McCain, Obama, and the Reform Argument

By Steven E. Schier

Much of the coverage in the political media this year fails to address widespread public concerns about politics. The media talk is often all about issues. The tone is one of constant conflict and squabbles.

Both are big turnoffs to many in the public. The candidate who wins the White House in 2008 will employ a way of communicating with voters that the political media often misses. So far, John McCain and Barack Obama have done the best job of communicating to voters in this way.

Call it the “reform argument.” Ross Perot milked surprising success from it in 1992. The public hates political disagreements and squabbling, desiring instead a government by a trustworthy set of guardians who won’t shove complex policy substance in their faces. Citizens don’t make time for much issue content and hate political fights.

These conclusions come from a landmark book depicting how the American public views their government: Stealth Democracy by John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. Employing a detailed survey they commissioned from Gallup and focus groups in four American cities scattered in all regions of the country, they discovered that citizens view politics in ways media and political elites wouldn’t recognize.

First, Americans hate political disagreement, and aren’t much interested in policy substance. So much of politics as usual is a snooze for them.

Second, they are most concerned that political leaders are granting unfair advantage to special interests in corrupt ways. To the public, special interests—defined as interests that are not their own—are all bad. The public views campaign contributions as direct payments into politician’s pockets. Washington, to them, is a cesspool of illicit funds.

Most candidates talk abstractly about policies, raise big campaign money, and fight over issues. To the extent they become deeply identified with such behavior, they fit the negative public stereotype of what is wrong with politics.

Instead, as Perot did, they need to stress their separation from politics as usual, their desire for process solutions like more direct democratic institutions, campaign finance reform and strengthened lobbying regulation. And they need to have “walked the walk” on these issues over their careers.

It helps if you are wealthy enough to self-fund your campaign. Then, in the public mind, you can’t be bought and your spiel is likely to be viewed as more sincere. Michael Bloomberg, take note.

Hibbing and Theiss-Morse find that the public wants to be governed by ENSIDS—
(Empathetic Non-Self-Interested Decision makers). With ENSIDS guarding governmental institutions, citizens can feel comfortable paying less attention to politics, which is a widespread desire.

It’s no coincidence that two presidential leaders with the most ENSID-like qualities are prospering this year. John McCain, Mr. “straight talk” and a fervent campaign finance reformer, seems headed for the GOP nomination. Barack Obama, new to Washington and sporting the freshness of an uncorrupted agent of “change,” is faring well in his pursuit of the Democratic nomination.

The reformer label—Mr. or Ms. ENSID—is an invaluable asset in contemporary electoral politics. It’s time more reporters, candidates and consultants recognized that.

Steven E. Schier is Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota.