Politainment: My new book explaining the 2012 elections

New book describes essence of winning politics in 2012 elections

Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A Citizens' Guide to Understanding Campaigns and Elections by David Schultz describes how much politics and the media has changed

SAINT PAUL, Minn. Hamline University professor David Schultz, noted expert on elections and politics, announces the publication of his latest book, Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A citizens' guide to understanding campaigns and elections (ISBN 0615594204).

Politainment is the word of the day according to Schultz, and it is the essence of contemporary politics. It is a world where politics and entertainment merge into one, where politicians seek to be celebrities, and celebrities run for political office. Politainment is the politics of Comedy Central, late-night talk shows and the 24 hours a day news cycles using entertainment venues and techniques to capture the limited attention of voters and viewers. Schultz's new book examines the key concepts of this new world of politainment. He describes 10 simple rules for successful political campaigns  such as politics is like selling beer, define or be defined or that it is about passion to explain what it takes to win in politics and why politicians and the media need one another.

Written in an easy to understand format, Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A citizens' guide to understanding campaigns and elections, is for political junkies, journalists and those exploring American politics for the first time. It makes sense out of the 2012 elections and tells readers what they need to know about politics.

Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A Citizens' Guide to Understanding Campaigns and Elections, is available for sale online at Amazon.com.

About the Author:David Schultz is a professor of public administration and government ethics at Hamline University School of Business. He has taught classes on American government and election law for more than 25 years. Schultz is the author and editor of 25 books and 90 articles on American politics and law and is a frequently quoted political analyst in the local, national and international media.  Schultz draws on these experiences, plus those working in government and working on political campaigns, to the writing of Politainment.

For more information contact me at dschultz@hamline.edu or by phone: (651) 523-2858. Also check out my website: www.davidschultz.efoliomn.com

Elitism of Caucuses?

This blog appeared on the commentary page for Minnesota 2020 on March 7:


Democracy’s strength resides in an active and engaged citizenry. Creating institutions that will sustain and grow this engagement is a challenge. While many might contend that the Minnesota political caucuses excel in promoting participation, the reality is just the opposite. Instead, the Minnesota caucuses are exclusionary.

America is historically famous for its sense of civic engagement. Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 Democracy in America located the success of politics in the United States as residing in part in the propensity of its people to join and engage through voluntary associations. Whether it was barn-raisings, clubs, or community associations, engagement in them fosters important virtues. It tempers self-interest, fosters respect for working with others, and produces community building.

Tocqueville identified the concept of social capital. Urbanologist Jane Jacobs in the Death and Life of Great American Cities and political scientist Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone define social capital as the glue of democracy. It represents the building of trust with others that facilitates engagement and commerce. Social capital is of two types: bonding which reinforces ties to one another, and bridging which builds linkages across society. Social capital helps equip people to engage politically and make democracy work.

Putnam’s concern highlights gradual citizen disengagement from the 1960s onward in the United States. This disengagement was seen in declining voting and participation rates, increased distrust in government, and the growing polarization of political parties. The most recent symptom of this declining social capital appears both in Washington and St. Paul in the inability of the Republicans and Democrats to work together.

How does this relate to the Minnesota political caucuses? Some argue that the caucus system is actually a major producer of social capital. It asks of citizens to spend an evening together with neighbors, debate politics, and learn how to work together. It is participatory politics par excellence, New England town democracy at its best.

But the most powerful critique is how the caucuses are exclusionary. Look at who can participate. The first level of caucuses takes place one evening in February. Many simply cannot attend. Those in active military duties, those employed in second shifts or out of town working, those who are ill, and for many who are single parents and unable to address child care issues, they are excluded from participating because there are no absentee voting procedures. Proof of exclusion resides in the numbers. In 2008 approximately 2.5% of Minnesotans attended the caucuses to cast votes in presidential preference poll. In comparison, the Wisconsin presidential primary had a 36% turnout. Clearly far fewer attended the Minnesota caucuses than participated in a Wisconsin primary, speaking volumes to their exclusionary nature.

Think about who does attend the caucuses: The criticism is that caucuses favor party activists and those who are generally more liberal or conservative than the Democrat or Republican voters in a primary. Evidence of that is seen in comparing preferences of caucus and convention attendees to primary voters. The caucuses may encourage party building but not necessarily the construction of community building and trust that make it possible for the parties and diverse people to work together.

The caucuses have virtues but are not flawless. They increasingly seem insular and exclusionary, irrelevant to average citizens. At their worst they are being captured by special interests, thereby rendering them increasingly unable to forge the community building and social capital necessary to making Minnesota’s political system work. What we need is to rethink the caucuses, asking if they are the institution up to the governance challenges we face today.

