Assigned to run a Republican's Presidential campaign, dramatic irony ensues, 2009

Plan for the 2012 Presidential Campaign

We as the Republican Party are in quite a predicament, essentially faced against all odds in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. A popular incumbent Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress currently rule the United States. As this election approaches, our first and foremost objective must be to get a Republican back in the oval office. To accomplish this goal, we must conduct a successful presidential campaign that focuses primarily on gaining the support of those voters that lie somewhere in the middle of the ideological spectrum.

In my own opinion, one of the failings of the Republican Party in recent times is spending too much time trying to satisfy our base supporters; those who align with the most conservative of doctrines. In the past election, John McCain was originally met with apprehension and distrust by our base (in this case, mostly the “evangelical-right”). This situation effectively forced McCain to focus more effort on convincing the nation he was actually a conservative than convincing the nation he was the right man for the presidency (Tucker par. 3). While it has been shown in past elections that the evangelical right (approximately twenty percent of the Republican electorate) is a key player in winning elections, pandering to their interests can do more harm than good by alienating the more-secular moderates within the electorate (Dunn 365).

Furthermore, our campaign should try to target the 18-25 year old demographic through effective use of technology. As we saw in 2008, the Obama campaign’s use of social networking sites and blogging not only added a sense of transparency to the campaign, but it also seemed to make the average American feel as if this man running for office was just like them (Hindman 15). Since this technology and its application in a political campaign are so new, its effectiveness is arguable and mostly unknown. However, if nothing else, it was very successful in the realm of name recognition- within a matter of months, Barack Obama went from an unknown junior Senator to a household name and major contender for the presidency (Hollihan 35).

Our candidate is Mark Sanford, the current governor of South Carolina. Born in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, raised in Beaufort, South Carolina, Sanford has strong ties to the South. He graduated from Furman University in 1983 with a BA in business, and later received an MBA from the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia. A real estate entrepreneur, Governor Sanford first entered politics in the mid-1990s. He served three terms as a representative in the United States House of Representatives before being elected governor in 2003. Both as governor and as a representative, Governor Sanford gained the reputation of being somewhat of a maverick amongst his Republican peers. This may sound a bit shocking since that was arguably Senator McCain’s downfall, but Governor Sanford has a staunchly conservative voting record. Where he differes from his peers is on non-partisan issues, such as pork barrel projects, which he has vehemently opposed ever since taking public office. On one occasion as governor, he brought live pigs into the South Carolina State House as a visual protest to some decisions that were made in favor of pork money (Salam par. 2-5).

As a politician, Governor Sanford is a proud conservative who has been known to stand up to big government. While other conservatives simply criticized President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Sanford flat out refused to accept millions of dollars in federal aid. Looking solely at government spending as an indicator of its expansion, he has also recognized that the military constitutes a large portion of federal spending, therefore he opposes such “pre-emptive wars” such as the war in Iraq. This not only aligns conservatives with public opinion, but gives them a viable way to distance themselves from unpopular Bush-era policies while still remaining conservative in method and action. Sanford’s whole ideology is based in the conservative legacy of William F. Buckley, that government should be small and limited. While relatively libertarian in economic doctrine, Sanford still supports many conservative social causes (Salam par. 6-8).

However, many would argue that the whole focus of the Republican party has been skewed. Popular conceptions of Republicans in recent years have come to represent only a small part of our constituency- the evangelical right- a group that has become increasingly unpopular among moderates and liberals alike after the Bush years. It seems as if the entire crusade of the Republican party in recent years has been waged on social issues- gay marriage, the death penalty, gay marriage, marijuana prohibition, etc. Part of Obama’s success in 2008 was his willingness to discuss his economic plans. Near the latter half of the campaign, it seemed as if most social issues had taken a backseat to the harsh economic reality of recession (Hollihan 234). While Obama was busy constructing and marketing his recovery plan, McCain was still trying to convince the evangelical right he was a true conservative. However, here is the reality in this situation. Statistically, if a “member” of the evangelical right actually does vote, there is about an 86% chance they will vote republican (Dunn 356). As it has been shown in many studies, there is not much a campaign can do to get people to actually go vote- they tend to do so mostly because they feel a strong citizen duty to do so. To successfully win this election, Governor Sanford needs to be frank about where he stands on economic issues during the campaign. He must put a positive light on conservatism, that it’s not about the rich lining their pockets, it’s about your average hardworking American being self-reliant and getting out what they put in.

I don’t mean to say that social issues should be completely disregarded, but they should be approached in a different manner. Opposition should not be given on grounds of a “moral authority”, but on the grounds of the economics involved. One thing that many Americans care about more than anything right now is employment, their job, their job security, etc. Talking about issues such as illegal immigration, federal funding for stem cell research, gay marriage, and minimum wage, Sanford can put an economic explanation to the repercussions and how the liberal agenda could affect the lives of average Americans- job losses, higher taxes. As demonstrated, the most persuadable voters are those voters who disagree with party consensus on a key issue (Hillygus 3). If these voters are targeted with convincing arguments on why they should still vote Republican, Sanford will be sure to gain much support.

In terms of actually getting his name out there, our campaign should become heavily involved with the use of technology, whether it be MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, or blogs. This not only adds transparency, but it makes the voter feel more connected to the candidate (Hindman 15). If Governor Sanford is able to make a connection this way, he will easily be able to share his ideals and stances on the issues with his possible supporters. Speaking in front of a crowd involves a certain level of elitism and condescension- “I am on stage, you are in the crowd”. Directly communicating with supporters and potential supporters eliminates that barrier (Hindman 23). Although it may be through a mass email or text message, it does make the voter feel more involved in the campaign, and thus care more about the outcome since they have seemingly invested something into it (Hollihan 53).

Traditional campaign advertising should not be forgotten. Unless it gets outwardly dirty, we shouldn’t strike first. President Obama will have finished his first term, his approval ratings will be on a steady decline (unless extenuating circumstances arise), and he will surely make a number of decisions that will alienate some of his supporters. Our ads should play upon Governor Sanfords youthful image, pragmatism, and ability to stand up to corruption, while at the same time questioning President Obama’s ability to truly deliver what he offered during his campaign (Hollihan 150). It is undeniable fact that President Obama’s election truly energized America for “progressive change”, and while it is unrealistic that any of these goals be met in one term, the majority of the electorate doesn’t realize this, and will simply feel as if he did not deliver. We have to play on this aspect. Obama made promises that he couldn’t keep, but Governor Sanford will not make any promise he can’t keep. He stands with the average American against big government, and limiting the government’s reach through supply-side economic policy will truly allow the American people to live how they are meant to.

            Over all, I believe that victory in this election will come down to being able to win the moderate vote. Due to Downs’s theory of spatial location, Gov. Sanford cannot align himself too far to the right during primaries. Let his record speak for his staunch conservatism. When it comes time for a national election, he has to be able to capture a significant portion of the vote from both independents and moderate/conservative Democrats that may be disenchanted with President Obama’s policies. Conservatism has to move back to where it once was. Right now, the evangelical right exudes an influence on politicians far beyond their numbers. While they should not be abandoned, we must realize that as some of our most far-right constituents, they will continue to support us as long as we hold true to the social issues that mean something to them. However, for the general electorate, we as Republicans must turn the emphasis back to conservatism as an economic theory based on hard work and self-reliance. Jobs and standards of living is the main issue, and we cannot underestimate the power of playing that game.