Campaigning to Govern

A New Way to Communicate

Medha Gupta

Barack Obama is now the president who has traveled the most. He has just embarked on a new campaign to pass his American Jobs bill, and is campaigning, just as he did in the 2008 elections. But instead of actually gaining the presidency, he is looking to pass a bill. Bernard J. Doherty posits that the president travels in order to campaign to govern, that his travels themselves are the result of his permanent campaign, or the notion that the president is always campaigning for something. It usually happens when a president is trying to pass a bill that is highly controversial in the Congress and catalyzes extensive debate. A notable example of the campaign to govern strategy is when President Obama traveled the country in 2009 in order to glean public support for his highly controversial healthcare overdraft. The concept of campaigning to govern is not a new one. An aide to Jimmy Carter first mentioned the concept of the permanent campaign in his 1976 transition memo, in which he declared that it is my thesis that governing with public approval requires a continuing political campaign.1 Thus the idea of the permanent campaign was born, and has continued to be a major factor in how a President governs effectively. A presidents time is very limited, understandably, so whenever a president chooses to take that precious time and leave Washington so that he can meet his voters, his decision to go to a specific place and not others can reveal a great deal about his strategic priorities.2 This seems to demonstrate the presidents strategic desire to mold public opinion, whether it is to distance himself from Washington or if he wants to hold

Brendan J. Doherty, "Elections: The Politics of the Permanent Campaign: Presidential Travel and the Electoral College, 1977-2004," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 37, no. 4 (December 2007): 751. 2 Ibid., 754
1

town hall meetings in order to campaign for a new bill that he is trying to pass through government. Cohen and Powell argue that the existence of the campaign-to-govern strategy is one of the main factors of the presidencyit involves, among other things, presidential speeches to the public aimed at increasing presidential visibility and mobilizing public support for the president and his policies.3 This need for creating public support is largely a recent development; a more traditional approach would be directing the pleas and the campaign to Congress, because in the end they are the ones who are voting and can kill any bill the president puts forth. This fairly new permanent campaign strategy; however, emphasizes Congressional accountability and, in the long run, may even help a first-term president in his or her re-election campaign. The president most known for pioneering the permanent campaign is President Bill Clinton. He was dedicated to making his presidential campaign structure into how a president operates. In his campaign he traveled states extensively, and although he never won a clear majority, it was a very effective way for him to get to the presidency. His success led him to believe, along with his staffers, that this was an effective way to achieve his goals, therefore, he and his staffers vowed to utilize campaign technologies and resources and repeat their electoral successes in the policy sphere.4 They maintained that the presidential job is essentially campaigning, and that they are merely framing a choice so the presidents position is mainly to persuade the public in order to advance

Jeffrey E Cohen and Richard J Powell, "Building Public Support from the Grassroots Up: The Impact of Presidential Travel on State-Level Approval," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 35, no. 1 (March 2005): 12 4 Corey Cook, "The Contemporary Presidency: The Permancence of the Permanent Campaign," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 32, no. 4 (December 2002): 754.
3

his position.5 Therefore, as the tools the president has used in the past were very successful and helped him gain the presidency, the permanent campaign strategy seemed to be an extremely logical step to ensure the continuing success of the president outside of the ballot box. Travel, carefully crafted speeches, announcements on mini-issues, political advertisements, and polls became an especially effective way for Clinton to campaign against a Republican-controlled Congress.6 He also tried to avoid the national media and go directly to the people (a feat much more difficult before the advent of Facebook and Twitter) through town hall meetings, lots of travel time, and even talk shows on television, which while still media-related, drew a completely different audience that may not normally follow politics. The amount of work he put into campaigning to govern had all the characteristics of a full scale presidential campaign.7 This strategy did prove highly effective for Clinton, and his success continues to be emulated today. President George W. Bush chose not to imitate the former presidents successes initially. He instead decided to use a more formal method of governing, communicating with Congress and attempting to pass his bills that way. He was met with considerable opposition; however, and he quickly eschewed quiet negotiation with Congress and instead chose to court public opinion by traveling to build support for his tax cut and education proposals.8 He soon determined that this was the way to govern, and had become a now key part of governing effectively. And thus, the concept of campaigning to

