter with NARAL? Haven't they noticed there's a big global threat going
on here?' "
Michelman predicted that, come 2002, television advertising will be in the
mix of NARAL's political activities. But, she added, "We'll be very
thoughtful about how we do our work."
Other interest-group leaders are not so sure that they will be trimming
their sails at all or that their advocacy work will emphasize positive
messages about candidates. "Sitting here today in late October that
might make sense, but what makes sense nine months from now may be
something entirely different," said Jim Baker, chief lobbyist for the
National Rifle Association.
Given the prospect of additional acts of domestic terrorism, Baker said
that voters are even more conscious of protecting themselves. Pointing to
articles about housewives purchasing handguns and airline pilots wanting
to arm themselves to prevent hijackings, Baker said: "I think
Americans are valuing their Second Amendment freedoms more than ever from
a standpoint of personal security. And I think that will continue on
through the 2002 elections."
One thing that interest-group leaders seem to agree on is that the
terrorist assaults on the United States may have heightened the commitment
of their organizations' members. "I do think that this threat to our
nation's life was a threat to our freedoms. And I think people who have
been supportive of the work to protect freedom of choice see that, in the
context of other American freedoms that are at risk," NARAL's
Michelman said. She noted that after September 11, NARAL donors were
responding to telephone solicitations with slightly
larger-than-anticipated contributions.
In the post-September 11 environment, "we have sensed that a lot of
people want to protect the things they value the most. And no small part
of that is protecting the environment," said League of Conservation
Voters spokesman Stoermer. "Talking about issues in that kind of vein
might be a hallmark of the next [election] cycle."
James A. Barnes
National Journal
|