Quick thoughts on Super Tuesday

All eyes on Ohio will it be Romney or Santorum?


Here are the variables.

The polls have them tied or Romney with slight lead with Santorum going down in the last couple of days.  Romney did well with early voters or those who already made of their minds but a large percentage of 35% of so have yet to make up their minds or might change it. If electability is on their minds they will break to Romney, if it is about the blue collar vote then they break to Santorum.

Regardless of who wins the popular vote, delegates will be split almost evenly. Santorum wins in OK and TN, Romney in VT, MA, and VA. Gingrich wins in Georgia. Everyone declares themselves to be a winner.

I think Romney eeks out a win in Ohio.

End of the Day. Delegates are split and the battle goes to next week in Alabama and Mississippi where Romney does poorly.

The GOP war on the 1960s: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Curiouser and curiouser turns the 2012 Republican presidential primary. But what seems now to stand out the most is how the race is turning on issues that one had thought were long since resolved. In many ways, Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign, and the pull he is having on the Republican Party, seem to be a referendum on the 1960s and the changes that decade unleashed on American society.

Over the last few weeks I have had so many people turn to me and say about the issues being debated this year: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Think about it.

Santorum grossly misquotes a 1960 John Kennedy speech talking about the need to respect a diversity of religious perspectives and not use the government to impose its orthodoxy upon others. JFK gave this speech both to assure voters that his Catholicism did not mean as president he would take direction from the Pope and that America was simply more than a Protestant nation. Santorum construes this speech to be about an attack on religion and a separation of church and state that makes he want to throw up. Never mind also that the Supreme Court has also repeatedly addressed  issues of prayer in public schools and public displays of religion on governmental property. Santorum wants to fight this battle all over again. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Santorum hates birth control and think that employers and their health plans should not be required to pay for it for women. In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a constitutional right to privacy protected the choice of couples to use birth control. Last year Rick Perry was assailed for a decision at one time to mandate human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine for  young women to protect their health. Rush Limbaugh calls a woman a slut and prostitute for taking a stand on this issue. All this is reminiscent of the battles in the 1960s over the pill and claims that it encouraged promiscuity. Have we not resolved the issue of protecting women’s health and promoting women’s equality? “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Beginning in the 1960s states began relaxing abortion laws and repealing rules restricting sexual behavior between consenting adults.  In 1973 in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court affirmed reproductive rights of women, and again did so in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet Santorum and all the Republicans want to take away these rights and label women who want to control their reproductive and sexual choices as sluts. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Ron Paul objects to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as eroding personal freedom. I thought Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have a dream” speech and the civil rights movement demonstrated the importance of racial equality. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

The 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case stated that marriage is a fundamental right.  Then beginning with the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Bar in NYC the movement for gay rights began.  The two events come together to represent a national evolution towards equal rights regarding of sexual orientation.  The Republicans want to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

It is curious. The Republican presidential candidates and the base seem intent on revisiting the 1960s. They cannot seem to stand the fact that America has evolved, even after nearly 50 years has passed. It is more than simply the politics of nostalgia. It seems to be one of both a generational and racial divide, looking to see a world that has changed and an anger over it. For the Republicans, these issues are disasters both in 2012 as they will alienate many swing voters, but beyond as one generation dies out, only to be replaced by another that believes simply: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Final Thoughts
My very first undergraduate political science professor Mary T. Hanna wrote a book in 1979 entitled Catholics and American Politics. She foretold of a future American politics with Catholics as the largest religious denomination in the country. Yet at the time she wrote the book in 1979 she saw a Catholicism that was progressive and liberal. Since then much of Catholic politics has turned conservative. What we may be seeing in the United States now is how the change in Catholicism is driving the GOP. It is now a religion that is large and conservative, pent on using it clout to further its orthodoxy. Amazing how it is forgotten the days when Catholics were a minority persecuted by a Protestant majority. Amazing how it has forgotten the wisdom of JFK’s 1960 speech.

Super Tuesday Preview
Super Tuesday will be rough for Romney. He will not do well in the South and if he doe not win Ohio then the race is clearly wide open. The race is tightening in Ohio and it is unclear who wins but even a close second by Santorum along with wins in Oklahoma and Tennessee and a Gingrich win in Georgia mean the race is not over for a long time. But now the race is less about states than delegates, although where those deletes are won makes a difference in terms of assessing presidential prospects. Romney, except for Florida, seems to win in states that Republicans will not win in November, and has a tough time in close swing states such as Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.

Dodging a Bullet: Quick Thoughts on the Romney Victory and the Problems Ahead

Romney dodges two bullets. His double wins in Arizona and Michigan ensure he is the frontrunner and forestall even more panic among the GOP. But more importantly, his win in Michigan saves him from embarrassment that he cannot win his home state.

