Conviction Politics - Theory

Theory

There are a number of arguments in favor of conviction politics. One is that it is more honest -- a conviction politician simply says what they believe rather than shading their opinions to be more palatable to their audience. Another is that by voicing strong opinions they push public debate forward and promote a genuine discussion of political issues. Even if a candidate loses, they will have promoted their particular political ideas and hopefully persuaded some voters of their value.

There are also more instrumental reasons. By arguing forcefully for their positions during the campaign, a politician is more able to pursue those goals once in office. Also, proponents argue that conviction politicians are more likely to win. When he was a candidate, Tom Perriello said that "More often, the deepest connection with another person comes from when I disagree with them and admit it, because at least they know I will tell the truth. While some strategists focus on positioning candidates on issue after issue, I believe most voters focus more on whether the candidate integrity and character on the whole, demonstrated by the conviction to take a stand."

Paul Wellstone frequently heard voters tell him "I don't always agree with you, but I like it that I know where you stand." He found that when he announced his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an unpopular position at the time, he jumped to a five-point lead in the polls.

In the United States, 87% of voters say they think politicians are "pretty much willing to say whatever it takes in order to get themselves elected." By saying what they believe and ignoring the polls, conviction politicians distinguish themselves from other politicians in this way.