Incumbency: A Synonym for Arrogance

In the last several months we’ve heard a great deal about the anti-incumbent mood of the electorate, seen several incumbents fall to less than sterling challengers and a variety of ‘establishment’ candidates toppled from their top of the polls perch by unknowns. And there have been innumerable incumbents who, while re-nominated, have won with totally unimpressive numbers.

Meanwhile, Gallup is reporting various numbers to the effect that incumbents are generically in trouble. For instance, the classic question of whether voters would choose to re-elect their personal congressman, as opposed to a generic re-elect question pertaining to the congress as a whole, has seen positive re-elect numbers drop to about half of voters from a level that traditionally has been far higher. And when asked whether they’d favor experience versus no experience…..shock and awe, they choose no experience.

We’ve seen similar trends in research we’ve conducted for many months past. For instance, in one seat with a GOP inclined voter base and a reasonably popular and very hard working Republican incumbent, 58% responded they agreed with a statement that things are so bad in Washington they’d vote against all incumbents regardless of party.

Many ‘establishment’ figures, from both parties, must be thinking the world is upside down, that all of this anger is illogical, mystical and frightening.

Lance Tarrance, the Dean of Republican pollsters, suggests this is not so much an ‘anti-incumbent’ dynamic operating within the electorate as it is “a reaction to the perception of a sense of entitlement”, or in my terms, a feeling that no one is listening. Either way, and in sum, incumbents are perceived as arrogant.

There are a host of current contributing factors:
First, the media and its reportage of the ‘tea party’ dynamic. Privately, the media is simply agog with the thought that the ‘tea party’ will subsume the GOP, destroy it’s incumbents, and thereby preserve a progressive agenda. So the reportage focus is upon instances where that might happen. In the process, they inadvertently create viable candidacies where none exist.

The so-called ‘tea party’, however, did not create this situation. Local ‘tea parties’ have frequently endorsed opposing candidates. It is not an organization, as much as the news media would like it to be, but rather a popular dynamic. It’s proper label is conservative populism.

In any case, Nikki Haley, however intelligent or attractive she may be, or how much of an upstart she is portrayed as, was a several term incumbent member of the South Carolina House, and sometimes thought of as a protégé of that privileged character, Governor Mark Sanford. When the Palin bolt of lightning struck, what it gave Haley was not the Palin support base as much as the opportunity of massive news coverage, and the resulting money, at a time when she could not keep pace with her opposition on paid media. The other candidates, all higher profile incumbents, all members of the recognized establishment, all higher than her in the polls, all better financed, suddenly couldn’t get a word in edgewise. All of their ‘advantages’ were of little consequence. And she played the tune well. Note the parallel here to Scott Brown?

Similarly, Congressman Sestak in Pennsylvania was not known as an upstart rabble-rouser or a master of agitprop. In his case, he was blessed with an opponent reeking of a sense of entitlement, who said in effect, ‘I’m running as a Democrat so I can keep my job.’ Memo to Arlen: That’s not what it’s all about.

A number of the nomination losers had, in different forms, whether by resume, heritage, length of service, personality or inappropriate comments, the smell of privilege and entitlement about them. For the most part, they do not appear to have been perceived as listening, and undertook few personal activities to demonstrate that they were.

Second, in most instances the issues advanced by the winners in these cases were anti-establishment in nature, in the context of the establishment having done a host of things to spend large amounts of money with dubious consequential benefits, raise taxes and increase the size of government. If you as an incumbent voted for Obama-care, stimulus bills or similar items, you had, and have, a problem.

Note, however, that most of these sorts of legislative or executive actions tended to benefit some sort of special interest, and not the average American. The entitled element is perceived as giving away the money of the average American, to banks, car manufacturers, and assorted other elements most people don’t identify with. There is some resulting sense of betrayal.

So if this is all true, why was Lincoln able to get into a runoff in Arkansas? A bit of instructive history is in order.

Years ago, Lance Tarrance and I were involved with an unknown candidate for Governor of Arkansas, Frank White, who had been the state’s business development director. He changed parties and became a Republican the night before he filed. Bill Clinton was the Governor. He and his bride had imported a number of very liberal eggheads to help run the state. Hillary insisted on being known as Hillary Rodham. Not Clinton, Rodham. Clinton appeared on the cover of Parade magazine (along with Jack Kemp) as a probable Presidential nominee and next President of the United States. He dramatically increased the price of car tags, affecting all Arkansans, and cut a private deal with Jimmy Carter to house the Marielista boat lift Cubans at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, at a time when the state unemployment rate was over 14%. He wasn’t listening. He seemed to have a sense of entitlement. In brief, we capitalized on his arrogance. He lost.

After his defeat, Clinton spent many months on the road on a ‘listening’ tour. And he did listen. Thanks to some inadvertent help from White, Clinton ran again and won. Thus was born, “I feel your pain.” And guess who Lincoln’s coach was in this contest? Bill Clinton.

Finally, our most prominent incumbent leaders are, in fact, arrogant. Barack Obama continues to display a very imperious personality. It is a persona now past the original perception of intelligence, moving to one of being aloof and out of touch. Nancy Pelosi, his best supporting actress, persistently pops up at a podium in a Coco Chanel-like outfit and tells us government knows better than the average citizen. Arrogance personified. Pelosi and Obama thereby harm all incumbents, regardless of party, and the perception of American government itself. They have created the dynamic referred to as the ‘tea party’.

Republican incumbents must not be of an insecure frame of mind, but rather take on the challenge of communicating in ways that are appropriate to the current climate. They must not be a synonym for arrogance. For if the GOP is to have an opportunity to regain control of at least one house of Congress or have any chance of improving its standing in the various state legislatures it must avoid any significant loss of its incumbents. The question then is what are Republican incumbents to do about all of this? The steps here are simple:

*Via survey research, understand very precisely where they are in relationship to the anger and the perception of arrogance and anti-incumbent dynamic, and why. And know, in this environment, survey data can change very rapidly.

*Focus on those demographic groups most susceptible to voting out incumbents.

*Adapt their style to aggressively use the rhetoric of the day that suits the issues. If they have been in office more than two years, they may be at a significant disadvantage in terms of understanding or using the current rhetoric.

*Get out there…on the street, in the stores, at the diners, at a different real job every day and town hall meetings. They should be prepared to receive the grief, and do so with humility. And while they are at it, listen. Carefully.

If they don’t engage and listen, they’ll be remembered as the Republicans who joined a host of arrogant liberal Democrats involuntarily retired by conservative populism.