The nature of the professionalized campaign Preliminary reflections

By Andrew Bradley,2014-06-17 16:19
9 views 0
The nature of the professionalized campaign Preliminary reflections ...

The nature of the professionalized campaign: Preliminary reflections

    Jenny Smith

    Incomplete; version of 1 April 2002


    Scholars interested in contemporary political campaigns are generally agreed that, across at least

    the advanced industrial democracies, the modern election campaign process differs dramatically

    from the way campaigns were conducted only a few decades ago. Although the emergence of

    the “modern” or “New Style” election campaign was first described in the United States,

    comparative research on campaigns has detected similar transformations in an ever-growing

    number of countries, and the set of countries whose campaigns are said to have “modernized”

    expands with each election cycle.1 Despite widespread agreement about the existence and importance of this phenomenon, however, its nature and causes have never been assessed in a

    systematic, comparative way. This is the general task undertaken by my dissertation, which will

    explore the emergence and development of “modern electioneering” via a cross-national and

    over-time comparison of national election campaigns in the United States, Great Britain and


One of the most challenging conceptual problems facing this dissertation is the development of a

    working definition of the “modern campaign style” or the “modernization”

    (“professionalization,” “Americanization”) process. Most topics in comparative politics are

    (generally considered to be) sufficiently well bounded that scholars can quickly dispense with

    description and move on to explanation; here, however, this is not the case. For the sake of

    convenience, the activity of “campaigning” or “electioneering” will be restricted to its general

    election context, though not necessarily to the “official” campaign period (never much more than

    a month in Britain but longer in Germany and the US). The phenomenon of interest, then,

    broadly incorporates the election-related activities of candidates, parties, independent consultants,

    volunteer activists, and the news media and the responses of voters during this period. On

    the question of what distinguishes modern from (presumably) traditional forms of election campaigning, however, conceptual clarity is much harder to come by. However, if I am to

    explore what has caused campaign professionalization to occur, or what its implications for

    democratic politics may be, I must certainly be able to say what professionalization is. This

    question thus lies at the core of my project.

The problem of characterizing the nature of the professionalized campaign has seldom been

    approached with the sustained attention one might feel it deserves. Much of the writing in this

    area deals with objects of interest more circumscribed than the “campaign” as a whole, thus

     1 Those familiar with my previous expositions on this subject will recall that the issue of nomenclature has, at times,

    been discussed at some length. I have yet to settle the issue of which descriptor(s) for the “new campaign style” are

    best suited to this particular essay I am unsure, for example, whether I want to christen my own view with a

    particular label and I expect that highly inconsistent nomenclature will be found in the pages that follow. The

    variety of terms I have been known to use for the phenomenon of interest include the “modern campaign,” “modern

    electioneering,” the “professional” or “professionalized” campaign, and the “Americanized campaign” or the

    “Americanization of election campaigns.” “Americanization” is a term I have generally avoided but am thinking of

    restoring to greater prominence not as a strong descriptor of the causal nature of this phenomenon, but as a

    convenient weak descriptor of its first emergence that also fits well with popular perceptions.


(perhaps appropriately) sidestepping definitional complications; research on campaign

    advertising, the mass media in campaigns, political consultants, and campaign management

    generally takes this tack. However, a not inconsiderable body of work also seeks to address the

    modern campaign more generally, whether within a single country or in a comparative context.

    Under the rubric of “the modern campaign,” these authors have grouped together a whole

    assortment of changes (as well as some things that seem not to have changed), including many

    that should be clearly separated from it for analytical purposes particularly as some may be

    more usefully regarded as causes or consequences of the modernization process than as

    manifestations of the phenomenon itself.

The present essay takes aim at this chaos of definitions. It first attempts an analytic

    categorization of the principal characteristics that have thus far been identified as differentiating

    the professional from the pre-professional [or the modern from the traditional] campaign. It then

    proposes an alternative definition to these, which restricts “campaign professionalism” to its

    organizational and technical aspects and divides it I hope productively from phenomena

    whose precise connections with professionalism as such can then be more closely investigated.