Ibid. Ibid., 755. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., 758

5 6

govern, not only as a useful strategy, but also an incredibly necessary component of effective government, was further ingrained into the presidents job. Cook argues that the permanent campaign has become a permanent feature of the contemporary presidency because it relies on current technological advances to help mitigate the uniquely modern problems facing elected officials today.9 Among these problems are: the growing individualist nature of congressional members today, the increasing polarization to Congress on either side of the spectrum, and the continuous demands of the twenty four hour news cycle. By appealing to the more moderate people, the president can try and allay the disadvantages created by such problems. Originally, the news networks served as a medium between the president and the people, but recently, and especially with the advent of social media and email, the president can open up a direct line of communication with the citizens and thereby has the power to frame his own messages and control the public image. Campaigning to govern as a theory has boggled the mind of many political scholars, because it is so different from the previous mode of government. Scholars distinguish between the collaborative and deliberative process of governing and the more adversarial and persuasive process of campaigning by suggesting that campaigning is geared to one unambiguous decision point in time and governing by contrast has many interconnected points of outcome through time. Yet as "campaigning for policy" becomes more prevalent, these traditional divisions are blurred--

Ibid.,762

presidents mobilize whatever strategic resources they can muster to enhance their negotiation and bargaining position.10 By taking the word campaign and taking the word govern and looking at them without each other, it is highly evident that the two are completely different things, and to put them together is much harder. Campaigning refers to having one clear cut goal where there is black and white and hardly any gray area, while governing has always been seen, as something that has many different outcomes resulting from large amounts of deliberation, so how is it possible to campaign for a goal that does not necessarily exist? Somehow campaigning to govern moves into a gray area between the two, helping presidents do whatever they can to try and achieve a goal. Although campaigning to govern has become such an endemic part of the contemporary political process, Corey Cook argues that just going over the heads of those in Congress would probably have very little success at best, and create high levels of dissatisfaction and distrust at worst.11 Also the amount of emphasis placed by the president on this strategy seems to be at odds with the actual effectiveness. Major public speeches and foreign trips, for example, result in only small, fleeting increases in presidential job approvalFurthermore, these approval boosts are short-lived, evaporating within several weeks.12 But it also it has become a way to legitimize the

Corey Cook, "The Contemporary Presidency: The Permancence of the Permanent Campaign," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 32, no. 4 (December 2002): 753-754. 11 Ibid., 763 12 Jeffrey E Cohen and Richard J Powell, "Building Public Support from the Grassroots Up: The Impact of Presidential Travel on State-Level Approval," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 35, no. 1 (March 2005): 14.
10

presidents goals and provide a different stage upon which a president can share his views and mindset, without the filter of the media. On the national stage, based entirely on presidential perceptions, when presidents appear presidential, that is, when they speak to the mass public writ broadly and when they speak to it as the nations representative and leader, they are able to increase their level of support.13 Many countries have a head of state, and a head of government, and the head of state can serve as the national image, and the societal issues while the head of state can remain largely behind the scenes and focus on running the government, but the president of the United States does both, and because there are so many photo opportunities and importance on being seen as the leader of the state as well, campaigning to govern also takes on a highly moral role. Historically, a president would send their policy preferences directly to Congress and would very rarely travel publicly. Nowadays, a president is always campaigning to govern and promoting bills for the legislation to pass. This blend of extensive public addresses, symbolic appeals, image formulation, pulse taking, and frequent travel across the country remakes governing into an instrument designed to sustain an elected officials public popularity.14 The visual cues become highly important and thereby it is determined that a president is always involved with the campaign to govern and it becomes some sort of this permanent campaign. While seemingly a domestic issue, this is brought to prominence especially abroad. Although not as effective as local campaigning, a presidents foreign travels does Ibid., 24 Corey Cook, "The Contemporary Presidency: The Permancence of the Permanent Campaign," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 32, no. 4 (December 2002): 753
13 14

