Let's Get Personal: When Attacks Turn the Attacked Into a Victim - Case Study - Brief Article

The 2000 nonpartisan school board election in Frederick, Maryland, gave conservatives an opportunity to put one of their own in an influential position, and to prove their effectiveness. Linda Naylor was the candidate they'd been waiting for. She was also the candidate the opposition had been waiting for.

TO WIN A TOUGH RACE, challenger candidates simply must run aggressive, comparison-based campaigns. However there is a difference between running a tough campaign and spreading lies. We've all seen campaigns that crossed the line, and occasionally, it backfires.

And that's exactly what happened when Linda Naylor, a mother of two and a C.P.A., came from behind to finish ahead of five other candidates -- each with far more political experience -- to win a coveted seat on the Frederick County (Maryland) School Board.

When the smoke cleared on Nov. 8, the pundits were wondering how a political neophyte could have possibly won. It was here, in the aftermath of a political cyclone, where the true unlikely victor emerged. It wasn't her campaign manager, it wasn't a high-priced consultant, and it certainly wasn't a big donor. Linda Naylor's victory was an unlikely gift from her opponents, who attacked her in letters to the editor of local newspapers and on the Internet.

The Landscape

Frederick is the second largest city in the state of Maryland. It has become, without a doubt, one of the most conservative areas in this Democratic-tilting state. Since 1998, when Alex Mooney, a 27-year-old conservative, defeated a l6-year incumbent (and Minority Whip) to become state senator, conservatives in Frederick have hungered to elect more of their own to local offices. The 2000 nonpartisan school board election was their opportunity to put another conservative in an influential position, and prove their effectiveness. Linda Naylor was the candidate they'd been waiting for.

Among the other school board candidates were the current school board president -- an attorney; a career politician who previously ran for Congress twice; a local journalist focused on education; and a substitute teacher who, in 1998, led the Committee for an elected school soard. Because their credentials seemed so strong, most pols didn't give Naylor much of a chance. And if her detractors hadn't attacked her in the wrong way, she wouldn't have had much of a chance.

Her campaign message was based on her credentials: Naylor was the only candidate who was a mother with two children currently in the public schools. As such, she had a personal stake in how the schools were run. She was also a C.P.A., which gave the positive impression she'd be responsible with tax dollars. The campaign team repeated that message over, and over, and over again. Staying on message was key.

We also wanted people to know that our candidate was a mainstream, common-sense candidate. Nonetheless, Naylor became the candidate that teachers' unions and left-leaning groups loved to hate.

Anticipating Attacks

Although the campaign team expected attacks, Naylor, (a first-time candidate) could not understand why her opponents wanted to play so rough. We understood that attacks would come from people who legitimately didn't like Naylor's politics We also understood that most of the attacks would be orchestrated to intimidate us, change our response tactics, aid to sway public opinion. We took the attacks seriously, yet didn't let them affect our game plan.

Sledgehammers

As soon as Linda Naylor was perceived as a conservative who could win, we began noticing that activists in the community targeted her for defeat. Interestingly, much not he attack effort on her candidacy came from her opponents but from interest groups. The attacks were unusually personal.

Linda was attacked, for example, because she needed notes to help her during debates: implying that she wasn't intelligent enough, or that she was a pawn for other powerful interests. A columnist in The Frederick News Post referred to Naylor's final TV appearance as a "miserable wind-up doll showing on cable television..."

In addition, she was often referred to as a "book burner," a homophobe and a bad parent. The later accusation coming from the former PTA president of Middletown High School (where Naylor sends her children). But, as an editorial in The Frederick News Post stated, Naylor "was not hurt in her stand against some text books. That scares folks who shout 'book banner' or 'book burner' but Mrs. Naylor was a candidate who pushed for selecting the best books."

How It Backfired

You can't work in politics and not fear becoming the next Michael Dukakis. No one will soon forget how his failure to respond to Lee Atwater's attacks hobbled his presidential campaign. Atwater also advocated another sound campaign principle: Never interfere with your opponent while he is in the process of destroying himself.

The fact that Linda Naylor was being attacked didn't hurt -- it actually helped. It substantially increased her name ID. One day someone would attack her for being a book burner; the next day someone would defend her.