    Finally, it applies the new definition to accounts of campaigning in Britain a country in which a

    transition to campaigns of the professional sort is generally agreed to have occurred in the

    postwar period. [The latter two sections are largely missing from the current draft, having been

    excised on grounds of insufficient comprehensibility.]

Two final points should be made by way of introduction. First, note that this essay is intended as

    an exercise in analytic description. It does not address the question of what has caused campaign

    professionalization, although this will be a central concern of the project as a whole. Second, the

    fact that it proposes a unified analytic description (or definition) should not be taken to imply

    that the modern campaign is a strictly homogeneous phenomenon. There has always been and

    will no doubt always be considerable cross-national diversity in the procedures by which

    politicians campaign for national office. Although I believe that the influence of campaign

    professionalization has generally been a homogenizing (or Americanizing) influence in politics,

    and although I believe that my definition of it is applicable to many political contexts (including

    the three quite diverse ones represented by my case studies), it should be understood clearly that

    different countries‟ experiences will approach the pure type of the definition in different ways

    and to different degrees.

The changing nature of political campaigns: Current perspectives

    None of this emphasis on the recent transformation in electioneering is to say that campaigns

    today have nothing in common with the campaigns of twenty, or fifty, or a hundred years ago.

    Election campaigns have (almost?) always been waged as a prelude to competitive elections in

    democratic countries; under one set of electoral rules or another, any democratic government

    must seek to have its mandate periodically renewed by the electorate, asking voters to prefer its

    claim to the opposition party or parties‟ offer of an alternative government. Long before the

    professionalization of campaigning began, traditions of “standing for office” in some countries

    (including the US and Britain) were displaced by the now familiar notion of “running for office”

     the active pursuit of electoral victory by the contending parties or candidates. Whether or not

    one regards competitive elections as a necessary (Dahl) or even sufficient (Schumpeter)


    condition for the existence of democracy per se, campaigns clearly play a vital role in the perpetuation and legitimation of democratic government. And, just as the functional role of

    campaigns has not changed over time, neither has their basic strategic premise: The goal is to

    win, and to maximize the probability of this outcome by allocating one‟s resources so as to

    2obtain a maximally favorable response from the voters. Achieving this goal, now as ever,

    requires different concrete approaches in the diverse situations that may confront a campaign.

    But many of the basic tasks are familiar. For example, all campaigns require information about

    the attitudes and preferences of the electorate. Such information might be gathered by

    canvassing local party chapters about their members‟ views and concerns, or by positioning

    patronage job-holders on Manhattan street corners to inquire about citizens‟ voting intentions

    (Riordan 1948), or by conducting an opinion poll and interpreting the results based on the laws

    of statistical sampling. The method of the opinion poll, however, is qualitatively different from

    the other approaches mentioned. For one thing, conducting a reliable poll requires expertise of a

    particular kind, expertise possessed by the pollster but perhaps not by other campaign workers.

    For another, the poll (if properly conducted) offers the campaign something the other approaches

    do not: a canvass of the electorate that is [claims to be] scientifically valid, and that claims an

    authority and finality not open to challenge from intuitions based on long experience in a party or

    constituency. It is these types of differences that inquirers into the nature of modern

    campaigning have sought to capture.

    Whatever it may be that has changed about campaigns in recent years, it is clear that these

    changes have taken place without substantial alterations in the legal framework within which

    campaigns are conducted. Although changes in the array of laws affecting campaigns as for

    example the new legislation on campaign finance enacted in Germany in the 1960s and in the

    United States in the 1970s may well accompany and facilitate the transformation, significant

    changes in the legal context of elections are the exception rather than the rule in stable

    democracies and have by no means always occurred together with the emergence of modern

    campaign practices. (This point is emphasized in the case of Britain by Butler 1995. Note that,

    for present purposes, the “law” includes also interpretations of legal requirements, such as the

    BBC‟s 1959 reinterpretation of its neutrality mandate to permit radio and TV news coverage of

    election campaigns)