But all is not well in Romney city. He was expected to win in Michigan, but barely hung on. In some ways his victory here was less impressive than four years ago.

In 2008 Romney won Michigan with 39% of the vote compared to McCain with 30% of the vote. In 2008 Romney won 20 delegates. In 2008 Romney did win a greater percentage of the vote with 41%, but Santorum came in second with 38%. Instead of a margin of victory of 9%, it was 3%, and with a much less crowded field than in 2008. This time Romney only won 11 delegates and Santorum received the same. The one bright spot is that in 2008 Romney won 338,316 votes, in 2012 it was 410,000. It is possible that without a contested Democratic primary Romney benefited from a larger turnout.

After Michigan there is still no indication that Romney has closed the gap with the social conservatives or the Reagan Democrats. His campaign demonstrates continued strategic ills such as his decision to do a rally in the near empty Ford Stadium, and Romney himself concedes that his gaffes are hurting him. His negative ratings continue to rise. Moreover, the negative attack ads all of the GOP are using are damaging the party badly. Unlike 2008 with Obama-Clinton, Obama came out a better and strong candidate. The opposite is happening with the Republicans and Romney.

Put simply: He is not sealing the deal with a large active base of his party and there is no indication that he is helping himself with the swing voters if he moves beyond the nomination to the general election. He cannot win over the right of his party and he cannot win over the moderate swing voters. He is caught in a political squeeze that is hard to escape.

Final thoughts: Super Tuesday next week. Polls now have Santorum leading but that may change. Gingrich has a chance in Georgia and Tennessee and that may add a new dynamic to the race. Romney ventures into a south full of white evangelical voters who do not like him, but who like Santorum. Even after Romney's two victories, it is too soon to call the race over.

Rod Stewart Is Right: Politics is about passion and why Mitt Romney lacks it

I am pleased to announce that my new book–Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A citizens' guide to understanding campaigns and elections–is out. It is available for sale on Amazon.com  in paperback with a Kindle edition forthcoming.


Written in an easy to understand format, the book is for political junkies, journalists and those exploring American politics for the first time. This blog post is an excerpt from the book:

Hear it on the radio (Passion)
Read it in the paper (Passion)
Hear it in the churches (Passion)
See it in the schoolyard (Passion)
—“Passion,” by Rod Stewart


No one is really passionate abut Mitt Romney and it shows. Consider his not-so rally at the Ford Stadium the other day.  It looked like a hollow funeral wake as Romney spoke to a near empty stadium.

But look at his polling numbers and his inability to break through and build a serious lead and finish off the other Republicans.

Romney may or may not be the GOP frontrunner and get the nomination, but he does not inspire voters and that will be his downfall in November if he makes it that far.  What is the problem with Mitt?


In 1980 rock musician Red Stewart had a number one hit with the song “Passion.” Life is about passion, and so is politics.

As Washington Post writer E. J. Dionne once declared (July 12, 2010), “But there is an intangible: Passion counts in politics. It motivates a movement’s most fervent followers but can also carry moderates attracted to those who promise change and profess great certainty about how to achieve it. Barack Obama got himself elected president by understanding this.”

Passion is the key. In 2008 people were passionate about Obama. Passion is what drives people to the ballot, to volunteer, to give. It is the buzz factor. Many candidates are competent, but no one feels passionate about them. Mitt Romney lacks passion, much like a previous Massachusetts governor—Michael Dukakis—who ran for president as a competent technocrat. He lost. He had no charisma and inspired no passion. No one seems really passionate about Romney, thus explaining many of his problems in sealing the deal to secure the GOP nomination and win over many to his side. As I have stated several times, Romney (at least for women) reminds them of their first husband. Conversely, at various times supporters of Bachmann, Perry, and Cain were passionate about them. No question that Ron Paul has passionate supporters.

Passion and charisma are related. Some candidates have a special charisma that inspires others. John F. Kennedy, in truth or legend, is one example; perhaps Ronald Reagan is another. They have the ability, as presidential scholar Richard Neustadt declared in Presidential Power, to persuade others. The essence of presidential power is the power to persuade. One cannot simply order others around—one has to be persuasive and convince people to support your ideas. Neustadt’s book opens with an interesting story. When contemplating General Eisenhower winning the presidential election, Harry Truman said, “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.” Successful presidential candidates are the same—they have to be able to persuade people to vote for them. But something more is needed. James David Barber wrote about it in his famous book, The Presidential Character.

Presidents bring to office their personality, which helps mold their real power to persuade. Successful presidents such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan inspired passion. Each of them possessed an elusive trait that made their followers excited. This is passion.

