Making Sense of Strategies that Do Not Make Sense

Key Takeaways 

• Examine your assumptions and be careful about where you get information.
• Leaders should respond to evidence.
• Strategies that ignore the available data are probably bad strategies.

Being a leader does not magically free a person from cognitive bias. Unfortunately, leaders may lean on their own experiences at the expense when making decisions. It is critical that leaders rely on evidence and make decisions based on research in order to avoid the pitfalls associated with information bubbles and partisan bias.

For example, in his recent memoir, former Ohio congressman and Speaker of the House John Boehner laments the rise of extremism, particularly within the Republican Party. He recalls his inability to reign in the “knuckleheads” in his own caucus and the growing power of conservative media. In an excerpt released ahead of publication, he tells the story of a confrontation with Michelle Bachmann (MN-6) over committee assignments:

Her response to me was calm and matter-of-fact. “Well, then I’ll just have to go talk to Sean Hannity and everybody at Fox,” she said, “and Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and everybody else on the radio, and tell them that this is how John Boehner is treating the people who made it possible for the Republicans to take back the House.”

I wasn’t the one with the power, she was saying. I just thought I was. She had the power now.

She was right, of course.[1]

But what power did Rep. Bachmann have? Mr. Boehner’s logic would seem odd to researchers who study media effects. Most of the research on media’s influence on public opinion finds that there are sharp limits on the power of media to shape public opinion. The relationship between media and public opinion involves a wide variety of environmental and individual-level factors.

Even partisan media effects are limited. Hmielowski, et. al. (2020) found that use of partisan media can polarize public opinion, but they also found that partisan media use is quite low. Most people do not get their news from “Sean Hannity and everyone at Fox,” but instead get it from local or network news.

But Mr. Boehner’s logic would make sense to anyone familiar with the conventional wisdom of American politics. While research finds that information bubbles can lead to misperceptions in the mass public, political leaders can be vulnerable to this same phenomenon. A growing body of research shows that elected officials often badly misjudge what voters want. Republicans tend to miss by more, but Democrats also tend to overestimate voters’ appetite for conservative policies.

There is still some question about the causes of these misperceptions, but Hertel-Fernandez, et al (2019) found that they are often linked to reliance on partisan information. Political leaders can get trapped in a feedback loop that creates a false perception of what the electorate wants and the dynamics of public opinion. If everyone you know thinks Fox News matters a great deal, then you might start to overestimate the impact of Fox News.

Indeed, this need to please a hypothetical cable news viewer seems to be driving Republicans’ strategy. In the past two weeks Republican leaders have strengthened their ties to Donald Trump and his lies about the 2020 election and started to purge anti-Trump officials in their party.

House Republicans are poised to oust Trump critic Liz Cheney (R-WY At Large) from her leadership post. And last Friday the Ohio GOP voted to censure Representative Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH16) and called on him to resign over his vote to impeach the former president. Rep. Gonzalez is already facing a primary challenger, Max Miller, who has been endorsed by Trump.

Republican leaders seem to have decided that they need Trump. As Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) told the Washington Post, “If you look at a political analysis, there’s no way this party is going to stay together without President Trump and his supporters. There is no construct where the party can be successful without him.”

Ballard, et. al. (2020) analyzed the 2018 election and found exactly the opposite. They studied Congressional candidates and found that House candidates endorsed by Trump in 2018 did about 2.3% worse than other candidates. They showed that his endorsement increased turnout, increased the opponent’s ability to fundraise, and spurred a backlash that may have cost the GOP control of the House. It is likely that this pattern could repeat in 2022 as GOP polling shows that Trump is a drag in the competitive districts that the party would need to gain a majority.

Even if your concern is limited to Republican primary voters, there is reason to be skeptical of Trump’s status. A recent Pew survey shows Republicans have fonder views of his presidency than most. However, only 37% of Republicans say he was a “great” president, with another 36% calling him “good” and the remaining Republicans rating him average or below. Perhaps it is a question of perspective, but those numbers do not seem to reflect a politician with a stranglehold on the party.  At the moment, Republican leaders seem headed on a path to electoral disaster because they have vastly overestimated their need for Trump’s support.

On the bright side, they’ll have plenty of time to work on their memoirs.