There’s always talk of outreach to independents and the “mushy middle,” but what about people who just don’t care about politics? Or those who think politics don’t affect their daily life? How do we reach them? An article in the Washington Post suggests that maybe conservatives shouldn’t.
A new political typology study from the Pew Research Center refers to them as the “bystanders.” These are the 10 percent of Americans who aren’t registered to vote and don’t really follow political news. Almost all of them (96 percent) have never made a political contribution in their lives.
Put plainly: They really don’t give a rip. And their apathy is hurting the Democratic Party.
…
From Pew’s report:
Asked about their interest in a number of topics, 73% of Bystanders say they have no interest in government and politics, and two-thirds (66%) say they are not interested in business and finance. So what topics do interest them? Health, science and celebrities: 64% of Bystanders are interested in celebrities and entertainment (vs. 46% of the public). And, in a sign of their youth, they are drawn to video games: 35% call themselves a “video or computer gamer” (vs. 21% of the public).
If Democrats could get these groups to care a little less about Tom Cruise and a little more about Ted Cruz, maybe they’d have a better voting coalition for the midterms.
First of all, if Democrats’ plan for convincing “bystanders” that a junior Senator in the minority party is a reason to get worked up enough to vote in their first election maybe Republicans should just sit back and relax.
Except, of course, we have our own apathy problem. We have people who are somewhat educated on the issues and are with us on many of them, but they don’t think a vote for a Republican will translate their desires into action. In this morning’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty writes about these instinctively, but unidentified conservatives.
There’s a demographic out there that I can describe but not label.
These folks are instinctively conservative, but probably don’t apply that label to themselves. They work for a living, or they are looking for work. They can’t stand what they perceive as whining.
But they don’t identify with the Republican Party. They look at the leadership of the party, at least in Washington – House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, RNC Chair Reince Priebus – and don’t feel any sense of connection to them.
In fact, they don’t really relate to or connect with any particular politician. They either tune out politics as much as possible, or they find the political process to be dominated by adults acting like children and bickering in a selfish, obstinate manner.
One reason they don’t feel any particular attachment to the current crop of Republican leaders – or perhaps the last Republican presidential standard-bearer, Mitt Romney – is that they’re suspicious, or at least wary of Wall Street, or most big companies. They may work for a big company but they don’t feel a particular loyalty or identification with their employer.
These folks might sound like potential Tea Partiers, but at some point, these folks either tuned out the Tea Party or got turned off by some of the more fiery rhetoric. The Tea Party rallies almost inevitably feature somebody dressed up in Revolutionary War garb, and that’s not who they are.
Geraghty goes on to list people outside of the political arena who have mobilized this group when they’ve been public about their views: Tim Tebow, chef and TV host Anthony Bourdain, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs,” radio host Adam Carolla and Nicole Curtis of “Rehab Addict.”
It occurs to me that CNN is becoming very interesting in primetime — Jake Tapper, Mike Rowe, Anthony Bourdain, and even Dr. Drew, who talks a lot about personal responsibility. Some may disagree with me on characterizing Dr. Drew as an ally, but a few years ago he spoke at event hosted by a conservative women’s group. He talked about the “hook-up” culture hurting women and men and damaging future relationships. Certainly, a subject that appeals to me.
So, maybe “ally” is how we should characterize these folks. Finding out someone doesn’t agree with us on 75% or even 50% of our issues, such as Bourdain, shouldn’t discount his appeal. He can still be an ally for our cause. Whether we like it or not, most Americans are as fickle on how they view issues as Bourdain.
I also agree with Geraghty’s point that these non-political celebrities have more credibility with non-political and instinctively conservative Americans. They are one of them. Most Republican or conservatives they see on TV? They are not. As I said, I think the only way to reach this group is by educating them (as well as the leaders) on how the principles that get them fired up can translate into political action. It’s an even harder case to make when conservatives who eat and breathe politics also need convincing that leaders who are elected and of Tea Party and “establishment” groups care about our freedom not just about our vote and wallet.