There is a growing sense in certain political and media circles that President Bush’s re-election chances are in trouble over the conflict in Iraq, and because Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are still on the loose. In fact, these conditions are precisely what may ensure Bush’s re-election next year. It may not make sense politically, but from a social science perspective, it seems to be a lock.
The Republican and Democratic bases are wide apart again, as they were before Sept. 11. Bush will have no trouble with the right, and Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has proven that anti-Bush anger on the left never went away and is very easy to stoke. But neither party’s base will decide the 2004 presidential election. The wide middle will, and applying one scientific approach, the “hierarchy of needs” formula developed by the late professor Abraham Maslow, to the 2004 election, we can see that Bush will ride the unresolved war on terrorism to victory.
Despite the advice of some, Democrats who make opposition to Bush’s war policy a central argument for themselves–and against the incumbent–will be seriously miscalculating. In fact, they should pray for a rapid and overwhelming series of victories of some kind–a major shift of responsibility in Iraq to multilateral institutions, the capture or death of Hussein or bin Laden–or there may be no formula for victory against Bush under Maslow’s theory. Not even if the economy takes another dive.
According to Maslow, most people prioritize their basic needs along a consistent ladder. The highest need is survival, which is defined by the realities of life at the time. In peacetime, survival is largely economic. But in wartime, no matter what else can be factored in, it is about fighting and winning the war, almost at any cost.
The only way to dismantle this hardened perception is to challenge the notion that the war in question is one of survival for America. Vietnam had lost that cachet for enough of the voters by war’s end, but it was a notable exception in modern times. With the searing experience of Sept. 11 only three years ago, no one will credibly say the same about the war on terrorism in 2004 or about the occupation of Iraq if it continues to be linked with the greater war in the public’s mind.
That means the public’s sense of a threat to our country’s survival will be potent and should dominate much of the electorate’s decision-making in the voting booth. Democrats hope they can persuasively separate Iraq from the war on terrorism and convince the public that a drastic change in Iraq policy, even withdrawal, will somehow enhance our battle against terrorism.
But many Americans recognize that our unwillingness to confront danger abroad in previous years brought it to our shores in dramatic fashion on Sept. 11. The Bush campaign will have about $200 million to spend on reminding the voters of this point, which seems to ensure a Bush victory no matter what else is going on in the country.
Safety
However, should there be a major breakthrough in the war, or a series of them, before the summer conventions next year, Bush may suddenly be in trouble. Call it the Churchill effect–the public has a very short attention span and rarely votes in gratitude for a job well-done in war, as Bush’s father knows well.
Once voters’ survival needs are sated, their attention moves immediately down the ladder to the next category: safety.
It is here that questions on anti-terrorism and Iraq policy begin to have stronger possibilities for Democrats.
Did the war in Iraq make us safer, or did it make things more dangerous in a wider sense? With Hussein dead or in prison, and a new Iraqi constitution on the ground, do continued attacks on Americans and our interests around the world make us wonder whether we did the right thing in Iraq?
It is difficult to know whether this will resonate. It may also depend on external events. A new spate of attacks on Americans will either make them feel angry and unsafe or will stoke their fears about survival again. But crises tend to strengthen support for incumbents. It all depends on what happens outside our grasp, and the Democrats can’t practically strategize around this.
But without attacks, and with some sudden feeling that we’re close to winning the war, safety would have to be redefined and repackaged by both sides, and this debate could shape the outcome of the election. Democrats have been building a solid economic argument, a combination of the usual class resentments over Bush’s tax cuts and emphasis on the lagging recovery in jobs.
They’ve been steadily tapping into fears about the safety of our household checking accounts, which excites their base and could appeal to the middle, especially in troubled states such as West Virginia, Missouri and Ohio–all central to Bush’s strategy.
Conversely, after demonstrating that he’s clearly winning the war of survival, Bush would have to show real movement in jobs, connect them to his economic policies, and give voters a sense that economic safety is also improving along with our nation’s physical safety.
This all assumes a level of progress in the war that critics are dismissing as unlikely.
The media focuses highly critical attention on every statement, leaked document or bureaucratic stumble that reveals a White House seeing a “long slog ahead,” most recently from a memo written by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rather than intensify opposition to Bush, this will only worsen the prospects for the Democrats so long as “the war”–defined broadly–is the central issue of the election.