much more than increase the perceptions of the nation through a foreign lens. One of the most important effects regarding a presidents foreign travels is his ability to set the agenda. The national media in the United States is sure to cover his travels, as well as the national media for whichever country he visits. On his visit to Ghana, Obama was able to set the agenda and show to the African country the nature of his position, on aid. He told the people of Ghana that the future of Africa can be determined by Africa alone, but that Americans would still provide aid. The president stated that America would only commit money to the countries if they supported democracy, good healthcare, green energy solutions, and most importantly, the ability to support peaceful resolutions to conflicts. He used his visit as not only a way to set the stage for future American aid, but also to spread democratic and American ideals. He then used Ghana as an example, saying that Ghana is a part of Africa that is not normally seen by the West, and it has one of the strongest democratic governments in Africa.15 He also noted that since independence, Ghana has had three peaceful transfers of power. This is an example of a campaign to govern because he is fighting for Americas best interest abroad, and will only aid the countries that would help themselves. His visit to India in 2010 also serves as an example of his campaign to govern. Many national news circuits saw Obamas arrival as a way for him to open up more trade channels between the two countries, and open up the markets for American businesses while also dealing with [a] wide range of political issues, including strategy on counterterrorism.16 Obama attended meetings with leaders of Indian and United States leaders

Phillip Molnar, "Obama's Historic Trip," New York Amsterdam News, July 16, 2009. Zee News, "Obama begins India tour," Zee News, November 7, 2010, http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/obama-begins-india-tour_666122.html.
15 16

of industry, and he spoke at the US-India Council Summit later that evening. His speech that night was very congenial, as it was also Diwali. He wished everyone "saal mubarak" a traditional phrase used when to celebrate the light ceremony of Diwali. He announced that more US companies would be allowed to invest in India, a colossal giant in the techworld, and he would also ease hi-tech rules. He reminded the audience of his own celebration of Diwali in the White House, and how he was the first president to do so. He then went on to talk about the relationship between the United States and India and how their common values and shared beliefs would be a defining factor of the 21st century. He urged India to increase investments as well, and create jobs for Americans and urged the principle of a two-way relationship.17 Obama urged, on his visit, that India resume talks with Pakistan about Kashmir. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed that it is in both the United States' best interest as well as India's but he refuse. "In a veiled nudge to India to heed Pakistan's desire to start talks, Obama said that in the coming months and years, India and Pakistan could find appropriate mechanisms to work out Kashmir and other issues. He apparently backed India's calibrated approach. "They could start with other issues, with confidence building measures," he said.18 In India, he fought for the creation of jobs in America and stronger measures to fight terrorism, proving that even amongst a non-voting body of people, he is still campaigning to govern. The most important part of a presidents travels in his campaign to govern, however, is the domestic travels he does when he is trying to get a bill passed. Even Zee News Bureau, "Obama moots 'win-win' biz ties, will ease tech rules for India," Zee News, November 6, 2010, http://zeenews.india.com/obama/story.aspx?aid=666240. 18 Times of India, "Not afraid of K-word but talks only if Pak cuts terror link," Times of India Online, November 8, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Notafraid-of-K-word-but-talks-only-if-Pak-cuts-terror-link/articleshow/6890511.cms.
17

