CampaigningtoGovern

ANewWaytoCommunicate
MedhaGupta

Barack Obama is now the president who has traveled the most. He has just embarked on
a new campaign to pass his American Jobs bill, and is campaigning, just as he did in the
2008 elections. But instead of actually gaining the presidency, he is looking to pass a bill.
Bernard J. Doherty posits that the president travels in order to campaign to govern, that
his travels themselves are the result of his permanent campaign, or the notion that the
president is always campaigning for something. It usually happens when a president is
trying to pass a bill that is highly controversial in the Congress and catalyzes extensive
debate. A notable example of the campaign to govern strategy is when President Obama
traveled the country in 2009 in order to glean public support for his highly controversial
healthcare overdraft. The concept of campaigning to govern is not a new one. An aide to
Jimmy Carter first mentioned the concept of the permanent campaign in his 1976
transition memo, in which he declared that it is my thesis that governing with public
approval requires a continuing political campaign. Thus the idea of the permanent
campaign was born, and has continued to be a major factor in how a President governs
effectively.
A presidents time is very limited, understandably, so whenever a president chooses to
take that precious time and leave Washington so that he can meet his voters, his decision
to go to a specific place and not others can reveal a great deal about his strategic
priorities. This seems to demonstrate the presidents strategic desire to mold public
opinion, whether it is to distance himself from Washington or if he wants to hold town
hall meetings in order to campaign for a new bill that he is trying to pass through
government. Cohen and Powell argue that the existence of the campaign-to-govern
strategy is one of the main factors of the presidencyit involves, among other things,
presidential speeches to the public aimed at increasing presidential visibility and
mobilizing public support for the president and his policies. This need for creating
public support is largely a recent development; a more traditional approach would be
directing the pleas and the campaign to Congress, because in the end they are the ones
who are voting and can kill any bill the president puts forth. This fairly new permanent
campaign strategy; however, emphasizes Congressional accountability and, in the long
run, may even help a first-term president in his or her re-election campaign.
The president most known for pioneering the permanent campaign is President Bill
Clinton. He was dedicated to making his presidential campaign structure into how a
president operates. In his campaign he traveled states extensively, and although he never
won a clear majority, it was a very effective way for him to get to the presidency. His
success led him to believe, along with his staffers, that this was an effective way to
achieve his goals, therefore, he and his staffers vowed to utilize campaign technologies
and resources and repeat their electoral successes in the policy sphere. They maintained
that the presidential job is essentially campaigning, and that they are merely framing a
choice so the presidents position is mainly to persuade the public in order to advance
his position. Therefore, as the tools the president has used in the past were very
successful and helped him gain the presidency, the permanent campaign strategy seemed
to be an extremely logical step to ensure the continuing success of the president outside
of the ballot box. Travel, carefully crafted speeches, announcements on mini-issues,
political advertisements, and polls became an especially effective way for Clinton to
campaign against a Republican-controlled Congress. He also tried to avoid the national
media and go directly to the people (a feat much more difficult before the advent of

Facebook and Twitter) through town hall meetings, lots of travel time, and even talk
shows on television, which while still media-related, drew a completely different
audience that may not normally follow politics. The amount of work he put into
campaigning to govern had all the characteristics of a full scale presidential campaign.
This strategy did prove highly effective for Clinton, and his success continues to be
emulated today.
President George W. Bush chose not to imitate the former presidents successes initially.
He instead decided to use a more formal method of governing, communicating with
Congress and attempting to pass his bills that way. He was met with considerable
opposition; however, and he quickly eschewed quiet negotiation with Congress and
instead chose to court public opinion by traveling to build support for his tax cut and
education proposals. He soon determined that this was the way to govern, and had
become a now key part of governing effectively. And thus, the concept of campaigning to
govern, not only as a useful strategy, but also an incredibly necessary component of
effective government, was further ingrained into the presidents job.
Cook argues that the permanent campaign has become a permanent feature of the
contemporary presidency because it relies on current technological advances to help
mitigate the uniquely modern problems facing elected officials today. Among these
problems are: the growing individualist nature of congressional members today, the
increasing polarization to Congress on either side of the spectrum, and the continuous
demands of the twenty four hour news cycle. By appealing to the more moderate people,
the president can try and allay the disadvantages created by such problems. Originally,
the news networks served as a medium between the president and the people, but
recently, and especially with the advent of social media and email, the president can open
up a direct line of communication with the citizens and thereby has the power to frame
his own messages and control the public image.
Campaigning to govern as a theory has boggled the mind of many political scholars,
because it is so different from the previous mode of government.
Scholars distinguish between the collaborative and deliberative process of
governing and the more adversarial and persuasive process of
campaigning by suggesting that campaigning is geared to one
unambiguous decision point in time and governing by contrast has many
interconnected points of outcome through time. Yet as "campaigning for
policy" becomes more prevalent, these traditional divisions are blurred-presidents mobilize whatever strategic resources they can muster to
enhance their negotiation and bargaining position.
By taking the word campaign and taking the word govern and looking at them
without each other, it is highly evident that the two are completely different things, and to
put them together is much harder. Campaigning refers to having one clear cut goal where
there is black and white and hardly any gray area, while governing has always been seen,
as something that has many different outcomes resulting from large amounts of
deliberation, so how is it possible to campaign for a goal that does not necessarily exist?
Somehow campaigning to govern moves into a gray area between the two, helping
presidents do whatever they can to try and achieve a goal.
Although campaigning to govern has become such an endemic part of the
contemporary political process, Corey Cook argues that just going over the heads of those

