 |
| Buttons are one of the "Little Yesses" that leads to voter turnout |
One could ask why the Dems took an uppercut in the midterm elections, but why quibble over details. The metaquestion is, why do so few people come out to vote? And if you look at some of the demographic elements the voting silence is deafening: I have 50 students collectively in the three classes I teach at Champlain College. Of them, two voted, and about 35 were utterly unaware there was an election going on. A colleague reported that of her 55 students, none had voted. Having not gotten into the habit of voting by age 22 or so--the age at which prior generations were either rioting in the streets or off fighting wars--I find it doubtful these students will ever be politically involved at a substantive scale.
To me, that's troubling. But I have an inkling why. There is a vast chasm of disconnect between voters and the politicians down there in Washington. Blame for this widening gap can surely be placed on both sides of the equation; however, it's the politicos who have the better resources, institutional clout and historical savvy to reach across the divide.
What happened in the last ten to fifteen years -- along with the switch in tactics from persuading undecideds to a focus on preaching to the converted, which I've previously written about -- is that the major political parties have abandoned fundamental principles of persuasion proven effective from Aristotle to Dale Carnegie to Robert Cialdini, and instead embraced the principles of mass marketing initiated by Edward Bernays and developed by the Mad Men from the 1950s forward.
What has followed is a shift from campaigns emphasizing party platforms and individual leadership characteristics to campaigns focused on brand iconography and advertising slogans. The Dems and Reps are now Coke and Pepsi -- only marginally different, and keeping up enough of an illusion of competing with one another to distract us from the fact that what they are really trying to do is insure that soda -- or professional big-money politicos -- don't lose market share to, say, Snapple or actual grass-roots movements.
The people who don't buy soda are to Coke and Pepsi what the people who don't vote are to the professional big-money politicos -- as long as they don't cause a loss of market share and the profits keep rolling in, they don't matter at all. But -- in reality, in the last few years carbonated beverage sales are dropping as consumers begin to slide towards healthier, less sugary non-carbonated drinks (green tea, for example). Coke and Pepsi are being compelled to shift strategies, just a little bit, and think about those nonvoters. Or rather, those non-soda-drinkers.
In the political arena, the big-money political industry has not had to shift yet to pay attention to nonvoters because those nonvoters are not coming up with anything that cuts into their market share. Government has the lock on lobbyist money, contracts, land, industry, jobs -- just about anything it wants. So until a 'healthier' political organizing option emerges -- perhaps a third party built on the time-honored principles of persuasion rather than mass marketing -- we can't government to pay any more attention to citizens, or citizens to feel any more connected to government.
In addition to skillful use of story -- so eloquently described here in Tiffany Bleumle's last post -- two of these most important persuasive elements are 'the little yes' and the personal endorsement.
Get people to say 'Yes' to little things, and they'll experience a sense of commitment that will get them to say yes to big things. Politicians at the national level have abandoned the little tangibles like buttons and bumperstickers, mistakenly assuming that these are advertising devices and that you get more exposure for your buck by purchasing tv commercials.
True, buttons get you some exposure, but they do two things that tv ads can't. First, they are a 'little yes.' "Can I give you a button?" YES "Now you wear that every day, okay?" YES. Get those two yesses out of someone, and they will drive to the moon through a snowstorm to vote for you. Getting someone to say Yes to anything related to the ultimate item at issue is a powerful facet of persuasion.
Secondly, few things are more persuasive in making up someone's mind than the ringing endorsement of a friend, neighbor, family member or respected work colleague. A button on the lapel of your best friend or closest colleague is far more effective than a tv ad. You smoke Camels because your brother does; you bought a Subaru because your neighbor really likes hers.
Some politicians are going for the cheapo roll-of-round-stickers option. This is a lame half-hearted attempt to get the Yes effect. You might get a 'yes' out of handing someone a sticker -- but the sticker is so ephemeral, can't be reworn with pride, and--if you're like me-- gets thrown in the wash with the garment and gets gummy crap all over everything so you have to run the load of laundry a second time, so it winds up being a negative thing. Or, the recipient has to rip it off and throw it away -- not the emotional association you want with the candidates name. Buttons are not so easily discarded, they tend to be treasured, collected, stuck on a bulletin board. Bumperstickers require scraping and often just stay on the car until it finally rusts to pieces. You don't get a sense of quality and pride with that ubiquitous sticker roll.
Vermont politicians had clung on to a vestige of the 'little yes' principle of persuasion with the every popular lawn sign. Asking supporters to put a lawn sign on their lawn gets that 'yes', and seeing that lawn sign on in a neighbor's front yard can create that personal endorsement effect. Unfortunately, it seems a growing number of Vermont politicians are tumbling into the marketing mindset with lawn signs, sticking zillions of them into the public right-of-way strips between road and sidewalk, creating an irritating and ugly mini-billboard landscape that accomplishes neither the 'little yes' nor the personal endorsement goals.
There are dozens of other ways to get people saying 'yes' to little elements of political involvement, which can lead to a higher likelihood of them coming out to vote. Asking people to serve as party committeepersons and block captains, going through their neighborhood each year with flyers and information, gets a core of 'yes-sayers' as well as demonstrating strong personal endorsements. Asking to add people's names to a published letter to the editor. Hosting a hundred little living-room coffee 'fundraisers' instead of one big $2500 a plate dinner. These things matter -- these are the things that get voters involved, committed, and to the polls.
Politicians adopted the marketing mindset that said if you bombard people with advertising, they'll buy your product. They missed an important element: Like Coke or Pepsi, the consumer may tend to prefer your product next time they are in the store grocery shopping, or next time they happen to be in the market for a car. But they won't go out on a limb -- climb in the car in the pouring rain and drive across town in the dark to get to their polling place before going to work -- for your advertised product. They have not said 'yes'. They have not made a commitment and thus do not feel compelled to expend energy to fulfill that commitment. Quite simply, they will not come out to vote.