Passion may be the trait of a politainer. Obama certainly was one in 2008 in the sense that he became a commodity marketed across many media venues. He was also a rock star. In 2008, I attended two rallies in Minneapolis—one for Hillary Clinton and one for Barack Obama. Clinton’s rally was flat; Obama’s was like a rock concert (held, incidentally, at the Target Center—a frequent forum for real rock concerts). The Obama event was electric; I could feel the passion in his speech, in the crowd, and in all that he did and said. It paid off by driving many voters to the polls and gaining a sweeping victory for him and the Democrats.

Yet the Obama presidency has been devoid of passion. His speeches are mostly flat and uninspiring; they have failed to persuade or inspire. Speeches are long on facts and figures and short on compelling stories and narratives. This lack of passion hurt Democrats in 2010 at the polls, both because their supporters did not feel it and failed to show up and because Republicans had it and did show up. The result was a reversal of fortunes for the two parties in 2010. The challenge for 2012 is about passion—can Obama get his base, and especially the liberals, to be passionate about him? Will passion deliver the swing voters to him? Conversely, will passion bring Republicans out to vote, especially for Romney, in 2012?

Passion needs to be distinguished from anger. Anger is a passion. We hear a lot about the angry voter, and anger seems to be why Democrats did well in 2006 to take back Congress and why the GOP did so well in 2010 too. In 2009, the Tea Party was birthed from anger and perhaps resentment when Rick Santelli of CNBC stated on February 19: “No they’re not, Joe. They’re not like putty in our hands! This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors’ mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise their hand. President Obama, are you listening?” Anger is what drove the Tea Party confrontations against Democrats in town hall meetings in August 2009, and anger seems to be the reason many Tea Party members are upset with Obamacare and the president.

Anger brews demand for political change. The two are related. Anger can be a powerful passion, but it is not the only passion. Patriotism, fear, greed—they too are passions. Some may be more effective than others as political forces at different times in history. But the most important point to realize is that Rod Stewart was correct in saying passion is needed. Without it, political candidates are unsuccessful.

Protecting Shareholder Rights: The case for the Minnesota Shareholder Freedom of Choice Amendment

 

Minnesota voters might see their November 6, 2012 ballot crowded with constitutional amendments. Among their choices could be the Minnesota Freedom of Employment ("Right to Work") Amendment. As presently worded, the Amendment would ask Minnesotans:

     Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to guarantee all citizens the individual freedom to decide to join or not join a labor union; to remain with or leave a labor union; or to pay or not pay dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind to a labor union or any affiliated third party or charity, without having it affect their employment status?

Proponents of the amendment contend that its purpose is no more than to give individual workers the right to decide whether they wish to join or support a union. As a backup supporters also argue, as did Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin or Mitch Daniels in Indiana, that such an amendment or legislation will facilitate a business-friendly environment that will help the economy and produce jobs.

Conversely, opponents contend–and some proponents secretly or not so secretly concede–that the real purpose of the amendment is partisan. It is an effort by Republicans to break the financial back and political power of the unions which have historically supported Democrats in elections or in lobbying for specific types of legislation such as minimum wage laws and workplace safety regulation.

But the power of labor unions politically is dwarfed in comparison to corporations and their treasuries. The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has unleashed corporations to spend tens if not hundreds of millions of new dollars in politics, with its impact already well documented in this and the last election cycle. This money, plus the millions if not billions of shareholder dollars spent by corporations for lobbying, gives them a significant advantage in the political process. As former chief Justice Rehnquist once stated in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti: “A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere. . . Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed.”

The corporate form gives some business unique advantages economically. But as Rehnquist aptly observed, these advantages need to be regulated to prevent corporations from using the resources they acquired in the economic marketplace to benefit themselves unfairly in the political marketplace.

So what is to be done? If an amendment is going to be offered to the Minnesota Constitution to give workers freedom of choice and to reign in the power of unions, fairness only suggests a similar measure be introduced to apply to corporations. Thus, Republicans and Democrats should join together and support the Minnesota Shareholder Freedom of Choice (“The Right to Personal Profit”) Amendment. The amendment would ask Minnesota voters:

     Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to guarantee all shareholders in publicly-traded       corporations incorporated or registered to do business in the state, the individual freedom on an annual basis to decide if any of money of the corporation shall be expended, given, donated, or otherwise used for any political purposes directly or through a third party, without having it affect their dividends or rights to profits in that corporation?

Freedom of choice is a beautiful concept. It is the essence of the American ethos and a powerful moving force in politics. Shareholders should be given the same rights within corporations that workers enjoy if the Right to Work amendment is adopted. If we are so worried about the political clout of unions, one should similarly fear corporate clout.