Not only are there countless political, economic, and social issues running through the framework of this country right now, but there are countless views on these issues, each one fighting for its time in the spotlight as the one that “prevails.” While voters each have their own sets of issues they’d like addressed by potential candidates for office, it’s the job of the candidates to choose which ones they emphasize in their platforms. The candidates choose which issues they portray as the most important ones in the race, engaging in heresthetics, thus manipulating the focus of the public debates. The issues they choose are the ones that help connect them to the largest base of their voters, and then more. Despite the obstacles that lessen the effects of engaging in heresthetics, the manipulation can swing the outcome of the election, if the candidates manipulate the public’s view of relevant issues correctly. This can be done when a candidate makes personal connections to issues and when a candidate doesn’t emphasize reforms that the voter base is unlikely to stand behind.
A large obstacle that arises when considering the effectiveness of engaging in heresthetics is the fact that candidates do not have total and complete power over the subjects discussed in the public debate. Candidates cannot determine the entire set of issues that comes to the table during debates, forcing them to be able to react to new issues that arise. In her academic paper, “The use of heresthetics on the electoral contexts: do parties change the dimensionality of their offer for strategic reasons?,” Berta Barbet Porta argues that candidates are able to shape the issues talked about in an election, thus affecting the outcomes. According to Porta, the more talked about an issue is, the more significant it will become (Porta). By spending more time speaking on behalf of a certain issue, voters tend view it as a monumental step towards change, even if the candidate’s stance on the issue had remained the same. By putting a lot of emphasis on one issue it can appear to take over the spotlight of the whole race (Porta). When this happens, candidates can expect a lot of public debate time to be focused on this one issue. While this doesn’t eliminate the possibility of new issues arising mid-campaign, it lessens the chances, keeping the candidate’s strategy on track.
Another large obstacle that candidates face when engaging in heresthetics is whether or not the manipulation of the political playing field can produce a larger influence than that of predisposed party alliances that voters have. In his book “Prius or Pickup,” Professor Marc Hetherington analyzes the fixed and fluid world views of Republicans and Democrats (Hetherington). He argued that a large part of who someone votes for is their view of the world, whether that be one that is more reserved about social and cultural change or one that looks to challenge social and culture norms (Hetherington). In a part of the introduction, Hetherington writes that in the 2016 presidential election, national security was made a larger issue than ever before (Hetherington). Trump portrayed this issue as one of the most important one, insisting that the American people were facing outside dangers if we continued to freely welcome refugees and immigrants from certain countries. Hetherington points out that the election polls showed that not only did “fixed” Republicans, ones who historically voted Republican and agreed with proposals of limiting immigration, vote for Trump, but many “fluid” voters did as well (Hetherington). Despite the latter group being historically concerned with social and cultural change, Trump, the unlikely candidate, successfully manipulated the political playing field enough so that he convinced fluid voters that national security issues were the most important in the election.
Naturally, there are situations when the use of heresthetics is likely to be highly effective, but other situations when time spent on engaging in heresthetics is time wasted. Porta writes that candidates who expect to lose are more likely to succeed in using heresthetics and trying to bring new issues to the table (Porta). By highlighting new issues, voters without an established party alliance are more likely to get behind the candidate if the new issues are particularly relevant to the voter. Bringing up new issues could show the voters that the candidate is concerned about bringing about change in a district that has been represented by an incumbent who has failed to produce change. On the other hand, she addresses the fact that candidates who expect to win are more likely to succeed by continuing to talk about already pertinent issues (Porta). If a majority of the base in the district already connects with the current line-up of issues, it would benefit the candidate to keep those issues on the table. Additionally, she argues that smaller parties are less likely to succeed by using heresthetics (Porta). Smaller parties tend to have more partisan views, leading to smaller bases. Their opinions on issues are likely to be more extreme and by bringing in new issues they’re more likely to divide themselves further from the rest of the population.
