In turn, he believed the lobbyists would join in the fight for safe neighborhoods, health care, affordable housing, and other social injustices. Hank proffered that his model would follow the precepts of the famed architect of community organizing, Saul Alinsky.
“In 1940, Alinsky first created the Industrial Areas Foundation and authored Rules for Radicals, which I consider my bible.” Hank conveyed that many of the grassroots organizing efforts built models based on the work of Saul Alinsky, and he wanted to create a grassroots organization that would promote community organizing throughout the nation with the use of the Internet.
“I believe people need to become aware of the grassroots issues that face the disadvantaged and need to become more involved in the election of leaders that would align with those causes. My ‘National Campaign’ will provide an opportunity to strengthen the compassion of the haves for the have-nots by getting my message out using the power of the Web.”
Hank often cited his favorite mantra and took every opportunity to repeat it. “It is everyone’s obligation to fight for better housing, better schools, and higher wages for the poor.”
While he acknowledged that he would become embroiled in the political infighting for his causes, he also knew the Internet was becoming more of a key resource for activists, especially when challenging the status quo.
After clarifying his basic theory, he looked over to Chase and said, “Now, to address your question.”
Hank made it clear he would first need to establish an organization that could reap the tax-exemption benefits available for charitable acts, and a second organization, sort of a silent partner, which would devote its efforts to the political process.
“It is important to penetrate the leadership in Washington, so I needed to figure out how to integrate both. After investigating several options,” he explained, “I will establish a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, to promote social welfare to educate the public, and to lobby for specific legislation. This will allow me to advocate for community organizations legally, along with get-out-the-vote campaigns, recognizing the organization cannot endorse specific candidates.”
Keeping his eye on Chase, Hank continued, “My second organization will be classified as a 501(c)(4) organization. It can operate under less-strict IRS regulations and have greater flexibility in electoral advocacy, whereby the organization can involve itself more directly with voter registration and endorse specific candidates. I strongly believe that conducting door-to-door political campaigns focused on voter identification and turnout is a community-organizing effort at its best.”
Hank continued to expound that he would use the 501(c)(4) organization to solicit the donations for both his political and social agendas. “The expansion of power and influence is the key aim of community organizing. The Internet will be my tool to generate this collective power for the powerless.”
“Isn’t that illegal?” Chase chided.
“For years there has been a blurred line between community organizing and electoral advocacy. I am only using the tax code as intended,” Hank refuted.
In his closing statement, he quoted the words of his guru, Alinsky. “The first rule of power tactics is that power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
Hank astounded Simon with his understanding of the use of the Internet. The others were equally overwhelmed, although Chase was a bit uncomfortable with Hank’s earlier retort. They had nothing to ask or suggest, except for Simon.
He volunteered that Hank’s approach should also target the young first-time voters, those most likely to support the liberal candidates. “Liberal candidates are more willing to spend taxpayer dollars for social causes, which appeal to this age group. The young are also more likely to be the largest users of the Internet, as first experienced to any extent in the Clinton versus Dole campaign of 1996.”
Hank seemingly accepted Simon’s suggestions.
Everyone was impressed with Hank’s presentation, and while it was an extremely compelling argument, it was a lot to digest. The discussion had been going on for over two hours and they needed something else to digest, like food. They took a break, ordered in a couple of pizzas, and continued after being sated.
—
It was Seymour’s turn to present.
Seymour backed into his thesis topic by first explaining, “As you are aware, I originally set out to produce a mini-documentary on the war that had been raging in the Gulf.”
He had planned to explore the elements that led up to January 1991, when the United States started its air campaign on the Iraqi army, the official beginning of Desert Storm. Seymour had hoped to challenge the United States on whether it had legal grounds for the invasion. Part of his desire, he admitted, was that he ‘wanted to’ produce a film that would goad the White House and the Pentagon to dispute my right to air the content in a public medium.”
Most interestingly, he confessed, “I welcomed the challenge, knowing it would come dangerously close to the line between freedom of speech and constitutional authority.” He paused. “Then it all changed.”
Seymour admitted he had altered his entire thought process after listening to Paolo and Hank over the past several months as they prepared their theses. He thought it best to start with a bit of history before naming his topic, which certainly piqued the interest of the others. He went on to explain that the year before, in 1995, the Republicans had taken control of Congress, both the House and Senate. That event followed by President Clinton winning a second term in office, in spite of the numerous scandals—the dalliances, Travelgate, and the FBI file controversy, to name a few that plagued his first term—set a new precedent.
“It was also a time when the World Wide Web functioned as a medium for political debate, specifically for campaigning.” At this point, he referred to Hank’s earlier remarks. “A few years before in 1994, President Clinton launched the first White House Web page, and the Media Study Center had just taken a poll showing the enormous impact it had on presidential politics.”
