political analysis by Dr. Williams Yamkam
Editor's note: This commentary is part of a collaboration between the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and The City Wire to deliver an ongoing series of political-based essays and reports. Dr. Williams Yamkam is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith where he teaches multiple political science courses including a course on campaigns and elections. Besides the various professional trainings that he has received in campaign operations, he is a graduate of American University’s Campaign Management Institute in Washington, D.C.
Opinions, commentary and other essays posted in this space are wholly the view of the author(s). They may not represent the opinion of the owners of The City Wire, nor the opinion of the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith.
Ophthalmologists, optometrists, and other eye care professionals would say that normal vision is 20/20. Based on that fact, an old aphorism stipulates that hindsight is 20/20, meaning we tend to have normal vision only after the facts.
As the year 2014 winds down, it is judicious to look back and have a normal vision of the lessons that should be learned from the 2014 midterm elections in Arkansas. Let’s decrypt some of the possible lessons that could be learned from the 2014 midterm elections in A.R.K.A.N.S.A.S.
A as in Affordable Care Act:
There is little doubt that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was one of the salient issues that significantly influenced the outcome of the 2014 midterm elections throughout the country in general and in Arkansas in particular. Ever since the beginning of the policy debate over the ACA in 2009, the majority of Arkansans showed no appetite for it. The unpopularity of the ACA has been consistent since then, mostly due to the fact that republicans were successful in demagoguing the issue and democrats failed to make the case as to why the very complex ACA was necessary in its lengthy final form, and why it was a priority at a time when many Arkansans were still clamoring for a government focus on the economy.
Now that their vote for the ACA has decimated the political fortunes of Arkansas Democrats, I surmise that former U.S. Sens. Lincoln and Pryor along with the other Democrats who were part of the Arkansas delegation to the U.S. Congress at the time would certainly question the prudence of the actions that they took in committee and/or on the floor concerning the ACA.
Lesson: Elected officials must be careful not to hurriedly act on a piece of legislation that is untimely, controversial, complex, and lengthy.
R as in Responsive:
According to the University of Arkansas Poll, at least since 2009 the majority of Arkansans have consistently ranked the economy as “the most important problem or issue facing the people in Arkansas.” In 2009 and 2010 when the national democrats and many democrats in the Arkansas congressional delegation were busy pushing for the ACA, 39% and 52% of Arkansans respectively wanted the government to focus on the economy, while only 16% and 14% of Arkansans viewed healthcare as a priority in those respective years.
Besides, based on news reports at the time and based on anecdotal evidence, many Arkansans let the members of the Arkansas congressional delegation know, during town hall meetings and via phone calls and letters, that the majority of people in Arkansas wanted them to vote down the ACA. in Congress. Except for Democrat Mike Ross and Republican John Boozman, the remaining 4 Democratic members of the Arkansas delegation voted for the ACA. The very moment these Arkansas democrats acted against the wishes of the majority of the people in Arkansas and voted for the A.C.A., they immediately blurred the independent and conservative image that Arkansas democrats had in the mind of many Arkansans.
From that point on, many Arkansans began to view Arkansas democrats as similar to the ‘liberal’ national democrats. And since the ‘liberal’ national democrats are not held in high esteem in Arkansas, all democrats on the ballot have (un) fairly been seen as prime targets for the wrath of Arkansas voters’ anger since 2010.
Lesson: Always make sure you pay attention to the priorities of your constituents and act accordingly – unless you are willing to risk your political career in defense of your unpopular actions.
K as in Karma:
The top two races that dominated the 2014 midterm elections in Arkansas were the gubernatorial race and the U.S. Senate race. In those two races, some elements of Karma could be observed, as past actions and words of at least two candidates contributed to their eventual success or defeat.
