As one party recovers from a decisive defeat, everyone is discussing the aftermath and what it means for the future of America and its political parties.
I would like to address one point that I have not heard discussed at any great length. The Obama Campaign masterfully planned and executed a massive, nationwide grassroots campaign to young people, and there is much to learn from its success. Republicans watched in awe and disbelief this season as crowds of youths from around the country gathered and pledged their time and money. As an amateur campaigner, you begin to understand that 18-24 year-olds are an absolutely invaluable resource in politics. They are the age group that will literally make the difference between winning and losing. They will make phone calls, walk door-to-door, walk in parades, and spread the word through their extensive personal networks. Without this presence, campaigns are forced to rely solely on impersonal and costly direct mailings, television and radio ads. Not only can they reduce the astronomical expense associated with media, young people provide a dramatically more effective way to reach people in their everyday lives.
While seemingly limitless resources make such a massive grassroots campaign possible in the first place, we must still ask the question, “How was Barack Obama so effective at reaching young people?” I believe this question can be mostly answered in three main points:
1. Message. The message of the Democratic Party was one of energy, youth, and exuberance. The message for “change” is an old political adage that is tirelessly used in times of perceived national distress or when leadership is unpopular. But, most of these young people heard it for the first time in this election cycle. It was simple, effective, and finely targeted. Many college-age or younger people echoed the mantra and eagerly convinced others to do the same. Republicans failed to put together a response to this effective message. The GOP attempted to capitalize on Obama’s momentum by borrowing a phrase of change here and there, but this was lost absent a clear and distinct difference between the status quo and what McCain would have been as president. The remainder of its message consisted of isolated character attacks and convoluted insider economic language; a far cry from the hearts and minds of America’s youth.
2. Ideal and Appeal. It is obvious that Barack Obama from the very beginning had a distinct advantage among young people simply by being twenty five years younger than his aging opponent. His charisma and zeal clearly reflected this difference, and his hopeful message and attitude reinforced it as well, making him extremely attractive to this demographic.
3. Historical Presence. Among young people that I encountered on the campaign trail, almost all of them felt as though they were part of a magnificent milestone in electing the first African American president. Although the racial sector was mobilized like we haven’t seen since the Civil Rights Movement, this activism clearly transcended race, color, and religion. The Campaign was able to unite a support network consisting of vast racial, socio-economic, geographic, and even political diversity. (Yes, sadly, the Obama Campaign was even able to capture a significant cross-section of budding conservatives.)
So, what can be said for all of this? Conservatives have not had any significant youth response since the Reagan Campaign in 1980, and the Republican leadership has been searching for an answer ever since. Many even worry that over time, the Republican Party will become extinct due to a lack of young conservatives to pass the torch on to.
While I believe this worry is not entirely without merit, in this region this past election season I was fortunate to see a highly energized and active bunch of conservatives at an uncharacteristic age. As well, I was an undergrad somewhat recently, and I am convinced that conservative ideas are alive and well among this age group. Despite an absence of conservative ideas by professors in the classroom—often even a general hostility toward them—there are many closet conservative students of this bracket across the country that I am confident will be the sleeping giant in elections to come.
While the latter two of my reasons for Obama’s youthful grassroots success are based mostly on chance at the national level, our Party can address the first; it needs to create simple and energetic messages that capture young people. The Grand Ol’ Party needs to seriously consider and include us, the next generation of conservatives, in the crafting of our message, and it lest not forget us as it becomes our time to shape our Party’s–and our Nation’s—historical moments. If the Republican leadership fails to do this within the next couple of election cycles, perhaps Republicans will fade away with the Baby Boomers and leave the tech-savvy, information-overloaded Y’s entirely to the political left.
7 comments:
Big Gip, solid thoughts.
Obama did enthrall the youth, gathering money and their energy along the way. Republicans got none of that, and Mccain's campaign did a terrible job of reaching out online for sure.
The texts, the multiple storefronts all over the state, the rallies with young people instead of all old people, the online presence, the grass roots campaigning and calling ... all powerful stuff for future campaigns that want to win.
Well, Briefs, as I see it, it was a complete and utter failure to reach out to youth in this election cycle, with the clear exception of the Mitch Campaign here in Indiana (albeit narrowly focused to Mitch's Campaign ONLY). Yes, you are correct; nationally we failed grassroots in every aspect. We, however, have an additional challenge that the Democrats don't have. How do we craft a message that is both simple and actually HAS substance? It is fine to talk about "Change" until everyone is blue in the face (and hearts) without supporting or explaining it, but how do you say something meaningful and substantive without losing the youth? THAT is what we need to think long and hard about...
Was interesting that Mitch's campaign decided to go it alone and reach out to young voters, but the State Party didn't follow that lead. Good for Mitch, once again ahead of the curve.
By the way Gip, this article was picked up on Hoosier Access, we allow cross posting from our site on the "good" stuff here. Yours was posted this morning, check it out since there will probably be good quotes over there too.
http://hoosieraccess.com
Obama had large margins of victory in 2 key demographics: the "under 40" crowd, and the "college educated whites". Both groups are more likely to favor the bread-and-butter economic issues as their top priority. Social issues are more likely to rank near the bottom of their priority list.
We also have to understand that under-40 voters are part of the "MTV generation." They grew up in an era of media that presented men and women as equals, that reinforced the idea that race is irrelevant, and sexual orientation is not a choice.
If the GOP continues to cater only to heterosexual, white males, the party will cease to be viable in the next few decades based on demographic composition trends alone.
Mitch emphasized his ability to run the state like a business and de-emphasized things like abortion and gay marriage. McCain did just the opposite: in stead of selecting an economic genius to reinforce his admitted weakness on domestic policy, he opted for Palin to try and secure the social conservatives. And, in stead, secured his own loss.
I think the same can be said for the Indiana House. Bosma continues to beat the drum on social issues when people want a clear focus on tax policy and economic development. As that "MTV generation" continues to make up a larger percentage of the voting population, and the social issue voters continue to die-off, so, too, will the Republican Party if we don't change our tune!
y guy -
As a member of the MTV generation (although I didn't watch much of it), I agree with you. I cannot tell you how many of my friends describe themselves as Republicans when it comes to economics and Democrats on social issues. Generally, the husbands vote R because they put their wallets first and the wives vote D because they are in the process of raising children and social issues seem more important.
Look closely at the local (Porter, not Lake County) democrats. They are the ones keeping taxes down and government small, but they seem relatively liberal on social issues.
Young voters casts their ballots this year based on their emotions rather than on a defined plan. Horrible way to vote for a president but Obama's people were brilliant at using the "techno" powers of choice to reach the this emotional bait these young voters needed to feed on...and they took it all in, hook line and sinker!!!
Knocking young voters as gullible, uninformed, and maybe even not too smart is sure as heck not a good way to get them on our side. Let's admit it, because of technology, they are informed. We need to connect with them, not criticize them.
Post a Comment