    When it comes to characterizing the transformation itself, however, explicit definitions are few

    and far between. One widespread tendency is to list a group of loosely connected developments

    (all of which may be relevant in different ways) without further explication. The author may

    then implicitly accept this as sufficient clarification of the phenomenon of interest, or announce

    an explicit intention to focus on only one or a few of the developments cited. Butler and Ranney

    (1992:5-7), for example, provide a list of items characterizing pre-“modern” electioneering as

    various as the centrality of political parties; the importance of “instinct” and local, grounded

    knowledge in predicting election returns; strong party identification among voters; tactics

    including door-to-door canvassing, literature circulation, public meetings and posters; and

    campaign strategies dictated by “folk wisdom” (7) shared by party leaders and canvass

    volunteers alike. In a similarly diverse vein, Mancini and Swanson (1996:2) find that

     2 Of course, what is meant by “winning” will vary given different sets of electoral rules, and even given the

    particular expectations of a party or candidate entering a given campaign. Some parties and candidates are not

    interested in winning in any sense, but I leave them aside here.


“[i]ncreasingly … common practices” as campaigns modernize include “political commercials,

    candidates selected in part for the appealing image they project on television, technical experts

    advising candidates on strategies and voters‟ sentiments, media professionals hired to produce

    compelling campaign materials, mounting campaign expenses, and mass media moving to center

    3stage in campaigns.” The connections between these different items whether some bring

    others about, for example are left unexplored.

While few students of the “new style” campaign define this phenomenon outright (the specialists

    in “political marketing” are perhaps the one exception), a group of widely endorsed, largely

    implicit statements about its nature can be extracted from the academic literature on modern

    campaigning. The primary emphases I have identified are described in the paragraphs below.

    While they are by no means mutually exclusive, authors tend to emphasize one or a small

    number to the exclusion of others. [What I ultimately want to say about each view is in brackets.

    I‟m not sure whether these might be listed in some useful order; at the moment, the sequence is

    basically random.]

The modern campaign relies on marketing expertise. [Not necessarily.]

    Some scholars of contemporary election campaigns focus on the extent to which their research

    and promotional activities, and their decision-making processes more generally, resemble the

    activities carried out by private firms in the course of marketing their products. Bowler and

    Farrell (1992), for example, emphasize the importance of marketing approaches and

    professionals trained in commercial marketing for contemporary political campaigns. Some

    scholars, such as Mauser (1983) and Lees-Marshment (2001), go farther, asserting that the

    modern campaign is, in its essence, fundamentally an exercise in marketing. Lees-Marshment

    (2001), for example, draws a direct parallel between politics and commerce in distinguishing

    between market-oriented, sales-oriented, and product-oriented parties. The oldest type, the

    product-oriented party, attempts to communicate its message to voters but does not perform

    market research, simply assuming that voters will be willing to „buy‟ what it has on offer. The sales-oriented party, a sort of middle position, pursues market intelligence and designs

    communication approaches to „pitch‟ its product to voters, but the product itself remains

    invariant. The market-oriented party “uses market intelligence to identify voter demands, then

    designs its product to suit them” (2001:30) – rendering it, according to Lees-Marshment, a complete analogue of the modern commercial firm.

The modern campaign involves innovations in organization and decision-making processes.

    [Too undeveloped. This is substantially the line I want to take; however, existing moves in

    this direction have tended to underspecify just what organizational changes matter and


    Bowler and Farrell (1992) place considerable emphasis on the “organization and control” of

    campaigns (together with “preparation and planning” and “campaign themes and images”).

