By Sheeva Azma
2024 is an election year, so I’m excited to blog more about political communication! This article is focused on ways campaign communicators (or people engaged in communicating on behalf of a political official) can improve the social fabric without the help of generative AI. Check out our previous political communications posts here, or hire us to help you communicate in your next political campaign!
Buckle in; this is a long post with tons of examples and actionable advice you, as a political communicator, can use in your next political campaign!
What does it take to be a campaign communicator in the era of generative AI?
Have you ever thought about what it takes to be a better political communicator, especially in the era of Big Tech products such as social media and generative AI (including ChatGPT)? Politicians get criticized for fueling divisiveness by posting on social media and catering to their own echo chambers, and generative AI (also called genAI) makes that so much easier. I asked a genAI tool if it could come up with a good example of political communication, and it referenced a speech by Barack Obama…not exactly nonpartisan!
The difficult piece of all of this? Tech companies’ goal with creating generative AI technologies like ChatGPT is to make it easier to communicate and connect with people, but from a legislative and regulatory standpoint, it feels like the same technology is a tool to drive us apart and unravel the collective social fabric. Consider, for example, the rise of deepfake robocalls in the New Hampshire primary, prompting the Federal Communications Commission to take steps to ban them, or the use of genAI to create political ads, which the Brookings Institution says may “amplify bias” and have a larger impact on “smaller, down-ballot” races.
Maybe it feels like it’s so easy to communicate these days in the era of ChatGPT and other generative AI (genAI) technologies, especially if you work in politics and specifically, in the legislative branch. Just feed a news story into a genAI tool, ask it to come up with some talking points specifying X, Y, and Z issues, and boom – you’re done. However, it’s not that simple – or is it? According to the Tech Policy Press, a huge risk of genAI is this ability to influence political advertising through “political microtargeting.”
Politicians and Big Tech seem to be battling it out in Congress every day, with lawmakers asking Big Tech what they are doing with all of those sophisticated algorithms, and if Big Tech is mindful of all the social ramifications. It’s uncharted territory for lawmakers and tech companies alike, but things are changing quickly. ChatGPT-like genAI technologies are slowly being adapted for use in the legislative sphere. Lobbymatic.ai, AI software for lobbyists, can help lobbyists read through and summarize long bills, figure out where stakeholders stand on an issue, summarize hours of C-SPAN hearings, and even draft comment letters to be sent to the government on various issues. By now, we know that genAI is prone to being wrong sometimes, even “hallucinating” data, so what could possibly go wrong? As the legislative branch grapples with AI as an emerging technology, I’m here on the sidelines telling people that maybe humans can do that same task of communicating with and for humans…themselves.
The good news amidst all the genAI hype is that more than ever, constituents are seeking fearless leadership which can unite, rather than divide; that’s something genAI is less good at.
GenAI feeds into the idea that we create content just because we can, without asking why we are talking or what our goals are
In the era of genAI, we create content just for the sake of having content out there. Politicians and politician-adjacent people (not just lobbyists but also staffers, advocacy professionals, etc.) have always been faced with the need to communicate about a variety of topics, whether they’re making speeches, sounding off about the latest crisis affecting their constituents, or something else. Saying something just for something to be said has always been an issue in politics.
Does making a statement just to have said something improve the legislative system?
I’ve asked genAI to help me come up with blog posts about political communication, met with limited success, but I didn’t get the idea for this blog from generative AI. The idea for this blog came from my own interactions in the political sphere, including as a grassroots campaign volunteer that helped win two US Senate elections in the 2022 midterms through phonebanking and messaging strategy.
I’m here to tell you that, as a communicator working in the political world, you should think before you speak. Easier said than done, but I’ve seen political comms go awry way too many times.
People internalize the political messaging of the leaders they admire
Leaders are, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, role models for society. Their job isn’t just to make the tough decisions but be an example of civic leadership. We need leaders who can move forward and be a good example for people while inspiring them to be their best selves.
That does not change over time, regardless of how advanced technology gets. Bold, courageous leadership with a vision that improves the country is something appealing to most people. We elect our leaders because we relate to them and we support their platform and share their values.
Let’s take a political lesson from someone you may love or hate…Donald Trump. Regardless of what one can say about him, he has a very dedicated following, and they appreciate his bold, courageous leadership.
He’s been criticized for inciting the events that happened on Capitol Hill on January 6 through the speech he gave earlier that day near the White House. I hadn’t ever listened to his speech before, but for this blog, I decided to check it out. You can read the full text of his speech, and watch it, on National Public Radio‘s website.
Interestingly, he never calls directly for people to attack the Capitol. He vows to his supporters that he will never let their voices be silenced, but he does not use overtly violent language. He complains a lot about the state of the world, and at one point, he says, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” No violence mentioned!
The main crux of his speech was that the election was stolen and that he and his supporters would take back the nation and fix a broken system. This was a message that resonated with the people at the rally, and so later that day, they stormed the Capitol Hill complex in an attempt to restore Trump as president. What happened next divided the nation into Trump supporters and Trump haters, leading to a lengthy series of investigations of what really happened, which we’re still figuring out.
Maybe it’s no surprise what happened, though, given that anger fuels activity on social media, according to a study cited on National Public Radio. As the election results rolled out, Trump supporters, with a shared love of their candidate, unified on social media.
Whether you agree or disagree with Trump, one thing is clear: people listen to their leaders and internalize the messages they get from them. Trump’s anger and frustration at losing the election led to the internalization of his feelings by his supporters, who went as far as trying to act on his behalf.
To say that political messages are becoming increasingly divisive, whether directly or indirectly, is an understatement. I find it tiring to hear about people that “hate Republicans” or “hate Democrats” when we all live in the same world.