Downballot races in a presidential-election year are unique: Most voters were going to the polls to vote for George W. Bush or Al Gore, and most had no idea who the best school board candidate was. If Naylor could get her name out more than everyone else, it gave her an advantage. And if our opponents wanted to help in doing that -- so be it.

With opponents fanning the flames, Naylor ended up being the political topic of discussion in Frederick. Furthermore, it put the opposition in the position of being the bad guy. Attacking a woman is often tricky, and in this race her opponents lacked balance and subtlety. In fact, one activist (and former school board candidate in the primary) even created a Web site to attack Naylor as a "fascist" and a religious zealot, saying, "you have to talk in tongues and beat a tambourine to be a Christian in Linda Naylor's world." Because of such attacks, some people actually became more sympathetic to her campaign.

Although Naylor's opponents got their message out, they never realized that their attacks actually transformed Naylor from an unknown underdog to an unfair victim in the court of public opinion.

Thanks to our opponents' negative attacks, conservative voters knew we were on their side. A story in The Frederick News Post a week after the election said, "The anti-Naylor comments, letters, e-mails and scuttlebutt around town seemed to have backfired. In the minds of some voters, it gave her an underdog image." Besides, attacking someone for being a conservative in Frederick is like attacking Ted Kennedy for being a liberal in Massachusetts - you're helping the enemy.

Define Yourself

Our campaign also made sure we got out our candidate's positive message, despite the negativity. Every time Naylor was hit, there would be a response in the same medium in which we were attacked. When we were attacked in a letter to the editor, we would respond with a letter to the editor. Our opponents kept the Naylor name in the newspaper. Naylor never attacked back. She remained above the fray. Her entire message was positive. By not retaliating, she became "the adult." The response to our attackers always came from a messenger, or from a "regular citizen" coming to our defense. Although defense became a hobby, the vast majority of the campaign was proactive and positive.

Finally, the week before the election, Naylor boosted name ID by running inexpensive 30-second radio commercials on talk radio (WFMD) and country radio (WFRE). Naylor's name was mentioned 11 times in each ad. Our message was simple, consistent and repetitive. Even though the opponents ran more ads, they only mentioned their names an average of three times per commercial. We tried very hard to get the most out of every ad dollar we spent.

The upset Naylor victory in Frederick is a bold "experience-turned-parable" in campaign ethics. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with contrasting candidates, but as freshman School Board Member Linda Naylor will tell you, voters are sensitive to the propriety and civility of what is said by and about candidates for public office. The wrong attack, at the wrong time, can easily blow up in your face.

Matt Lewis is director of The Grassroots Activist School at The Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA.

RELATED ARTICLE: Naylor 30-Second Radio Spot

(Upbeat music, light in the background)

ANNCR: Linda Naylor

WOMAN: Linda Naylor's been a working mother, just like me.

ANNCR: Linda Naylor

MAN: She's been out there in the real world. She's a financial professional who'll be responsible with my tax dollars.

ANNCR: Linda Naylor

WOMAN: Linda Naylor has two children in public schools, so she knows what it's like to worry about their safety, and that they get a quality education.

ANNCR: Linda Naylor

MAN: Linda Naylor is a common-sense conservative. She shares the values of Frederick County families.

ANNCR: Real leaders come from the people...not the politicians. Exercise your right to vote on Tuesday, November 7th, and please remember to vote for Linda Naylor for board of education. Linda Naylor -- the common-sense conservative who will fight for Frederick County families.

NAYLOR: Hi, I'm Linda Naylor and I want to thank Frederick County citizens for their kindness and support. Please remember to vote for your conscience on November 7th. Thank you.

ANNCR: Paid for by Linda Naylor for school board. Karen Sullivan, treasurer. (This piece was designed to get her name ID out quickly It also targets both mainstream conservative men -- and soccer moms -- simultaneously Also, note that Linda Naylor speaks in the ad -- as is required by MD law -- but she only asks that voters "exercise their right to vote." The term "Financial Professional" was used to describe Linda, because we felt calling her a CPA might turn some voters off).

COPYRIGHT 2001 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group