thought there is proof that the presidents have very little ability to change public opinion in any major sort of way, presidents begin these local campaigns in order to counter the activities of congressional opponents and organized interests.19 Additionally, the presidents face increasingly adverse pressure from lobby groups and highly funded public policy campaigns, the partisans who throw fireballs on nightly news, and from future presidential candidates. They would also attempt to distance themselves from the image of Washington as a place full of politicians and a negatively viewed Congress. As a way to try and soften his own image, George W. [Bush] would inform his audience of his eagerness to "get out of Washington" and be back among real people.20 Also, there is a very set trend among the number of states and events held in the states and the population. The electoral size of a state is incredibly important especially during election years. With the exceptions of Wyoming and Alaska, which have high values mostly due to their very small populations, the other states that receive substantial disproportionate attention all are familiar players in recent political elections. Examining the attention the president gives to certain areas has revealed several important findings. First, in the aggregate, small states receive disproportionate attention per capita while large states do not. Second, patterns of emphasis are distinct in presidential reelection years, when presidents disproportionately favor certain large and small states that appear on the map of perennially competitive states in the general election, as well as key states in the nominating process. Third, whereas large states in the aggregate are not Corey Cook, "The Contemporary Presidency: The Permancence of the Permanent Campaign," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 32, no. 4 (December 2002): 753-764. 20 Ibid., 758
19

disproportionately favored, in specific years, large states in presidential election years stand out as receiving the most presidential attention above what their population alone would predict if attention were proportional.21 These findings demonstrate that even though states with a larger electorate may sometimes take precedence in the mind of the election campaign, small states are the ones that receive the disproportionate attentions in sum. And even without the notion that a campaign to govern strategy, where key states are targeted, reelection year planning seems to have a greater level of importance, especially in campaigning, rather than the activities of the president in non-election years. Local media coverage also becomes incredibly important in this campaign to govern bid for higher public support. Barrett and Peake discovered that variations in the amount and tone of local coverage of presidential domestic trips, with such coverage not universally comprehensive or favorable. In particular, [they] found that local newspapers serving communities where Bush had high levels of political support provided both more extended and more positive coverage of his visits.22 They also realized that the tone of the coverage varied based on the factors of the availability of coverage that could provide criticism and whether a presidential visit occurred after 9/11. But in conclusion, they both realized that the media coverage was largely positive locally, as the

Brendan J. Doherty, "Elections: The Politics of the Permanent Campaign: Presidential Travel and the Electoral College, 1977-2004," Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 37, no. 4 (December 2007): 759. 22 Andrew W. Barrett and Jeffrey S Peake, "When the President Comes to Town: Examining Local News Coverage of Domestic Presidential Travel," American Politics Research (Sage Publications) 35, no. 1 (January 2007): 3-31.
21

local press could receive more national attention, and oftentimes they served as a mere description of the presidential events. The Greater Cincinnati area is a notable one because not only is it on the border of two states, the border itself is extremely telling of partisanship. Ohio is viewed as a battleground state, one that can shift in any way. Kentucky has, for the last 3 elections, voted red. The renovation of the bridge would be huge for those that commute from the Northern Kentucky area. Therefore, Obama's speech in Cincinnati drew a mixed press. Although local news is largely positive, this did not stop the negative from glaring through. In Scott Wartman's article, he talks about how "President Obama's jobs act will replace the Brent Spence Bridge and solve the slumping economy has some in Northern Kentucky hopeful while others scoffed." 23 Carrie Whitaker opens another local article with a quote from a local university student who doesn't know how he's going to vote in 2012, Id like to shake his hand; see if it makes a difference,24 Vogele said. The very fact that locals were interviewed in a story about Obama seemed to a be a point of prestige at the Cincinnati Enquirer, especially the number of articles, ranging from the preparations that they went through before his visit, to repercussions afterward.

Scott Wartman, "Obama visit draws cheers and jeers in Northern Kentucky," NKY.com, September 22, 2011, http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2011/09/22/obama-visit-draws-cheersand-jeers-in-northern-kentucky/. 24 Carrie Whitaker, "Weary area residents stand in rain to see Obama," Cincinnati.com, September 21, 2011, http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/21/weary-area-residents-stand-inrain-to-see-obama/.
23