    They note first that understaffed and underfinanced parties will be unable to wage successful

    nationwide campaigns hardly a new development in party competition. They go on to say,

     3 Mancini and Swanson later describe the “elements of modern campaigning” (1996:6) in more general (and less

    useful) terms as incorporating the personalization of politics, “scientificization” of politics (Habermas), increasing

    detachment of parties from citizens, the development of autonomous communications media, and a shift on the part

    of the electorate from “citizenship” to “spectatorship.”


however, that the complexity of parties‟ organizational structures “has changed in response to the

    need to mount more complex campaigns” (1992:14). Generally speaking, larger parties that mount professionalized campaigns can be expected to have “a coherent organizational division

    into such units as press and communications, research, strategy and campaign, and possibly also

    marketing.” Tasks will be carried out by full-time staff members, the occasional external

    specialist, and perhaps volunteers. A particularly important organizational question concerns

    who is in charge of making basic decisions about the campaign, both during the design phase and

    as the campaign proceeds. In this regard, Bowler and Farrell suggest that the United States is an

    exception: by and large, party leaders remain firmly in charge of essential campaign strategy.

    The modern campaign is obsessed with “image.” [This, I would say, mistakes a characteristic tool or approach for a necessary/defining feature. The “candidate-centered

    campaign” (Foster and Muste 1992) may well be a consequence of the „new style.‟]

    This characterization may take different forms. Most often, emphasis is laid on the

    “personalization” or “presidentialization” of political campaigns – particularly those in parliamentary systems where a focus on party rather than individual candidates has been the rule.

    Farrell and Webb (2000) are among many who argue that an increasing prominence of the party

    leader in campaign communications is characteristic of the modern campaign. Similarly,

    Mancini and Swanson (1996:14) place “the personalization of politics” (and concomitant

    weakening of its party character) first on their list of characteristics of “modernized”

    campaigning. However, an emphasis on the promotion of “image” may also be combined with

    attention to the strategic or planning side of a professionalized campaign. In discussing the

    importance of “campaign themes and images,” Bowler and Farrell (1992:15) argue that the

    modern campaign must be grounded in a coherent melding of party image, leader image, and

    policy proposals. A campaign will succeed in today‟s electoral context to the extent that it

    consciously embraces and consistently promotes such a unified message.

The modern campaign is practiced by a new breed of campaign technician. [True, but


    The unique nature of the modern campaign may also be located in its “professional” character

    by which is generally meant the “professional” approach of the technicians and tacticians who

    provide direction or advice. The practitioners (Luntz 1988), journalists (Blumenthal 1982?), and

    handful of academics (Sabato 1981, Thurber and Nelson 2000) who have taken up the subject of

    political consultancy in writing are generally agreed implicitly or explicitly that the involvement of a new type of actor is the central transformation involved in the emergence of the

    modern political campaign. These new actors first advertising and public-relations

    professionals with an interest in campaigning (Kelley 1956), then “professional campaign

    managers” (Rosenbloom 1973), and finally the “political consultants” of the 1980s and 1990s –

    first became prominent in the United States, a development easily enough attributed to the

    institutional peculiarities of US politics (organizationally weak parties, frequent and predictable

    election cycles, little or no restriction on campaign spending or fund-raising, and so forth).

    Political consultancy as an activity engaged in by private, for-profit firms has been less

    prominent in other countries, in large part “because the parties have managed to bring

    professionals into the machinery as members, as volunteer-advisors, even as full-time

    employees” (Bowler and Farrell 1992:12). Bowler and Farrell caution, however, that “the

    American case is not as unique as it may appear,” both because US consultants and consulting


firms generally have strong party loyalties (for reasons of professional advantage as well as

    personal preference), and because “there are prominent examples [in other countries] of the

    employment of outside agencies to provide expert advice in specialist areas” including

    advertising, polling, and general strategy.”

Students of campaign management and political consultancy differ among themselves as to

    which are the most salient characteristics of the new campaign technicians. To Sabato (1981),

    professional political consultants are most notable for their technical expertise, their increasing

    specialization into different subspecies of practitioner, their full-time engagement in the business

    of campaigning and their lack of firm ties to any particular candidate, region, or (sometimes)

    party. To Johnson (2001), their detachment, permanence, and lack of any motivation beyond

    winning are particularly important. Blumenthal (1982) presents them as master manipulators of

    media images, and also as “aggressive[ly] strategic” thinkers who use new political technologies

     polling, computerized direct mail to implement their strategic goals (1982:22). To Rosenbloom (1973), technical sophistication and profit motive most set the new campaign

    professionals apart from their predecessors.

