When Politicians Benefit From Bad News

Politicians often benefit from bad news. Opponents of those who benefit often try to turn this into an attack by saying that the politician is rooting for bad events in order to benefit politically. It’s a powerful charge, but one that has no real teeth – it sounds convincing but has no true basis in reality.

In the current cycle, Republicans are said to be rooting for bad economic news because it will help them in the election against President Obama. After the unemployment numbers for May were released, I heard horror in the voices of the left, and shock that Republicans would try to take advantage of Obama’s bad news.

But benefitting from bad news is just part of the political game. When your opponent is in office, good news helps him and bad news hurts. You don’t have to root for the bad news to occur to recognize an opportunity to capitalize on it when it does. Similarly, if you are in office, you try to deflect the bad news and claim responsibility for the good news. It’s simply how the game is played.

And Democrats play the exact same game by the exact same rules. Recall the 2004 and 2006 election cycles when Democrats, seeking a return to power, reveled in the bad news coming out of Iraq. “This war is lost,” proclaimed Harry Reid. According to Democrats, President Bush had put our troops in the middle of a civil war. John Kerry unashamedly tried to capitalize on troop deaths to demonstrate the supposed failure of the Bush administration. He claimed he would fight more responsibly.

The Three Tensions of Politics

I return to my theory of the three tensions of politics. If you’re not already familiar, the three tensions are a concept I developed last year to explain political decision making outside of pure ideology.

• The Ideologue makes decisions based on an ideological framework, often ignoring political considerations or more pragmatic solutions.
• The Pragmatist makes decisions based on realistic solutions with a focus on getting things done.
• The Politico generally makes decisions that appeal to targeted constituency groups, while carefully managing the perception of voter and other opinion makers.

All three tensions have their good and bad characteristics, and none is inherently better than another. When taken to an extreme, all three tensions can lead to negative results.

There is no ideology driving Republicans who are trying to capitalize on higher unemployment or low economic growth. Similarly, even though Democrats are the anti-war party, they did not oppose Bush’s wars out of any ideological need. There is no ideological reason to wish for bad news for an opponent.

In most cases, the drive is one of pragmatism. A pragmatist uses good or bad news to achieve an objective, and perhaps accomplish some ideological or political desire. For example, retaking a house of congress this way is pragmatic, but it will lead to later ideological victories. To pay attention to the news and identify a weakness in your opponent’s armor is pragmatic and wise, not ideological.

Naturally, this pragmatic attitude leads to political action, timing messages to most damage an opponent, carefully targeting your message to the proper constituent group, and carefully managing perceptions to ensure the political tactics don’t boomerang back on you. Democrats failed on the last point in 2004, appearing to root against military victory. They improved in 2006 as the news turned their way, and they successfully took back the House of Representatives.

Republicans can learn from this, making sure they are not perceived as actually rooting for bad economic news. They believe that Obama’s policies are responsible for the slow economic recovery and the continually high unemployment, so it simply makes sense to make him pay politically. But trying to benefit from bad news is not ideological; it is purely political pragmatism and none of it means one is rooting for bad news.