in Congress would probably have very little success at best, and create high levels of
dissatisfaction and distrust at worst. Also the amount of emphasis placed by the president
on this strategy seems to be at odds with the actual effectiveness. Major public speeches
and foreign trips, for example, result in only small, fleeting increases in presidential job
approvalFurthermore, these approval boosts are short-lived, evaporating within several
weeks. But it also it has become a way to legitimize the presidents goals and provide a
different stage upon which a president can share his views and mindset, without the filter
of the media.
On the national stage, based entirely on presidential perceptions, when presidents appear
presidential, that is, when they speak to the mass public writ broadly and when they
speak to it as the nations representative and leader, they are able to increase their level of
support. Many countries have a head of state, and a head of government, and the head of
state can serve as the national image, and the societal issues while the head of state can
remain largely behind the scenes and focus on running the government, but the president
of the United States does both, and because there are so many photo opportunities and
importance on being seen as the leader of the state as well, campaigning to govern also
takes on a highly moral role. Historically, a president would send their policy preferences
directly to Congress and would very rarely travel publicly. Nowadays, a president is
always campaigning to govern and promoting bills for the legislation to pass. This blend
of extensive public addresses, symbolic appeals, image formulation, pulse taking, and
frequent travel across the country remakes governing into an instrument designed to
sustain an elected officials public popularity. The visual cues become highly important
and thereby it is determined that a president is always involved with the campaign to
govern and it becomes some sort of this permanent campaign.
While seemingly a domestic issue, this is brought to prominence especially abroad.
Although not as effective as local campaigning, a presidents foreign travels does much
more than increase the perceptions of the nation through a foreign lens. One of the most
important effects regarding a presidents foreign travels is his ability to set the agenda.
The national media in the United States is sure to cover his travels, as well as the national
media for whichever country he visits. On his visit to Ghana, Obama was able to set the
agenda and show to the African country the nature of his position, on aid. He told the
people of Ghana that the future of Africa can be determined by Africa alone, but that
Americans would still provide aid. The president stated that America would only commit
money to the countries if they supported democracy, good healthcare, green energy
solutions, and most importantly, the ability to support peaceful resolutions to conflicts.
He used his visit as not only a way to set the stage for future American aid, but also to
spread democratic and American ideals. He then used Ghana as an example, saying that
Ghana is a part of Africa that is not normally seen by the West, and it has one of the
strongest democratic governments in Africa. He also noted that since independence,
Ghana has had three peaceful transfers of power. This is an example of a campaign to
govern because he is fighting for Americas best interest abroad, and will only aid the
countries that would help themselves.
His visit to India in 2010 also serves as an example of his campaign to govern. Many
national news circuits saw Obamas arrival as a way for him to open up more trade
channels between the two countries, and open up the markets for American businesses
while also dealing with [a] wide range of political issues, including strategy on counter-