The modern campaign employs new technologies to accomplish its ends. [True enough, but

    there is seldom a clean distinction between technological change as a characteristic and as a

    cause of new-style campaigns.] The technological innovation most often identified as fundamentally differentiating the modern

    campaign from its predecessors is television treated separately in the following section. There

    is at least one other technological development that has been equally important to the modern

    campaign, however: computing. Affordable and ever-more-powerful computer systems have

    made possible electioneering techniques including opinion polling via random-digit dialing;

    rapid, flexible analysis of poll results; computer-generated direct mail; computer-aided research

    and information storage; and constant e-mail contact between campaign operatives. Other

    technological advances of the later twentieth century that have proved important for election

    campaigns include affordable air travel, fax machines, cellular telephones, and developments in

    market research (including the use of focus groups). Finally, the expertise wielded by the new

    campaign professionals is itself a “technology” in an important sense, and many writers have

    stressed the intimate connection between technique and practitioner.

Different sorts of arguments have been advanced connecting new technologies to changes in the

    nature of electioneering activity. Bowler and Farrell (1992), for instance, posit a shift from

    “labor-intensive” to “capital-intensive” campaign tactics: a “capital intensive” strategy has emerged that is heavily reliant on new technologies, and the ongoing development of these

    technologies renders it increasingly more cost-effective than traditional approaches dependent on

    „people power.‟ Although the focus of his book is largely on campaign consulting, Luntz (1988:2) also views technological change as central to the transformation of campaigns:

    “Modern campaign technology has changed – completely and forever the traditional styles of

    campaigning once common in American politics.” Because these technological innovations in

    turn demand expert advice if they are to be employed effectively in the marketing of candidates

    for office, the (technology-generated) role of the political consultant becomes according to

    Luntz indispensable for the technically-sophisticated campaign. Finally, Penniman (1981:107)

    also emphasizes the power of technological change “to alter campaign practices”: “Computers


have enabled party headquarters to gather intelligence about national political attitudes faster and

    more accurately than large numbers of party workers half a century ago could canvass individual

    constituencies. Computers have also made it possible to solicit funds from thousands of

    sympathizers whose support had not previously been tapped, and they have enabled candidates to

    send „personalized‟ letters to hundreds of thousands of constituents.” He also argues that “[n]ew

    campaign technology requires … a new kind of political professional” – suggesting that the emergence of political consultants and others is due to the new techniques at their disposal.

    [A refinement of the above.] The modern campaign is the necessary accompaniment of and is in fact substantially constituted by the new communications media, especially


    Much of the scholarly work on the transformation of campaigning has been performed by

    specialists in communications, and it is therefore not surprising that a strong mass-media focus is

    widespread in this field. Among the particular aspects of the television medium that are

    identified as having changed (and themselves constituting change in) political campaigns, it is

    the capacity of television to establish an apparently “direct” connection between politicians and

    voters unmediated by press reporting, unconstrained by the unwillingness of voters to attend

    campaign rallies, and untouched by anything that would seem to voters out of the ordinary run of

    their experiences that is most often pointed to as the distinctive contribution of the modern

    mass media to political campaigning. One pivotal, shared belief of those who embrace this

    understanding of modern campaigning is that the mass media and television in particular cannot be viewed as passive channels for transmitting a message from parties or candidates to

    voters. As campaign messages are crafted to suit the television medium, the nature and content

    of those messages is itself transformed. A second common conviction is that television does not

    merely „present‟ a campaign occurring elsewhere to an audience comfortably seated at home.

    Instead, “to a large degree, the television coverage is the election campaign” (Smith 1981:177).

    As television comes not only to „cover‟ but also to constitute the substance of election events, a profound transformation in the nature and meaning of campaigning is brought about.

