REGIONAL VIEWPOINT: Too many comparisons of elections to warfare

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/10/2023 (724 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

War metaphors have become popular in both the conduct and in descriptions of election campaigns. The metaphors imply that election contests, like military campaigns, are all about conflict and winning, but without the bloodshed that comes with actual wars.

I confess that as an academic commentator on elections for more than five decades, I have used the war metaphor too often, hoping thereby to avoid sounding naive about political tactics in the “real world.” However, the metaphor has become too ubiquitous.

Using metaphors of battles and violence promotes thinking that winning is everything. Opponents become enemies who must be vanquished. Dirty tricks to gain an advantage are rationalized with the excuse that everyone does it. Negative advertising involving misrepresentation of the policy positions of other parties and personal attacks on the honesty and integrity of candidates become legitimate.

Warfare is said to take place on two fronts.

There is the central campaign planned and executed by experienced political managers (military generals) operating out of “war rooms.”

A second front of the war effort happens in the “battleground” constituencies where “armies” of mainly volunteer “foot soldiers” conduct a range of activities to help elect local candidates.

Reflecting the rise of multiple channels of communication, the central campaign is often described as an “air war.” It involves images of the leader, choreographed announcements, news releases, debates on TV and radio, paid advertising and social media posts. Air warfare is meant to frame issues, promote the leaders, develop brand recognition, criticize opponents, motivate the party’s base, and arouse disengaged voters. The air war receives most of the media attention.

At the constituency level there is a less visible “ground war” (also called the “ground game”), which is the focus of the rest of this article. The essential purpose of the ground game is to complement the air war by getting out the vote.

Other than the candidate, the single most important actor on the constituency level is the campaign manager who directs the overall operation. Managers are either recruited locally or assigned by the central campaign. Often, managers with a track record of leading successful local campaigns are assigned to close contests.

Another key position is the person leading the “get out the vote” side of the campaign.

That person leads a roster of volunteers serving as canvassers, conducting telephone canvasses, conducting mail drops, planting signs on lawns, acting as scrutineers, contacting identified supporters and ensuring they make it to the polls. In a period of cynicism about politics, finding volunteers can be difficult.

Despite the rise of the internet, talking with electors on their doorsteps and by telephone to identify their vote intentions as “for,” “unsure,” or “against” remains the most cost effective way to mobilize supporters. Campaigns that can afford it provide canvassers with tablets on which to record voting intentions. Telephone canvassing has become complicated by the fact that many people screen their calls.

The strength and impact of the ground war depends on many factors. If a party is trailing badly in the polls, perhaps because of an unpopular leader, the local campaign effort could be depressed. Close contests in potential swing ridings involve the greatest efforts. Incumbents or an opposition “star” candidate can attract more volunteers and money. Issues on the local level that arouse widespread public concern can add energy to local campaigns.

The estimate is that a strong ground game can add anywhere between five to 10 per cent to the vote for a local candidate. That small percentage can be decisive in close contests at the local level, and narrow victories there can add up to majority governments.

In the just concluded Manitoba election, the Progressive Conservatives ran under the slogan “Fighting for Manitobans.” Their campaign featured few major policy announcements, a leader who, when she was not avoiding the media, seemed uncomfortable presenting her party’s messages, and an advertising campaign that turned nasty with personal attacks on opponents leading to a voter backlash.

Having spent years criticizing the PC government, the NDP ran on the positive slogan “Make life better. Together.” Its campaign focused heavily on the top public concern of health care, the leader gave a major speech intended to inoculate him against personal attacks, and he promised a prudent budgetary strategy.

Generalizations about the ground games of the two main parties are tricky because there were wide differences across the 57 constituencies. Based on my contacts with party representatives, it’s my impression that the NDP had more prominent community figures coming forward to run under its banner and more volunteers to work on local campaigns. The PCs had 14 MLAs voluntarily retire, which did not help their ground game, and bad polling numbers probably depressed the volunteer base.

Seeing politics as war is corrosive of democracy. It contributes to the divide between political actors and citizens. Let’s agree to rein in all the talk of elections as warfare.

» Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba. This column previously appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press.