Issue Evasion

POLITICIANS ARE KNOWN for avoiding certain issues that they view as potentially harmful to their current political standing, and which could hurt their future prospects for re-election.

For the most part, politicians make a concerted effort to avoid hot-button issues that generate a high degree of controversy in the public sphere. However, such issues may at times command a high level of attention among the electorate. In addition, political opponents may focus on certain issues (salient or not) that a candidate wishes to avoid. Under such conditions, a politician may experience a significant amount of pressure to publicly address such issues, especially during political campaigns.

The practice of issue evasion has become more difficult than ever, thanks to the advent of modern technology. Before the rise of radio, television, and the internet, politicians were less at risk of experiencing a backlash among their electorates for evading certain issues. For instance, presidential candidates from before the 19th century could more easily travel the countryside in the lead-up to the general election and focus on different issues in different states, with little worry that their changing tactics would be thoroughly documented and reported by the media across the nation.

By comparison, presidential candidates today experience a high level of pressure to appear consistent and responsive to the public as they wage campaign battles across the country. This does not mean, of course, that issue evasion has dissipated.

Instead, candidates today put into action a variety of political marketing schemes to help avoid the pitfalls of controversial issues, and thus maneuver their way through the electoral process. On the campaign trail, presidential candidates adopt a strategy that is tailored according to the different states that make up the electoral map. How each candidate behaves in a certain state depends on whether it constitutes a “safe,” “battleground,” or “enemy” state. A safe state is one that constitutes a historically high base of support for one's party, whereas a “battleground” or “swing” state is one with more ambiguous political leanings, and an “enemy” state is one that historically favors the opposition party.

In safe states, candidates are more likely to play to their strengths and attend to the issues that will further unify their base of support. In swing states, however, candidates find themselves in high-level competition with their opponents for voter support, and are more likely to play to the middle of the ideological spectrum, for fear of alienating a large share of the voters.

Issue evasion becomes very difficult under such conditions, because the public can easily follow a candidate on television news or on the internet to see if he or she attends to certain issues in safe states, while avoiding the same issues in swing or enemy states. Voters from one state may become disillusioned to see that, after taking a strong stand on the issues important to their constituency, the candidate they favor strategically avoids addressing such issues elsewhere.

Consequently, issue evasion may oftentimes contribute to feelings of voter apathy, or loss of interest in politics, among the electorate. Among other consequences, issue evasion is likely to harm the credibility of a candidate and may eventually result in his or her electoral defeat.

...