Focus Groups: Manipulation And Representation
Did Abraham Lincoln have focus groups listen to the Gettysburg Address before he gave it? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that today’s politicians can succeed without using focus groups. They need them to refine their messages and understand how the American people think. But at the same time, focus groups can help politicians mislead and manipulate the public. Focus groups have become central to politics and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
According to Frank Luntz, a pollster specializing in focus groups, a focus group works something like this: the moderator brings in a small group of people—usually of the same ethnic group, political party, and gender to make sure that they are expressing their genuine feelings—to watch multiple versions of a politician’s speech or advertisement. Afterwards, the moderator asks the group members how they feel and why they feel the way that they do. By discovering people’s true sentiments, the moderator can determine what speeches and advertisements work best and can understand what the people really want from their politicians.
Bill Clinton was one of the first politicians to use focus groups. In the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton was considered a long shot. As governor of Arkansas, he was an unknown candidate on the national level. Throughout the campaign, Clinton used focus groups to combat scandals and gain advantage over his rivals. For instance, he was accused of having a 12-year-long extramarital relationship with Gennifer Flowers. Focus groups revealed that his optimal strategy was to flatly deny the accusations. He was also accused of smoking marijuana. Information gleaned from focus groups helped Clinton craft his now-famous response: “I only tried it once and never actually inhaled.” Because Clinton’s persona seemed distant and impersonal, members of focus groups suggested he make an advertisement about his life story. All of these factors were critical in turning Clinton into the president.
On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have used focus groups to determine the best rhetoric to spin issues in their favor. Leading this charge has been Luntz, a master at using focus groups. In 1994, he helped Newt Gingrich and the Republicans take over the House for the first time in almost 40 years. Based on information gleaned from focus groups, he advised Republican candidates to refer to Democrats and Democratic policies using the words “corrupt,” “devour,” “greed,” “hypocrisy,” “liberal,” “sick,” and “traitors.” Ever wonder why everyone started using “climate change” instead of “global warming?” In 2001, Luntz sent a memo to George Bush advising him to change his wording because the new term did not sound as scary. Bush started using “climate change” in speeches, leading to an increase in the use of the phrase. Luntz also advised Bush to emphasize the lack of consensus among scientists on global warming. This rhetoric has helped Republicans win elections.
Focus groups have the potential to help politicians mislead the public, but they also help them gain a deeper understanding of what their constituents are thinking. In the past, politics was only an art. Politicians had to use their gut instincts and few conversations with voters to figure out what to say and what policies to push for. This meant that politicians would have to trust in themselves and these conversations to figure out what to say and do, but it also meant they might not understand the concerns of certain voters like minorities, whom they did not regularly talk to. Today, politics has become a mix of art and science. Politicians must still use gut instincts to decide what the right decision is or policy to push for, but they can also use the abundance of information from focus groups and polls to determine what the voters want them to do.
Today’s politicians must combine gutsy leadership with their knowledge of voter desires from focus groups and polling to become truly successful. This year’s Democratic primary exemplifies such a notion. On one side is Bernie Sanders, the instinctual politician. He is willing to say what he believes and hopes that people will follow. On the other side, Hillary Clinton, like her husband, exemplifies the focus group politician. She makes sure that all her policy positions and views are in line with those of enough voters to win the election. Instinctual politicians are charismatic and appear to be good leaders because of their genuineness and gusto, but usually struggle to get enough votes to win a majority. On the other hand, focus group may appear inauthentic and cold, but often get enough votes to win elections. To win races in today’s elections, candidates will have to combine the instincts of the instinctual politician with insights from focus groups, leading the people while also representing their interests.