The Brent Spence Bridge itself is a very important structure that was recently discovered to be functionally obsolete, Marissa Tucker drives on the bridge twice a day. Tucker, like other residents of the Lewisburg neighborhood in Covington on the west side of Interstate 75, has mixed feelings about the new Brent Spence project...'I'm kind of excited to have the exposure the area's getting,' Tucker said. 'The Brent Spence Bridge is a major project and has been a major need for years."25 People in Cincinnati and Kentucky also were very invested in the coverage, local leaders, although some criticized, used the Presidents visit to get their state issues heard. The strategic move used by Barack Obama, to speak in Cincinnati in this instance had a lot of importance. One, it is the backyard of John Boehner, the current Speaker of the House, and Obamas biggest adversary in Congress. Also, it is in Ohio, which has been a major battleground state for the past elections. His move to stand in front of the crumbling bridge and talk about the nations infrastructure and the jobs act was a very smart way for campaigning to govern, and he used the recent strategy as a highly effective tool. This was an event where he could control the message and how it got out, and his speech served to demonstrate that. Also, it was very staged, and did receive a significant amount of positive press, even with the red state right at the border. This drew national attention to the area, which in turn provided Obama with a strong position.

Scott Wartman, "Northern Kentucky Legislators eager for Obama visit," NKY.com, September 2011, 2011, http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110918/NEWS0108/109180319/N-Kylegislators-eager-Obamavisit?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Crime%20&%20Courts|p.
25

Campaigning to govern is an incredibly powerful method of communication at the presidents disposal. It enables him to set the agenda and use the messages that he can predetermine, and it also enables him to go directly to the people while forgoing the traditional channels. It puts him at a considerable distance from Washington and allows the President to come across as one of the people and not a member of the corrupt capital.

Works Cited
Barrett, Andrew W., and Jeffrey S Peake. "When the President Comes to Town: Examining Local News Coverage of Domestic Presidential Travel." American Politics Research (Sage Publications) 35, no. 1 (January 2007): 3-31. Cohen, Jeffrey E, and Richard J Powell. "Building Public Support from the Grassroots Up: The Impact of Presidential Travel on State-Level Approval." Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 35, no. 1 (March 2005): 11-27. Cook, Corey. "The Contemporary Presidency: The Permancence of the Permanent Campaign." Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 32, no. 4 (December 2002): 753-764. Doherty, Brendan J. "Elections: The Politics of the Permanent Campaign: Presidential Travel and the Electoral College, 1977-2004." Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 37, no. 4 (December 2007): 749-773. Edwards, George C. "Campaigning is not governing: Bill Clinton's rhetorical presidency." In The Clinton Legacy, by Colin Campbell and Bert A Rockman, 33-47. New York: Chatham House, 1999. Molnar, Phillip. "Obama's Historic Trip." New York Amsterdam News, July 16, 2009. Times of India. "Not afraid of K-word but talks only if Pak cuts terror link." Times of India Online. November 8, 2010. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Not-afraid-of-K-word-but-talksonly-if-Pak-cuts-terror-link/articleshow/6890511.cms. Wartman, Scott. "Northern Kentucky Legislators eager for Obama visit." NKY.com. September 2011, 2011.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110918/NEWS0108/109180319/N -Ky-legislators-eager-Obamavisit?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Crime%20&%20Courts|p. . "Obama visit draws cheers and jeers in Northern Kentucky." NKY.com. September 22, 2011. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2011/09/22/obama-visit-drawscheers-and-jeers-in-northern-kentucky/. Whitaker, Carrie. "Weary area residents stand in rain to see Obama." Cincinnati.com. September 21, 2011. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/21/weary-area-residentsstand-in-rain-to-see-obama/. Zee News Bureau. "Obama moots 'win-win' biz ties, will ease tech rules for India." Zee News. November 6, 2010. http://zeenews.india.com/obama/story.aspx?aid=666240. Zee News. "New Delhi Hotel gets ready to host Obama." Zee News. October 29, 2010. http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/delhi-hotel-gets-ready-to-hostobama_664513.html. . "Obama begins India tour." Zee News. November 7, 2010. http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/obama-begins-indiatour_666122.html.