terrorism. Obama attended meetings with leaders of Indian and United States leaders of
industry, and he spoke at the US-India Council Summit later that evening. His speech that
night was very congenial, as it was also Diwali. Hewishedeveryone"saalmubarak"a
traditionalphraseusedwhentocelebratethelightceremonyofDiwali.Heannounced
thatmoreUScompanieswouldbeallowedtoinvestinIndia,acolossalgiantinthetech
world,andhewouldalsoeasehitechrules.Heremindedtheaudienceofhisown
celebrationofDiwaliintheWhiteHouse,andhowhewasthefirstpresidenttodoso.He
thenwentontotalkabouttherelationshipbetweentheUnitedStatesandIndiaandhow
theircommonvaluesandsharedbeliefswouldbeadefiningfactorofthe21stcentury.
HeurgedIndiatoincreaseinvestmentsaswell,andcreatejobsforAmericansandurged
theprincipleofatwowayrelationship.Obamaurged,onhisvisit,thatIndiaresumetalks
withPakistanaboutKashmir.PrimeMinisterManmohanSinghagreedthatitisinboth
theUnitedStates'bestinterestaswellasIndia'sbutherefuse."InaveilednudgetoIndia
toheedPakistan'sdesiretostarttalks,Obamasaidthatinthecomingmonthsandyears,
IndiaandPakistancouldfindappropriatemechanismstoworkoutKashmirandother
issues.HeapparentlybackedIndia'scalibratedapproach."Theycouldstartwithother
issues,withconfidencebuildingmeasures,"hesaid.InIndia,hefoughtforthecreationof
jobsinAmericaandstrongermeasurestofightterrorism,provingthatevenamongsta
nonvotingbodyofpeople,heisstillcampaigningtogovern.
Themostimportantpartofapresidentstravelsinhiscampaigntogovern,
however,isthedomestictravelshedoeswhenheistryingtogetabillpassed.Even
thoughtthereisproofthatthepresidentshaveverylittleabilitytochangepublicopinion
inanymajorsortofway,presidentsbegintheselocalcampaignsinordertocounterthe
activitiesofcongressionalopponentsandorganizedinterests.Additionally,the
presidentsfaceincreasinglyadversepressurefromlobbygroupsandhighlyfundedpublic
policycampaigns,thepartisanswhothrowfireballsonnightlynews,andfromfuture
presidentialcandidates.Theywouldalsoattempttodistancethemselvesfromtheimage
ofWashingtonasaplacefullofpoliticiansandanegativelyviewedCongress.Asa
waytotryandsoftenhisownimage,GeorgeW.[Bush]wouldinformhisaudienceof
hiseagernessto"getoutofWashington"andbebackamongrealpeople.
Also,thereisaverysettrendamongthenumberofstatesandeventsheldinthestates
andthepopulation.Theelectoralsizeofastateisincrediblyimportantespeciallyduring
electionyears.WiththeexceptionsofWyomingandAlaska,whichhavehighvalues
mostlyduetotheirverysmallpopulations,theotherstatesthatreceivesubstantial
disproportionateattentionallarefamiliarplayersinrecentpoliticalelections.Examining
the attention the president gives to certain areas has revealed several important findings.
First,intheaggregate,smallstatesreceivedisproportionateattentionper
capitawhilelargestatesdonot.Second,patternsofemphasisaredistinct
inpresidentialreelectionyears,whenpresidentsdisproportionatelyfavor
certainlargeandsmallstatesthatappearonthemapofperennially
competitivestatesinthegeneralelection,aswellaskeystatesinthe
nominatingprocess.Third,whereaslargestatesintheaggregatearenot
disproportionatelyfavored,inspecificyears,largestatesinpresidential
electionyearsstandoutasreceivingthemostpresidentialattentionabove

whattheirpopulationalonewouldpredictifattentionwereproportional.
These findings demonstrate that even though states with a larger electorate may
sometimes take precedence in the mind of the election campaign, small states are
the ones that receive the disproportionate attentions in sum. And even without the
notion that a campaign to govern strategy, where key states are targeted,
reelection year planning seems to have a greater level of importance, especially in
campaigning, rather than the activities of the president in non-election years.
Local media coverage also becomes incredibly important in this campaign
to govern bid for higher public support. Barrett and Peake discovered that
variations in the amount and tone of local coverage of presidential domestic
trips, with such coverage not universally comprehensive or favorable. In
particular, [they] found that local newspapers serving communities where Bush
had high levels of political support provided both more extended and more
positive coverage of his visits. They also realized that the tone of the coverage
varied based on the factors of the availability of coverage that could provide
criticism and whether a presidential visit occurred after 9/11. But in conclusion,
they both realized that the media coverage was largely positive locally, as the
local press could receive more national attention, and oftentimes they served as a
mere description of the presidential events.
The Greater Cincinnati area is a notable one because not only is it on the
border of two states, the border itself is extremely telling of partisanship. Ohio is
viewed as a battleground state, one that can shift in any way. Kentucky has, for
the last 3 elections, voted red. The renovation of the bridge would be huge for
those that commute from the Northern Kentucky area. Therefore, Obama's speech
in Cincinnati drew a mixed press. Although local news is largely positive, this did
not stop the negative from glaring through. In Scott Wartman's article, he talks
about how "President Obama's jobs act will replace the Brent Spence Bridge and
solve the slumping economy has some in Northern Kentucky hopeful while others
scoffed."
Carrie Whitaker opens another local article with a quote from a local university
student who doesn't know how he's going to vote in 2012, Id like to shake
his hand; see if it makes a difference, Vogele said. The very fact that locals were
interviewed in a story about Obama seemed to a be a point of prestige at the
Cincinnati Enquirer, especially the number of articles, ranging from the
preparations that they went through before his visit, to repercussions afterward.
The Brent Spence Bridge itself is a very important structure that was recently
discovered to be functionally obsolete, Marissa Tucker drives on the bridge twice
a day. Tucker, like other residents of the Lewisburg neighborhood in Covington
on the west side of Interstate 75, has mixed feelings about the new Brent Spence
project...'I'm kind of excited to have the exposure the area's getting,' Tucker said.
'The Brent Spence Bridge is a major project and has been a major need for years."
People in Cincinnati and Kentucky also were very invested in the coverage, local
leaders, although some criticized, used the Presidents visit to get their state issues
heard.
The strategic move used by Barack Obama, to speak in Cincinnati in this instance
had a lot of importance. One, it is the backyard of John Boehner, the current

