Over-Promising and Under-Delivering the Red Wave

Supporters attend a primary election night event for J.D. Vance, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, at Duke Energy Convention Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, on May 3, 2022. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Commentary

Tom Peters, a management guru of the late 20th century, coined the memorable quote “under-promise—over-deliver.” His advice constitutes a well-known business strategy aimed at maintaining, extending, and satisfying a company’s customer base.

In under-promising, but over-delivering, businesses can satisfy their customers who would be pleasantly surprised and grateful that they gained more than they expected.

Peters’ quote is also capable of explaining political developments, including the lacklustre performance of the Republicans in the United States midterm elections.

For many months now, media commentators and politicians have been predicting a landslide Republican victory in Congressional elections—a red wave no less—which would decimate the Democrats.

Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton somehow expected a Republican tsunami when she said in an MSNBC interview that American voters may not really understand the consequences of a Republican congressional victory.

However, we now know that the Republican win is certainly not a landslide victory, but an electoral ripple. The prediction that the midterms would provide former President Donald Trump with an ideal platform from which to launch his bid for another presidential run in 2024 did not eventuate.

Although the U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has declared that the Republicans have reclaimed the House of Representatives, its final composition remains unclear.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) holds a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 9, 2022. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

As the pundits would now say, the outcome of the midterm elections is on a “knife-edge.”

How Did so Many Commentators and Pollsters Get It Wrong?

Like many conservatives around the world watching the U.S. midterms, I was hoping that the Republicans would win it “quite easily.” This hope was based on the expectation that the political and economic situation provided fertile ground for a convincing victory.

Indeed, could it not be expected that the chaos created by the Biden administration would be uppermost in the mind of voters on election day?

The current American administration mismanaged the economy with inflation running at 7.745 percent—it was 1.9 percent when Trump left office—and petrol and energy prices are skyrocketing, partially because of the administration’s deference to the high priests of climate change.

From a political point of view, the chaotic departure from Afghanistan, leaving behind hardware worth billions of dollars, and the subsequent institutional discrimination against women, was irresponsible.

Afghan women are now effectively treated as slaves in their own country: very recently the Taliban even decreed that women are not allowed to go to a gym or use a public park.

A Marine with Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command provides assistance during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Aug. 22, 2021. Sgt. Samuel Ruiz/U.S. Marine Corps via AP

The Biden administration’s lax implementation of its immigration and border security laws has seen more than four million migrants illegally enter the country. Its bias on contentious social issues was also evident in its strident criticism of the Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case which overturned the judgment that for nearly 50 years supported abortion on demand.

There are countless other examples that evidence the current administration’s political and economic neglect. Hence, the climate was ideal to deliver a convincing Republican victory which did not seem to have happened.

It’s Complicated

There are several reasons for the less than convincing win of the Republicans. These range from a failure to effectively communicate their message to the electorate to electoral hubris.

Another reason for this outcome is that electors want predictability when a situation is complex and difficult. As the economic and political climate in the United States is indeed problematic, an expectation that the electorate would opt for change may well have been misplaced.

The electorate may have concluded that it is better to stick with the devil they know, than to embrace an uncertain future!

This is also relevant for Australia because how else would it be possible to explain Labor victories in Queensland and Western Australia—we might soon add Victoria to this list too—where people brutalised by the lockdowns and have had egregious violations of their rights continue to vote for the same government.

I was circumspect when commentators and politicians, for such a long time, predicted a red wave.

My cautious approach derived from the fact that common sense suggests, and experience confirms, that a practice of under-promising, but over-delivering, is better suited for electoral success than over-promising and under-delivering.

Specifically, when over-promising—confidently predicting an easy and convincing Republican victory—over such an extended period of time, many Republican voters may have decided not to vote.

However, the aggregate loss of votes, caused by a practice of abstention, is likely to be substantial. It is always necessary to galvanise the voter base of a party, even if all predictions point to an easy victory.

Conversely, Democrat supporters would have tried to vote to minimise the “inevitable” red wave.

Hence, a practice of under-promising, but over-delivering would have better served the interests of conservative voters in the United States. Peters’ aphorism is thus as relevant to the political world as it is to explain business success.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.