    Farrell and Webb (2000) are among many who hold changes in communications technologies first television and then the “telecommunications revolution” – ultimately responsible for a

    whole panoply of changes in the way parties have organized their electoral campaigns. They

    link many different aspects of campaigning preparation and necessary resources, preferred

    themes and tactics, target audiences, and the content of campaign communications directly to the dominance of different communications media at different moments in time. The media are

    both cause and central characteristic of the peculiarities of successive campaign styles. While

    this type of approach is widely shared, Farrell and Webb are unusual in predicting that

    campaigns will again change radically as television is succeeded by other communications media:

    “The Television Age ushered in nationalized campaigning, with an emphasis on the broadcasting of single coordinated nationwide messages. In sharp contrast, the Digital Age appears to be

    shifting the culture of campaigning back towards more focused, localized, targeted

    communication,” or “narrowcasting” (2000:110). These new communications technologies including “cable and satellite technology, the digital revolution, and the internet” – have not yet fully penetrated most countries‟ media mix or campaign planning centers; however, they have

    great potential for future impact.


    [Having thus completed what is essentially a literature review albeit a review of an issue in which the “literature” is disinterested – I had planned two further sections of this paper, which

    currently exist in fairly chaotic form. A brief, second section will lay out my own tentative

    definition of the “professionalized campaign,” which is substantially unchanged from my

    thought-piece of last semester I think it‟s still reasonably on the mark. The third, longer

    section will review the transformation of election campaigning in postwar Britain, attempting to

    use my definition to create order out of descriptive chaos, and to usefully separate campaigning

    as such from its causes and consequences. Neither of these sections is presentable at the moment,

    although I‟d be interested in hearing your thoughts about them (and about whether they‟re worth

    writing at all). I‟ve gone ahead and provided the elements of my own definition for any who

    may be interested. Note that this set of characteristics overlaps with some of those described

    above; it‟s not so much the elements as the combination – the particular inclusions and exclusions that are novel.]

    Characteristics of the professionalized campaign. 1. The centralization of strategic choice. The professionalized campaign aims to coordinate

    many individuals‟ efforts in carrying out a unified strategic plan. In most cases, this plan is

    drawn up well before the “hot” phase of the campaign begins.

2. The emergence of a division of labor among campaign workers (whether campaign staff,

    party staff, or outside consultants) based on claims to technical expertise and the performance of

    particular tasks associated with that expertise.

3. Reliance on qualitative and (especially) quantitative research polling, focus groups, etc.

    as a primary information source. The results of this research are vital both to the development

    of the initial campaign plan and to ongoing assessments of the campaign‟s effectiveness


4. Careful targeting of campaign appeals that draws on the results of this research.

    5. Calculated management of the campaign’s resources, especially time (the candidate‟s, the leaders‟, the staff‟s) and money.

6. Carefully controlled presentation of the party or candidate, especially in the free and paid

    media. This self-conscious construction of the campaign also extends to live appearances by the

    candidate or party leader(s), the choice of issue positions, etc.

[A few paragraphs commenting on the above.] Note that this attempt at a unified analytic

    definition in no way denies the existence of considerable and continuing variation in

    campaign approaches across nations. It is important to recognize, for example, that the tactics

    employed by a professionalized campaign are likely to vary substantially across countries and

    parties, and over time. This definition implies no particular conclusions about the nature of the

    messages that will be conveyed (i.e. that they will be personalized, or negative, or issue-based)

    or about the channels that will be used to transmit those messages (such as print or broadcast

    media, targeted mailings, posters or leaflets, or direct interaction between campaign volunteers

    and voters). A systematic effort to identify and target marginal voters, for instance, might


operate at different levels (seeking to identify wavering voters within a US congressional district,

    concentrating on target districts in Britain, targeting demographic groups or regions as part of a

    national strategy in the Netherlands) and use different tactics (posters, leaflets, telephone calls,

    door-to-door or on-the-job canvassing, TV or radio ads) but the technique (identify marginal

    voters, develop a message that will appeal to their concerns, and expend resources contacting

    those voters and (as much as possible) those voters only) is the same.