Sense of belonging
But if by some chain of events, Maslow’s second ladder rung of safety becomes paramount, and the Democrats make something of it, some voters may also be moved by the next one down–what Maslow calls a sense of belonging. This is where both parties nearly always fail to articulate a vision that reaches beyond their respective bases, and often they overreach and lose ground with the middle.
The Republicans connect Maslow’s sense of belonging to traditional families, marriage, faith and a sense of moral order, while claiming they think government shouldn’t have a role in people’s personal lives. Meanwhile, the Democrats claim to be fighting for the middle class and representing their interests, while many of their leading activists routinely excoriate the cultural values of the American middle-class at the same time.
The burden will be on the Democrats to make the case to the vast, undecided middle for removing Bush because he threatens their individual sense of belonging. This will be a hard case to make about the self-styled compassionate conservative, whose support for education, a Medicare prescription drug benefit and a major African AIDS initiative will be trumpeted in campaigns next year.
Only if the Republicans go too far, and define this category in exclusionary terms as they have many times in the past, can Bush begin to lose ground here.
The long list of interest groups that attack or defend Bush on this question, using their pet issues as a basis, should take heed that this can be a decisive factor in the 2004 election only if a major shift occurs in the war.
It might bruise their egos, but in reality all the energy that this sector of the political class will pour into this tier of issues is highly unlikely to make much difference.
Self-esteem
This is where, fittingly perhaps, we reach the lowest category of Maslow’s hierarchy–self-esteem. It is the most personal for the voters, and the least connected to tangible policies and issues. It has almost everything to do with style, word choices and symbolism. Political leaders who can tap into this desire for achievement and dignity can move and electrify audiences and create followers among the undecided. Both parties are usually good at stirring the self-regard of their respective bases.
But no election in American history, when applied to Maslow’s formula, has ever shown this to be a factor in wartime. Never have people in Middle America put their personal, individual interests above what they perceive as the nation’s safety and survival.
The 1972 election was a good example of Maslow’s formula in action. President Richard Nixon was fighting a long, bloody, increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. The economy was in serious trouble. The break-in at the Watergate had already been connected to some in Nixon’s campaign and members of his administration, and secret slush funds had been uncovered.
The public didn’t care. Nixon represented Middle America and stoked its sense of belonging, while his opponent banked on fear, anger and polarization. Nixon denounced crime, disorder and riots, and stood for the personal safety of Americans, portraying his opponent as standing with the criminals, the protesters and the agitators.
Most decisively, Nixon defined himself aggressively as the anti-communist crusader determined to win the Cold War and defend America’s survival against the Soviet Union, while his opponent was seen as someone willing to surrender too easily.
Nixon won the greatest popular vote landslide in American history. It seemed that Democrat George McGovern’s greatest share of support came from alienated people for whom voting for Nixon and what his image represented was an offense to their personal sense of self-esteem. The only state McGovern carried was Massachusetts. It didn’t add up to much, and neither will the sum of Bush haters today.
Bush’s edge
The reason Bush will win in 2004 is that he dominates on survival and safety as events–and his administration–define them now, and is competitive on sense of belonging and self-esteem. He wins on the highest needs.
Democrats are doing well with their base, particularly on the lower needs of sense of belonging and self-esteem, but they show no way of cracking the key and decisive factors for next year. Only external events beyond the control of either party can change the course of this election.
The goal of the GOP is to keep the needs focused on survival and security–where they win. They can mitigate against their weaknesses by doing more to give average Americans a greater sense of belonging within the GOP. They are wise to stay away from social issues that turn off moderate Republicans and swing voters and fuel the Democratic fear machine.
Democrats must choose a candidate who can fight the war on terrorism. They can hope that the terrorism threat is lowered and the country feels safer, shifting focus to economic safety. In fact, they would be wise to do everything possible to help speed a victorious end to the war if they want a chance against Bush.
They know they might gain ground if they can then take him on in the lower-rung areas. And if the war can be moved off the stage, they might even be able to dust off their standard arguments that elections are indeed about survival on their terms–economic survival, survival of the sick and elderly, survival of lifestyle freedoms and of government programs on which target populations have come to rely.
But it’s very difficult to imagine an America one year from now where these old strategies of an increasingly distant era, when America’s very survival was hardly a consideration, make any significant difference.