Seymour agreed it was certainly going to be a new, exciting medium that would reach more of the general population, far beyond the traditional outlets such as newspapers, magazines, and television. With a huge grin, he admitted, “And of course my film.” Seymour continued to explain, “As I watched the presidential wannabes line up, I noticed more and more use of the Web. It was Robert Dole who first said, ‘If you really want to get involved, just tap into my home page: “www.dolekemp96.org.” Emphasizing the point he added, “By then most Republican candidates in the race had Web sites.”
He further held that it was during all the election fervor that he decided it was going to be his medium of choice. “I changed my thesis from an examination of the war abroad to the political war brewing within.”
“At first,” Simon interjected, “I was more interested in your original tack and its outcome. However, I’m suddenly very interested in your latest topic and how it has been altered.”
The others knew the Gulf War was Simon’s favorite subject, but now he was looking forward to Seymour’s conclusion. His enthusiasm for the change surprised them. Seymour naturally appreciated his eagerness to learn more. Thus, he continued to clarify how he discovered the new medium, along with a new venue to exercise his freedom of speech.
“My new thesis title is ‘The Effects of Political Campaigning on the Web.’ I am planning to document the development of a political blog from beginning to end.” He stopped to explain blog being the contraction of “Web log,” which was an online diary. Seymour explained this use of the Internet had been around over a year, since early 1994, but his blog was going to be different.
“I am going to create short film clips with campaign messages for or against a candidate, but I have yet to decide which candidate to ‘align or malign’ in my sound bites. I am also going to create a survey inviting all viewers to participate. This will allow me to quantify the success of the message as well as the use o
f the medium.” With the potential of attracting hundreds of thousands of people, he felt the results would revolutionize current practices. Ultimately, Seymour believed it would create a model for future political campaigns.
“This is right up my alley!” Hank exclaimed. “I’d be more than interested in your results.”
“I second that,” added Paolo.
Chase remained silent.
Simon evidently liked his idea, but felt he could construct a slightly more challenging theory by delving into the effects of negative campaigning. By way of example, he reminded Seymour, and the rest of the group, of the “Willie Horton” advertisement on TV during George H. W. Bush’s campaign against the then Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.
“It was in 1988, during a political debate, when Al Gore asked a question about the ‘Weekend Furlough’ program for convicted felons. Governor Dukakis had just signed off on the program, and Gore took issue.”
He continued to recap how the Bush campaign picked up on the question, knowing that in 1986 Willie Horton, a convicted murder with a life sentence, was released on a weekend furlough never to return. In 1987, Horton raped a woman, beat her fiancé, and stole their car. Shortly thereafter, he was captured in Maryland and received an eighty-five-year prison sentence. The judge at the time publicly stated he would not extradite him to Massachusetts. If the Commonwealth released Horton on another weekend furlough, the judge feared he might kill again.
Simon persisted. “The Bush campaign referred constantly to the Willie Horton story, but was reluctant to air a negative ad directly targeting Dukakis, so they didn’t.”
“I remember the incident, but what is the point?” Seymour probed.
“The point is that while the Bush campaign was unwilling, George Walker Bush, the son, was.”
Simon, with his famous smirk, submitted how Bush Jr. established a group named the National Security Political Action Committee, seemingly independent of the Bush campaign. The PAC sponsored the television spot showing a mug shot, with the caption “Weekend Passes.” Bush, the forty-first president, ushering in four more years following the eight years of the Reagan presidency, defeated Dukakis.
“It was extremely negative and effective,” Simon concluded. Facing Seymour, he suggested, “You might find it more interesting and challenging to determine the ‘tipping point’ of negative ads. How far could the ad go without creating sympathy votes for the opponent?”
He urged Seymour to work with Hank to establish two 527 organizations, slightly dissimilar from the classic 501 organizations. “Typically, the 527 group’s main objective is to influence the election or to defeat a candidate. Illogically, the Federal Election Commission does not regulate the activities of these organizations.”
Chase, showing a mild grasp of the subject, questioned its validity. “How is this all possible?”
Simon, eyeing Chase, responded, “Lighten up,” and continued. “The purpose of setting up two separate organizations, is one would be to support a candidate, and at the same time the sister organization would oppose the same candidate.”
He suggested Seymour establish several negative ads for one of the organizations, each ad notching up on the negativity scale. “In this way,” Simon explained, “you could determine through your surveys when the negative ad turned off the voter and caused the voter to cast a ballot for the opposition. It was this vital point that held the answer.”
All of them, admittedly even Chase, found the whole concept intriguing.
Simon offered to work with both Hank and Seymour to help set up the Web sites.