In order to manipulate the political playing field, candidates have to choose which issues to bring to the table in order to appeal to the largest number of voters, their expected base as well as swing voters. Historically, New York City is a very liberal district, dominated by previous Democratic incumbent Joseph Crowley. In order to engage in heresthetics, the Republican candidate for the House race in the 14th district of New York, Anthony Pappas, is forced to bring strong and lasting ideas and platforms to the forefront to become a viable candidate in the race. Like Porta explained, less popular candidates are more likely to succeed by engaging in heresthetics. While Pappas’ opponent, socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is focusing on long-standing issues in New York like women’s and immigrant rights, Pappas is choosing to focus on issues that tend to be pushed to the side, like judicial reform. Pappas, an older white man, is not able to identify with a large base of voters in his district that is 49% female and 46.9% Hispanic, like his opponent can (Ballotpedia). On the other hand, he claims to be a victim of judicial injustice, so he is using his personal connection with the issue in order to gain popularity and recognition in the race (National Herald). Not only does Pappas have a personal connection to this issue, but it’s become increasingly relevant in recent weeks, during and after the Brett Kavanaugh trials, working in his favor. By focusing a lot of his time on how he plans to reform the judicial system in order to hold judges accountable for their actions, Pappas is attempting to turn the public eye away from other issues he cannot necessarily identify with, like immigration. His affiliation with the Republican party is likely to assist him in his efforts to engage in heresthetics. Republican voters who support Kavanaugh’s confirmation are likely to want judicial reform, so he is able to draw from this support in order to back his main platform, judicial reform. In addition to his base of Republican voters, moderate Democratic voters who may have personal connections to unfair treatment in a court of law and unfair sentencing could decide to side with Pappas in order to bring greater reform to the American judicial system. By bringing in an issue that has not been popular in previous elections in this district that has a personal connection to both the candidate and the Republican party, Pappas is likely to succeed in gaining more popularity, as he is the unlikely winner.
Despite Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning the Democratic nomination, she is running as a Socialist. Porta recommends that candidates who are more likely to win an election refrain from introducing new issues into the campaign. While Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t introduce new issues, she runs on platforms that have more extreme reforms than classic Democratic platforms. A common worldview that many Democrats share is that of open borders (On the Issues). Instead of just advocating for open borders, like many Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez is running on a platform to completely abolish the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She is the daughter of an immigrant, so her personal connection allows her to connect to voters who have the same views as her. Since her views are so extreme, however, her use of heresthetics can end up hindering her efforts. In addition to this, her affiliation with not only the Democratic party, but also the Socialist party can also hinder her efforts in engaging in heresthetics. In introducing reforms in the name of socialism, Ocasio-Cortez is likely to lose the support of her more moderate Democratic voters. Like Porta said, heresthetics tend to be less effective when a candidate is very popular in a district. Candidates expected to win are more likely to hold their popularity by running on platforms that a majority of people can get behind, platforms that aren’t likely to alienate the more moderate voters. By engaging in heresthetics as a socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is likely to lose voters because of the extremism in her reform suggestions.
In contrast, it can be argued that heresthetics do not have as much influence as expected. In a district that has been historically heavily Democratic or Republican, a certain number of voters can be swayed depending on the issues brought about by the candidates, but many times that number is nowhere near the necessary percentage to bring a Democratic district to a Republican one, or vice versa. The Cook Partisan Voter Index shows that New York’s 14th District is twenty nine percent more Democratic than the national average (Ballotpedia). Because of this, engaging in heresthetics introduces the ability for this district to become more Republican, but it would be unlikely for the district to swing into a Republican district.
Engaging in heresthetics can be a successful tactic in elections if done correctly. Candidates cannot control the entire set of issues in a debate and many times districts are too polarized or set in their ways for remarkable change. By introducing new and relevant issues, making personal connections to the issues and the voter base, and avoiding emphasis on reforms to issues that the voters cannot stand behind, candidates are likely to succeed in the use of heresthetics. While being the dominant party in a race is often a huge advantage in the campaign, the dominant party engaging in heresthetics can hinder the chances of election. Despite the obstacles that can get in the way of successfully using heresthetics, it can be successfully done, as shown by Trump’s unlikely victory in the 2016 election.