What makes a presidential campaign “good”? by Michele P. Claibourn

Cover for : Presidential Campaigns and Presidential Accountability. Click for larger imageThe 2012 presidential campaign has arrived, mostly. At least, one of the Republicans you’ve heard of has almost announced his candidacy for the presidency (Newt Gingrich, I’m sure you’ve heard of him).* And before we get mired in the daily horse race, the contest over news spin, and the (hopefully) entertaining gaffes, it’s worth stepping back and considering what we want from our presidential candidates. What makes a “good” presidential campaign?

That’s the question I started with in writing Presidential Campaigns and Presidential Accountability.

My answer to that question: a good campaign is one that helps citizens understand what a presidential hopeful would actually do because such a campaign will enhance presidential accountability. And accountability is the big enchilada of democracy.

But that answer begs another question: what can a president do, what powers does a president wield under normal circumstances?

Presidents set the government agenda. They can’t legislate; the devilry of details is Congress’ job. And they can’t wave a presidential wand and fix the economy; there are too many economic forces beyond presidential control. But presidents have the power to set and sequence government priorities.

So, in the first place, we should want our candidates to make their priorities clear. Will he or she use his or her political capital to cut taxes or reduce the deficit or decrease unemployment or promote alternative energy (or fight the imposition of Sharia law in the United States)?

Presidents pursue their campaign agendas so the answer to this question really matters. You might be thinking, “But isn’t candidate rhetoric in the campaign insincere, cheap talk, pandering pablum?'” Most people take this rather dim view: in a 2004 survey, only one-third of those surveyed believed candidates try to keep their promises always or most of the time. But that, to the credit of our democratic system, is wrong. In terms of effort made, presidents work to follow through on their key agenda priorities. The issues and problems they emphasize most in their campaign appeals are the issues they emphasize most in their first year in office. A president will not always succeed, of course, also to the credit of our democratic system.

Because every four years we collectively forget what presidents do, most criticism of presidential candidates and campaigns by journalists and pundits misses the mark. We complain that presidential candidates and their campaigns spend too much time attacking one another or that they don’t disagree clearly enough. (There’s no irony here). But candidates can reveal their agenda priorities in vague or negative appeals, too. Plus, if negative campaigns keep people engaged and vague claims keep them optimistic, then citizens are more likely to hear the competing agendas.

So this campaign season, don’t worry if Newt isn’t especially specific on his policy for off-shore drilling or if citizens don’t know the finer differences between his and Mitt Romney’s eventual tax proposals. Instead, focus on what these candidates are signaling (or, as importantly, failing to signal) through their campaign emphasis: in office, I will work on [fill in the most oft-mentioned issues] first.

The priorities are the agenda and that’s what matters.

—–

*He’s only formally announced his intention to possibly form an exploratory committee to consider running for president, but we political junkies will take what we can get.

*****

Michele P. Claibourn is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Virginia and author of the new book Presidential Campaigns and Presidential Accountability.


About michael

Marketing & Sales Manager since 2012