The group agreed its session was productive, with a lot of new information surfacing, but it was also past midnight, and they decided to call it quits. La Fratellanza had consumed all that remained of the pizza and they were exhausted. They agreed to forgo Jake’s and head to their respective dorms.
—
The next evening they reconvened.
After settling into their usual seats around their round table, Paolo took the floor. He started the discussion by presenting the title of his thesis, “Political Speech: Creator or Interpreter of Ideology.”
Paolo submitted that many scholars, including political analysts, believe that by using cyclical data they could predict the political party that would likely reign in the White House.
“However, I believe they create a false assumption. What is a more relevant fact is that the party most accurate in sensing the mood of the people is the party that will win.” Excitedly, he pointed out that thus far, no one had taken it to that level, and explained that campaigning has always been reactive, not proactive.
“That is the crux of my theory,” Paolo said. “If you can gauge the pulse of the people through computer analysis you could begin to construct the campaign speeches; essentially you could craft a campaign strategy. In essence, get ahead of the game and adopt strategies to shape the ideology of the electorate toward or against a specific party or candidate. To put it in plain words, it is a sure way to back the winner.”
Naturally, such a statement caught everyone’s attention.
Paolo emphasized that he strongly believed words shape ideology. “People want to be led, they want to be told what to believe,” he pontificated. “My challenge is to develop a model to predict future sentiment, but I believe it is essential first to understand how sentiment affected past elections.” He felt it was necessary to study past elections to identify predictive factors that had a profound effect on election outcomes and provide a foundation to formulate his model for future predictions.
He pulled back from his thundering tone and patiently explained how he had arrived at his theory. “I originally began my research starting with Ulysses S. Grant in 1869, until the embattled Harry S. Truman chose not to run for a second term in 1952. I discovered there were various entrenched interests within a particular party; attempting to uncover public sentiment for those eras was difficult at best. Therefore, I dismissed analyzing the political shifts before 1953.”
Paolo held that after the 1940s, there was a paradigm shift, and it became remarkably easier to measure the sentiment of the populace. First, more households began to own televisions, and then years later, with the advent of the Internet, the information highway began to play a significant part in getting out the message. “Improved communications brought about a sea change,” he asserted.
“Both the research conducted by Hank and Seymour, and the contributions the Internet had played in the political process, helped to point me in the right direction.” Paolo acknowledged. Consequently, he felt he could get a clearer picture of the voter mind-set by concentrating on the past forty years.
He decided first to study the past presidential nomination speeches. He began with the 1952 speeches of Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson and continued to Bill Clinton’s and Robert Dole’s August 1996 speeches. He dissected the ideas that had the highest impact on the election by carefully distilling the essence used in the speeches. From there, he believed he could establish effective correlations. Paolo said he also identified patterns relating to the concerns of the American people that drove their election results.
“Eventually I will classify the key underlying issues that influenced voters. Then I will construct hypothetical campaign platforms based on my research.”
He considered the issues to be precursors of future behavior. In an attempt to classify the key issues, he scoured news events using various sources and then created a scale from one to three—one being extremely discouraged, two for confident, and three meaning extremely confident—and then he ranked the mood of the country at that particular time.
“The challenge of measuring American sentiment became even easier after 1945, during Franklin Roosevelt’s unprecedented third term in the White House,” he acknowledged. He explained that, at that time, the Gallup organization first started polling Americans on how they rated the president’s performance, providing him with the data he sought. Later, after
1984, when Zogby International was founded, he was able to see how their polls fared against Gallup’s, giving him an even better understanding. He analyzed how the presidents performed and obtained a deeper insight into the attitudes of Americans. When he examined the current Clinton administration, he was able to verify his conclusions with the added aid of a third polling company, GrassRoots Research, founded in 1995 by Scott Rasmussen.
“This provided me with yet another vehicle for comparison,” Paolo asserted, “giving me a more precise indication of the voters’ outlook on their country and their personal futures.”
For example, Paolo theorized that when he looked at the Reagan/Bush era, a twelve-year Republican stronghold, he found it posed its own set of circumstances attributable to several factors. He reasoned it was worth looking at those factors, because they served as clear indicators and explained the changes in the political climate. Paolo believed all these dimensions fit comfortably in his theory.
“By way of illustration,” he stated, “the Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, had only served one term because the majority of Americans, having originally given their support as a reaction to the Nixon administration and the Watergate scandal, had switched parties.” To bring home his point, Paolo asserted, “The Carter administration engendered a desire by the American people for a stronger, more effusive president who could handle not only the economic woes but also national security fears.”
At that moment, Hank raised an objection to Paolo’s last statement, insisting, “Carter accomplished a lot in his term, especially in the area of human rights. It was the international stagflation that ultimately brought him down, through no fault of his own.”
Brotherhood Beyond the Yard (The Simon Trilogy) Page 5
