During every election season, we hear similar commentary and analyses from politicos about how important the base is in winning an election.
So many of the candidates and their surrogates are focused on ensuring the base is spoken to in messages — especially in the primary, and to another extent in the general election. As we move closer to the general election, candidates then attempt to “move to the center” to get non-base voters to consider their candidacy. Many times, this “move to the center” has a difficult traction because the primaries were spent dismissing the center to appease the base.
And here is where the majority of the voters become dismayed.
This week, as I listened to a colleague give a presentation about polarization and voter turnout, I wondered: do the voters create polarization and the candidates/elected officials follow or do the candidates/elected officials create polarization and the electorate follow?
Classic chicken or the egg scenario.
The curiosity comes because during primaries, I hear from various groups about how candidates do not speak directly to them. To which I respond, you want one candidate to speak directly to a million or more people? How can one candidate individualize policy matters that impact everyone? And if that candidate does not speak directly to you, in your mind, then what? And this is why the base wins over a broader electorate in the primary. And why the general election electorate have a difficult time in the November election.
It is simpler to craft a message for a specific group of people in the primary then attempt to bring in others in the general election. Speaking to the small group means the candidate can avoid speaking directly to so many different individuals which can muddy the messaging. This seems logical.
Yet, speaking directly to a small group of people and enforcing the message with this small group is allowing one’s base to create tribes. To create factions. To creates polarization.
Who starts it though? Is it the electorate who is the loudest, even if a small percentage of the overall electorate? Is it the candidate who begins a pattern of only speaking to or mentioning this small group of people as part of their campaign?
One could argue the electorate teaches the candidates/elected officials to only speak to their small group of people. The electorate “feels seen” by a candidate or elected official. This electorate then feels important. This electorate frequently hears from the candidate or elected official. Then the electorate rewards the candidate with praise (votes). And in order for the candidate to become and remain an elected official, the official continues to only speak with that group.
Or, do clever political strategists create the small group of people who are hyper-focused and then become a base, pushing others in the electorate and elected officials?
In either case, the elected official learns and continues to do exactly what that small group of people want in order to remain in power.
This relationship is unhealthy and unsustainable if the official wants to fulfill their promises to the electorate. This relationship becomes an obsession. And we have seen the impact of this obsession this election cycle when several lawmakers were primaried and lost for seemingly losing favor with the base by challenging some of the same sentiments that won over the base in the beginning.
Because the electorate only wants to be spoken to, others are not welcomed. So, when the elected official begins to discuss compromising or working outside of the polarized group, the electorate turns. The electorate claims to feel let down by the movement and actions of reality. The reality that politics and policy is more than a single digit population of the overall electorate. The reality that politics and policy is about the majority of the needs of the country.
The Peach Pulse
Become a founding subscriber
Get PeachPol’s exclusive Georgia political reporting and analysis — and lock in your founding subscriber rate as long as your subscription remains active.
Imagine you have a garden and you only water one plant. You rationalize that the excess water of that one plant watering will eventually be shared among the other plants through the soil. You continue to water that one plant and the fruit or vegetable you receive from that one plant is bountiful. Then you look over to the other plants and they are dry, brittle, and not producing any food to harvest and you are confused as to why you have no food from the other plants. Would you still continue to water only that one plant?
This is what we are doing to our state and country. We are okay with watering that one plant because the base is that one plant.
At the same time, we want policies to be bipartisan and bountiful when it suits the base’s needs. How does that work?
We vote for partisanship then we expect for the partisans to turn into people who work “across the aisle”? Yet, we punish (through voting against) elected officials who work “across the aisle”.
This confusing way of what the electorate initially want then what the electorate expects is reflected in our confusing policies where the pendulum wildly shifts back and forth as if we are on a playground swing. We move from partisanship to partisanship. Creating a fractioned society where neighbors distrust neighbors. Where we argue about divisional culture and who is a patriot rather than policies about healthy foods, clean water, clean air, and thriving schools.
Polarization appears to be an artificial stance to ensure we are distracted from addressing issues that make a functioning and healthy society. This distraction is only working for a small percentage of the population with the full means and opportunities to create their own healthy environment while the rest of us scramble and blame each other for what we do not have.
Polarization is exhausting.
Polarization is stressful.
As with all various ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys and pendulum swings our country has experienced, some of the most pivotal and difficult times have been when polarization was at its highest peak. When small factions of society take advantage of the hopes, dreams and fears of others, polarization is easy to create and sustain. Polarization benefits the few and damages the many.
Polarization can and will insist upon itself as long as we continue to reward it.
Every day we can make a different choice.
Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in Political Science and teaches public policy.
Want sharper Georgia political analysis in your inbox? Become a founding subscriber to The Peach Pulse.