It is likely, of course, that the new campaign professionals the critical actors of the

    professionalized campaign will have an affinity for certain sorts of tactics and channels of

    communication rather than others, and that these will differ from the tactics and channels that

    have traditionally been favored in many countries. One example is likely to be in the area of

    information gathering. As campaigns professionalize, traditional or informal sources of

    information about voters‟ beliefs and preferences may come to be seen as unreliable. The

    information source most likely to replace the traditional channels is the opinion poll

    supplemented perhaps by focus groups, careful analysis of media coverage, and so forth.

    Similarly, volunteers may be an undesirable resource from a professional perspective, since they

    are difficult to mobilize, require continual investment of effort, and may be unwilling to adhere

    to the established campaign plan. However, many professionalized campaigns continue to use

    local volunteers, although there is evidence to suggest that campaign materials and strategies to

    be used locally are increasingly produced at the center and that the present value of a mass

    membership may lie as much in the democratic legitimacy members convey as in the concrete

    work they do at campaign time (Epstein, but see Scarrow). Since campaign professionals often

    have little control over the resources available to the campaign, they may also choose to use

    familiar resources (such as members) in an unfamiliar way (to legitimize a candidate‟s selection

    through a (quasi-)primary rather than for door-to-door canvassing, say). Butler and Farrell‟s argument that the key shift in campaign professionalization is from labor- to capital-intensive

    tactics may well be accurate if such a change in tactics seems to the new professionals to

    represent a more efficient use of the campaign‟s resources, if it allows these professionals

    opportunities to exercise their skills, or if it makes centralized control and management of the

    campaign easier. And indeed, all three of these things would appear to be the case.

[My next step was to elucidate what I mean by these six characteristics, and why I think they are

    a useful way to characterize a complex phenomenon, by reference to the British example. That

    section, though, has not yet been hacked into manageable form, and since I am submitting this

    paper very late indeed I will spare you reading it for now.]


Works Cited

    Blumenthal, Sidney. 1982. The Permanent Campaign, revised ed. New York: Simon and


Bowler, Shaun, and David M. Farrell. 1992. The Study of Election Campaigning. In Shaun

    Bowler and David M. Farrell, eds., Electoral Strategies and Political Marketing (New

    York: St. Martin‟s Press).

    Butler, David. 1995. British General Elections since 1945, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Butler, David, and Austin Ranney, eds. Introduction. 1992. In David Butler and Austin Ranney,

    eds., Electioneering: A Comparative Study of Continuity and Change. Oxford: Clarendon.

Farrell, David M., and Paul Webb. 2000. Political Parties as Campaign Organizations. In

    Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties without Partisans: Political

    Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Johnson, Dennis W. 2001. No Place for Amateurs: How Political Consultants are Reshaping

    American Democracy. New York: Routledge.

Kelley, Stanley, Jr. 1956. Professional Public Relations and Political Power. Baltimore: Johns

    Hopkins Press.

Lees-Marshment, Jennifer. 2001. Political Marketing and British Political Parties: The Party’s

    Just Begun. New York: Manchester University Press.

Luntz, Frank I. 1988. Candidates, Consultants, and Campaigns: The Style and Substance of

    American Electioneering. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Mancini, Paolo, and David L. Swanson. 1996. Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy:

    Introduction. In Paolo Mancini and David L. Swanson, eds., Politics, Media, and Modern

    Democracy: An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and Their

    Consequences (Westport, CT: Praeger).

Mauser, Gary A. 1983. Political Marketing: An Approach to Campaign Strategy. New York:


Riordan, William L. 1948 [1905]. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on

    Very Practical Politics, Delivered by Ex-Senator George Washington Plunkitt, the

    Tammany Philosopher, from his Rostrum the New York County Court-House Bootblack

    Stand and Recorded by…. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Rosenbloom, David Lee. 1973. The Election Men: Professional Campaign Managers and

    American Democracy. New York: Quadrangle Books.


Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email