Speaker of the House, and Obamas biggest adversary in Congress. Also, it is in

Ohio, which has been a major battleground state for the past elections. His move
to stand in front of the crumbling bridge and talk about the nations infrastructure
and the jobs act was a very smart way for campaigning to govern, and he used the
recent strategy as a highly effective tool. This was an event where he could
control the message and how it got out, and his speech served to demonstrate that.
Also, it was very staged, and did receive a significant amount of positive press,
even with the red state right at the border. This drew national attention to the area,
which in turn provided Obama with a strong position.
Campaigning to govern is an incredibly powerful method of communication at the
presidents disposal. It enables him to set the agenda and use the messages that he
can predetermine, and it also enables him to go directly to the people while
forgoing the traditional channels. It puts him at a considerable distance from
Washington and allows the President to come across as one of the people and not
a member of the corrupt capital.

WorksCited
Barrett, Andrew W., and Jeffrey S Peake. "When the President Comes to Town:
Examining Local News Coverage of Domestic Presidential Travel." American
Politics Research (Sage Publications) 35, no. 1 (January 2007): 3-31.
Cohen, Jeffrey E, and Richard J Powell. "Building Public Support from the
Grassroots Up: The Impact of Presidential Travel on State-Level Approval."
Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 35, no. 1 (March 2005): 11-27.
Cook, Corey. "The Contemporary Presidency: The Permancence of the Permanent
Campaign." Presidential Studies Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 32, no. 4
(December 2002): 753-764.
Doherty, Brendan J. "Elections: The Politics of the Permanent Campaign:
Presidential Travel and the Electoral College, 1977-2004." Presidential Studies
Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 37, no. 4 (December 2007): 749-773.
Edwards, George C. "Campaigning is not governing: Bill Clinton's rhetorical
presidency." In The Clinton Legacy, by Colin Campbell and Bert A Rockman, 33-

47. New York: Chatham House, 1999.

Molnar, Phillip. "Obama's Historic Trip." New York Amsterdam News, July 16,
2009.
Times of India. "Not afraid of K-word but talks only if Pak cuts terror link."
Times of India Online. November 8, 2010.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Not-afraid-of-K-word-but-talks-only-ifPak-cuts-terror-link/articleshow/6890511.cms.
Wartman, Scott. "Northern Kentucky Legislators eager for Obama visit."
NKY.com. September 2011, 2011.
http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110918/NEWS0108/109180319/N-Kylegislators-eager-Obama-visit?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Crime%20&
%20Courts|p.
. "Obama visit draws cheers and jeers in Northern Kentucky." NKY.com.
September 22, 2011. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2011/09/22/obamavisit-draws-cheers-and-jeers-in-northern-kentucky/.
Whitaker, Carrie. "Weary area residents stand in rain to see Obama."
Cincinnati.com. September 21, 2011.
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/21/weary-area-residents-stand-inrain-to-see-obama/.
Zee News Bureau. "Obama moots 'win-win' biz ties, will ease tech rules for
India." Zee News. November 6, 2010. http://zeenews.india.com/obama/story.aspx?
aid=666240.
Zee News. "New Delhi Hotel gets ready to host Obama." Zee News. October 29,
2010. http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/delhi-hotel-gets-ready-to-hostobama_664513.html.
. "Obama begins India tour." Zee News. November 7, 2010.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/obama-begins-india-tour_666122.html.