Don’t be part of the problem; be part of the solution.
You can elect a candidate based on hate of the other side, but it only goes so far
Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race based on a vehemently anti-Trump campaign that his own supporters loved. Even though I am Democrat, I found it very offputting, and it seemed to divide our nation a lot. Granted, our nation was already divided on many issues, but still.
Drinking the Trump haterade helped elect Joe Biden, but it didn’t do too much for helping restore our feelings of living together in a nation peacefully with people who have different political opinions with us.
Two years into his presidential term, on September 1, 2022, Biden gave a speech in Philadelphia as part of his effort to elect Democrats up and down the ballot (that’s political campaign speak for all levels of government – including federal, state, and local) in the November 2022 midterm elections. This is the first time I had heard of Biden using the phrase “MAGA Republicans” to essentially describe “blind loyalists to a single leader” – in other words, Trump.
He talked about the events on January 6 and the need to defend our democracy. Then, he said, “That’s why tonight I’m asking our nation to come together, unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy regardless of your ideology.”
Two sentences later, he contradicted himself by calling out one specific ideology – that of the hardcore Trump supporter or “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republican.
“Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to — to destroying American democracy.”
What did Biden do? He threw some more haterade into the mix, this time calling out Republicans who support Trump and obviously, would never vote for him. So, his solution was just to create a new category of Republicans.
While all this was happening, the Democratic National Committee was also dumping money into MAGA Republicans’ campaigns, since they had no chance of winning, and boosting them.
Does that really make sense?
When you have to resort to unethical means, such as riling up your supporters on the Capitol Hill grounds or funneling money into the hands of people you are actively campaigning against, maybe you should reconsider and wonder what you are actually doing in society. There’s more to life than winning a political race if it causes the social fabric of the nation to break down.
Here we are, in the 2024 presidential cycle, with two candidates who have gamed the system in different ways. Many people are not looking forward to this matchup, and I don’t blame them. It has been a difficult four years for many.
The point of this article is to point out the ways that political messages that are focused on winning campaigns that don’t have a greater social purpose are bad for society. Here are three ways you can move beyond that.
Crafting unifying political messages in a divided era
Regardless of where you fit on the political spectrum, you can take steps to build bridges rather than to burn them. Remember: bipartisanship gets things done.
Here are three suggestions I have from helping work on political campaigns for over 20 years, working on Democrat, Independent, and Republican campaigns.
Tip #1: Run your campaign or messaging on positive vibes
The other day, I was checking out a Twitter account from someone who works at the Democratic National Committee, and she described herself as a “hater” of some political candidate on the other side. My first suggestion for boosting civic engagement through campaign communications is to delete mentions of hating the other side on your social media profile. If you can criticize them substantively, do that. “Hate” is a strong word and when candidates talk about hating the other side, it not only looks bad but creates rifts in society.
I worked on two winning US Senate campaigns in the 2022 midterms, both Democrats: Sen. Mark Kelly and Sen. John Fetterman. Sen. Mark Kelly ran his campaign as an incumbent talking about the ways he would lower costs and create jobs for Arizonans. Candidate Fetterman ran his campaign on the humorous idea that he was more Pennsylvanian than his opponent, Dr. Oz. There was no name-calling, just focusing on the issues, and highlighting bipartisan solutions is what worked in those two “purple” states.
Tip #2: Amplify the candidate’s values that contribute to the social good
When creating campaign communications, remember that your constituents are looking for a leader that will represent them. You can make fun of the other side all you want, but when the winning candidate – hopefully, yours – gets to their first day of work, they will need to make decisions for the people they serve. You want to tell the people who will be voting that your candidate has their interests in mind.
If you do end up criticizing the other candidate, make sure to do so substantively. Tell your audience why you are the better choice without engaging in a smear campaign.
Remember that at the end of the day, your candidate will be elected due to their courageous leadership vision. So, try to make that apparent. Bold, courageous leadership that is based on a bipartisan vision is good for society because it is unifying.
That’s not to say that you should concede on values just to get along; but that you can only get so far hating the other side.
Tip #3: Think outside of likes and tweets
Think outside of social media. The algorithms change, anyway, and you don’t want to create communications just for the algorithms, anyway, because it’s the people using the algos that you want to convince.
Ask yourself: what do people genuinely want and how can you convince them that your candidate makes that possible through your communications?
Help the constituents understand the candidate as a person. This means behind-the-scenes, struggles or challenges they’ve faced, and what they’ve learned from it that will help them tackle the most pressing issues.
Remember that leadership requires bold, creative thinking. Don’t just do what’s worked because it always has. People love a political candidate that seizes the moment and gives them a vision for the future that they can agree with. That has always worked and will always continue to work because it relates back to humans’ foundational needs from a political leader.
The bottom line
Political engagement is a lifelong process for lawmakers and the people they serve. The most important thing to keep in mind is, despite all of the ways technology is advancing, campaign and other political communications are first and foremost for humans, so they should be crafted with a human-first approach. A secondary aspect of political engagement relates to the broader issue of civic engagement, which deals with questions like: how can we use political engagement to improve society? Amidst the hype of social media algorithms and new technologies that come and go, unifying communication based on shared values is evergreen and will continue to persist for generations to come.
Hire Fancy Comma to create political campaign communications
Did you know you can hire Fancy Comma for political communications, especially those focused on complex policy issues involving science and technology? Fancy Comma’s Sheeva Azma has worked on Democratic, Independent, and Republican campaigns, and is good at talking about and explaining complex issues. She approaches political communications first and foremost from a place of fostering bipartisanship and civic unity. Get in touch if we can help you!
Fancy Comma, LLC 