American-Style Campaigning

The practice of political campaigning in the United States is regarded as the cutting edge of the electioneering industry. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the United States is an international “role model of campaigning.” The world is following American-style campaigning, applying the methods, concepts, strategies, and tactics. Many now identify this “new politics” with postmaterial norms, cognitive mobilization (media manipulation), and pragmatism—modeled on or influenced by the American style of politics. The global diffusion of U.S. campaign and marketing techniques is fostered by the internationalization of the campaign consulting business and is promoted by ideologically kindred political parties and by the world mass media.

In the United States, several studies documented the decline of the “old style” campaigns and the emergence of “new style” campaigning. The new style campaign is perceived to consist of four dimensions: new players, new incentives, new tactics, and new resources. First, the new players are the political consultants. Although political parties, candidates, and voters are still a part of the electoral process, contemporary campaigns are now “consultant centered.” The centrality of the political consultants (or “spin doctors”) is certainly American, but the pattern is exported worldwide: in the Israeli 1999 election campaign top American consultants such as James Carville, Bob Shrum, Stanley Greenberg, and Arthur J. Finkelstein were hired by the leading candidates. U.S. political consultants have designed electoral [Page 34]campaigns all over the world. The Global Political Consultancy Survey (1998–2000), for instance, shows that 57% of the top U.S. political consultants offered their services to foreign institutions in the 1990s. Two thirds of these consultants were engaged in consultancy activities in more than one geographic region. Latin America was the most important foreign market for the U.S. consultant industry. About 64% of the top U.S. consultants involved in foreign electoral campaigns worked there. The second important market was Europe, followed by postcommunist countries. The least important but still profitable markets were in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

The new players are in fact representing the professionalization of the campaigns, a process based on the apolitical assumption that the “modernization” of politics requires management of its processes, including elections, by professionals, who represent advancement over a reliance on citizen participation (amateurs). Professionalization is concerned more about “winning” elections and less about the long-term qualities of democracy and citizenship.

Second, patronage, loyalties, or ideologies are no longer the only incentives for people to be involved in campaigns. American campaigns are more of a “political marketing” system, thus focusing on public opinion polling, market research, and campaign testing to find the appealing message tailored to the voters' opinions and concerns. This gives rise to an emphasis on candidate personalities. This “marketingization” of political campaigns includes personalization of the political debate, “carnivalization” of the campaign (emphasizing entertainment over the message), and the reliance on and influence of polls, surveys, and focus-groups testing.

Third, contemporary campaigns focus on “targeting” voters with specific messages. Computers now allow campaigns to engage in fundraising, survey research, demographic research, and direct mail efficiently. The content of the campaigns is designed and tested to affect voters regardless of the political value. Thus, emotions such as fear, pride, joy, or hate are common elements in American political ads, as well as in other “Americanized” campaigns. An additional feature of Americanized campaigns is the emphasis on image in political ads over issues and substance. However, and perhaps surprisingly, Lynda Lee Kaid and Anne Johnston have shown that ads remain largely issue-oriented. Nevertheless, the fact that ads are issue-oriented does not mean that they provide specific recommendations, substantive arguments, or that they engage in explaining complex policy issues. Moreover, comparative studies of the American campaigns find that although the presence of issues in ads has increased, the tone of the campaigns has become more negative. Researchers have also found that the specific issue content of political advertising may be related to the political party of the presidential candidate. For instance, Republicans are often thought to “own” foreign policy issues, while Democrats fare better on claims about domestic policy. Candidates appear to be more successful when they emphasize in their advertising the specific issues over which they can claim ownership.

...