Measuring the boundaries of America's permanent campaign

• Date: 01 November 2017
• Author: Kara Alaimo
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1682
• Published date: 01 November 2017

ACADEMIC PAPER

Measuring the boundaries of America's permanent campaign

Kara Alaimo

Department of Journalism, Media Studies, and

Public Relations, Hofstra University,

Hempstead, New York, USA

Correspondence

Kara Alaimo, Department of Journalism, Media

Studies, and Public Relations, Hofstra

University, Herbert Hall Room 322,

Hempstead, NY 11549, USA.

Email: kara.s.alaimo@hofstra.edu

This research measures the boundaries of the “permanent campaign”practiced by spokespeople

for the United States government.

Scholars have accused modern White House communications staff of conducting a permanent

campaign by prioritizing presidential public opinion ratings over good governance. However,

researchers have not previously measured whether this campaign is conducted exclusively from

the White House, or if government agencies are also involved—dramatically increasing the poten-

tial scale and scope of the campaign.

The researcher conducted a rare set of interviews with public affairs officers who worked for the

Treasury Department during the administrations of Presidents Obama and George W. Bush to

find out whether they utilize public opinion ratings in their work and whether they attempt to

play to the emotions, rather than the reason, of the American people.

This study finds that the Treasury is not conducting a permanent campaign.

The results demonstrate that the campaign is not practiced in a cabinet agency critical to presi-

dential political fortunes and reelection prospects, suggesting that it is likely confined to the

White House.

1|INTRODUCTION

Scholars and critics have accused modern White House aides of

conducting a “permanent campaign”by prioritizing the president's

public opinion ratings over good governance. In the service of this

campaign, presidential staff have been charged with governing

based upon public opinion polls (Heclo, 2000) and playing to the

emotions, as opposed to the reason, of the American people

(Blumenthal, 1982).

However, scholars have not previously measured how deeply

this campaign penetrates. Is it conducted exclusively from the

White House? Or are government agencies also involved—dramati-

cally increasing the potential scale and scope of the campaign? This

study, for the first time, begins to answer this question. Using rare,

detailed interviews with public affairs officers for the Treasury

Department who served under Presidents Barack Obama and

George W. Bush, this study finds that a permanent campaign is

not being practiced in the Treasury. If an administration were to

extend the permanent campaign beyond the White House into

any government agency, it is especially probable that it would be

found in the Treasury Department, because presidential approval

ratings and reelection prospects are heavily dependent upon voters'

perceptions of the economy (Wood, 2007). The findings therefore

suggest that the permanent campaign has not spread beyond the

White House.

2|LITERATURE REVIEW: THE PERMANENT

CAMPAIGN

In 1982, Blumenthal famously argued that America's political leaders

now conduct a permanent campaign. According to Blumenthal, “under

the permanent campaign governing is turned into a perpetual cam-

paign. Moreover, it remakes government into an instrument designed

to sustain an elected official's public popularity. It is the engineering

of consent with a vengeance”(p. 23). A key feature of this campaign

is messages designed to appeal to the emotions, as opposed to the rea-

son, of American citizens (Blumenthal, 1982, pp. 141, 242–247).

Another key feature of the permanent campaign is the constant

courting of public opinion, which America's founders intended to pre-

vent (Heclo, 2000; Tulis, 1987). InThe Federalist no. 1, Alexander Ham-

ilton warned of the possibility that politicians would pay “obsequious

court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants”

(Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1987, p. 89). Americans at the time of the

nation's founding believed that previous republics failed because poli-

ticians told the people what they wanted to hear (Heclo, 2000, p. 5).

The U.S. Constitution was therefore designed to keep the people

at arm's length from daily governing and instead allow them to weigh

in during periodic elections, in order to promote “deliberative respon-

siveness”in political leaders (Heclo, 2000, p. 31). Contrary to the inten-

tions of the Founders, Heclo has argued that America is today

governed by an “Anti‐Constitution [which] prescribes instant

Received: 14 August 2017 Accepted: 7 September 2017

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1682

J Public Affairs. 2017;17:e1682.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1682

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of6