Bowling Alone on the Campaign Trail

Well, I finally read Bowling Alone -- a book I had been meaning to read for quite some time. In truth, I was already familiar with the concept behind this book, due to having read The Rise of The Creative Class, which borrows heavily from Bowling Alone. As you will see in this post, this book brings up several important issues for those interested in politics.

First, if you haven't read Bowling Alone, here's a quick synopsis:

Americans used to be much more likely to participate in community activities, such as bowling leagues, volunteering on a political campaign, joining clubs (Elks, garden, Knights of Columbus, etc.) or even getting together to play cards with friends. This sort of community involvement or civic engagement is referred to in the book as "social capital." Of course, his premise is that social capital has been declining.

The book argues that there are several reasons for our becoming alienated from one another. They include: women working outside the home, sprawl, the advent of TV, the breakdown of the family unit, and the fact that the WWII Generation was simply more predisposed to become involved in community activities.

What does this have to do with politics? First, I think anyone interested in politics and strategy is also, to a certain extent, a Sociologist. To be good at politics, you've got to understand people. And it's not enough to understand that trends are happening -- to really understand people and politics, you must examine why trends happen.

For example, Microtargeting would not have been used by Republicans to win the 2004 presidential campaign had it not been for folks like Matthew Dowd who were looking for new trends. He dicovered that the products a person purchases is now a better predictor of their voting behavior than simply basing your prediction on where they live. This was a new tactic -- invented by necessity -- to deal with our changing world. And it worked!

Both The Rise of the Creative Class and Bowling Alone make the point that there are certain parts of the country where social capital is more important. This is a topic that really rings true to me.

For example, in Nevada, the average person attends just 4 "club meetings" per year. But the average North Dakotan attends 11. This is significant. North Dakotans are thus more likely to get together and play cards, join bowling leagues, volunteer for clubs, etc. (Of course, there are political implications to this, as well.)

This really rang true to me because, after having great success in political campaigns in the Mid-Atlantic (I had also travelled the country, training political candidates -- and done some work in states like Texas), I moved to North Dakota to manage a Congressional race. What I didn't count on was that the rules in North Dakota (where people get together and bowl) would be completely different than they were in, say, Maryland (where people may wave to their neighbors, but avoid too much interaction).

Granted, I knew there would be some differences (every state is different), but I didn't realize the differences would be so stark. It turns out, I had unknowingly moved from one of the lowest social capital areas in America to the number one social capital area in America (according to the authors' social capital index).

Regarding politics, the differences were profound. In states like Maryland and Virginia, a campaign can craft any image they want. Average voters in these states rarely, if ever, talk about candidates to each other. They are too busy going to work, dropping off clothes at the dry cleaners, and picking up their kids from day care. The majority of political information they receive is based on what they see on TV, hear on the radio, read in the newspaper, or read in your mailings. As such, as savvy political campaign has the luxury of being able to create the image they want, if they are adept at using these media effectively. If a candidate has a bad image, it is possible to reinvent the candidate four years later, and most people won't remember him from before. If voters ever do get to meet your candidate, it's on your terms (say, at a parade -- or when the candidate goes door-to-door -- and is on his best behavior). A very small percentage of the voters really know the candidate. What they know is what you tell them.

Conversely, in North Dakota, everyone knows the candidate (again, North Dakota is the number one ranked state for social capital). They refer to their politicians by their first name. If something happens, everyone knows about it. They talk about the candidate over cards or ... bowling. In short, the candidate and the campaign do not possess the ability to create their own image. If you were a loser in high school -- you can never shake that image. There is no anonymity. You can't move to the city and escape it. I've learned that certain candidates and campaign managers work better in certain parts of the country. If you decide to buck that trend, just be sure you are ready to adapt to the way they do things.

... On another note, this book also says that the only type of civic involvement that divorce cuts down on is church attendance (single people are actually more likely to participate in some forms of community involvement). Of course, church attendance just happens to be the number one predictor of how someone will vote. So Republicans really do have a vested interest -- if not a moral interest -- in protecting the institution of Marriage!

One last thing: This book also corroborates something I have intrinsically known -- and have taught in my "Recruiting Volunteers" lecture -- and that is that busy people are actually more likely to volunteer than non-busy people. In fact, people who work two jobs are more likely to volunteer than people who work just one! Busy people skimp on other areas of their lives -- but they are actually more likely to volunteer for your cause or campaign.

Check out author Robert Putnam's website for more details.