Through his loss in the race for Attorney General in 1990 by close to 10 percentage points, and his loss in the gubernatorial race against Mike Beebe in 2006 by close to 15 percentage points, Asa Hutchinson might have received a blessing in disguise. Those two crushing defeats allowed him to gain statewide name recognition that came in handy in 2014. It is quite probable his statewide name recognition, coupled with his stint in the Bush administration, was a strong argument he made to the apparatchiks of the Arkansas Republican Party and the Republican Governors Association to gain early support. This allowed him to avoid any strong opposition in the primaries and ultimately prevail in the general election. In this case, the third time was the charm.
Twelve years ago, one of the arguments that Mark Pryor successfully made against incumbent U.S. Sen. Tim Hutchinson, Asa’s older brother, was that Hutchinson had been in Washington, D.C. for too long (12 years) and that Washington, D.C. had changed Hutchinson. Fast-forward 12 years later in 2014, Tom Cotton used Pryor’s own words to successfully charge that Pryor has been in Washington, D.C. for too long (12 years) and that Washington, D.C. had changed Pryor.
It would be interesting to see what happens 12 years from now when Cotton is up for re-election for his third term and one of his challengers uses Cotton’s own words to make a case that spending 12 years in Washington, D.C. is too long and that Washington, D.C. changed Cotton.
Lesson: Just like in life, in politics what goes around tends to come around.
A as in Accountability:
It is very likely that the debacle that has befallen Arkansas Democrats since 2010 stems from the fact that Arkansas voters have been wanting to hold democrats, any democrat, accountable for not listening to Arkansas voters’ wishes and kill the ACA. To make matters worse, those Arkansas Democrats who voted for the ACA showed voters no respect at all by not attempting to at least explain why they had voted against the voters’ wishes. Besides, none of those Arkansas Democrats either apologized or stood up to systematically defend their vote for the ACA.
Lesson: Elected officials must strive to either carry out the wishes of their constituents, lead their constituents to adopt a different course of action, or apologize for a mistake. Failure to achieve either one of these goals would result in certain defeat.
N as in National (Mood):
Given the fact that for the past few decades, midterm elections have become referenda on the incumbent president and the party in power in Washington D.C., it is incomprehensible that Arkansas Democrats spent more time talking only about local issues and did not anticipate and figure out how to shelter local democrats from the gathering national political storm that had been forming since 2010.
Lesson: Elections are not always exclusively about what happens in Arkansas. They are often also about what happens in the country.
S as in Science:
Politics is, in part, science. That scientific aspect manifests itself via polls and via the microtargeting techniques that have been refined over the years. Despite the fact that since 2010 polls after polls had been accurately predicting the drubbing that Arkansas Democrats were to endure, many Arkansas Democrats dispelled the polling results instead of using those results to adjust their game plan. It turns out that the polls were for the most part very accurate.
Lesson: Polling is neither a convenience nor a nuisance. It is a necessity to scientifically assess the mood of the electorate at a given time.
A as in Anger:
The field of political psychology has demonstrated that emotions, mostly anger and fear, are powerful catalysts for political participation.
It is fair to say that Arkansas Republicans successfully capitalized on the anger that Arkansas voters felt toward president Obama, the national democrats, the ACA, and their (potential) Arkansas enablers to get voters to the polls and defeat Arkansas Democrats.
Lesson: It may not be conscionable to stoke the voters’ anger for political gain, but it has consistently worked. Ignore it at your own perils.
S as in Survival:
Leading Arkansas Democrats must be commended for the loyalty they showed by standing by Sens. Lincoln and Pryor, even though these individuals had become politically radioactive because of their unexplained vote for the ACA. However, when it comes to the survival of a political party, feelings toward individual politicians take the back seat. Arkansas Democrats should have strongly requested that Sens. Lincoln and Pryor either fully address the elephant in the room, i.e. the ACA, apologize for their vote, or get out of the way to save the majority of other Arkansas Democratic candidates.
Lesson: Just like in life where self-preservation is a natural compulsion, the survival of a political party shouldn’t be impeded by any personal feelings toward individual politicians.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but in politics foresight based on leadership, common sense, and constituents’ feedback, can also provide normal vision.