Academic Master


Impact Of Permanent Campaigns

A permanent campaign refers to continuous governance that is based on voter manipulation in an attempt to get their approval and get their votes. This type of governance is always based on a shift of focus on the important developments and policy implementation to vote hunting. The White House, Congress, and other politicians are spending much of their time trying to get approved to form the next government, and this is known to have long-term implications for the population. As the decisive exploitation is not directly viewed as a campaign, it plays into place and thus gives them more popularity in provinces that matter to them in the pre-determining of their success in the coming elections.

Among the implications that tag permanent campaigns is the neglecting of the minority population in the country, which in turn leads to social profiling and racial abuse of the people of America (Cook,2002). Decisions made tend to make some part of the population feel catered. Thus, they end up forgetting about their counterparts, and thus, support for the government is strengthened and his popularity maintained.

Running Congress money in permanent campaigns puts the service availed by the government under strain as the budget is misused, which in turn leads to economic strain for the people (Cook,2002). An attempt to control the presidency is always made by disguising campaigns between the blurred line of governance and campaigns. The disguise point for the running of permanent campaigns by politicians has always led to partial constraint by the population.

Acquisition of private media is among the tools used in propelling permanent campaigns that are used to manipulate and control people affiliated with a certain political party (Ornstein,2000). Congress and politicians run these media houses, including state-controlled broadcasts, to popularize their political agenda rather than govern and develop.

Social media is another major influential point of permanent campaigns as government officials, Congress, and politicians make decisions and announce them to specific people at specific times, thus giving them a feeling of being prioritized in decision-making by Congress. This is influential and creates an illusion of being superior to others, bringing discontent among people.

Another characteristic of a permanent campaign is the rift created between the public and the private sector, which is blamed on the media and termed as petty, which in turn creates a chilling effect that brings up mixed reactions and fabrication of the truth through rumors (Ornstein,2000). This successfully disguises what is intended and partial population gains, which in turn gives support to their leaders. This popularity is always a disguise, but through the independence of the media, the truth is always rolled out but is termed as propaganda, making it easy to manipulate voters.

Candidates’ expenditures increase with time in order to increase their chances (Cook,2002). This is highly noted in the political arena but is also seen throughout their time in office. The more one spends, the more one raises his/her chances over opponents, as it creates the illusion of able leaders, thus affecting the leadership choices of the people.

Finally, constant advertising of the accomplishment of government development projects is credited to senior officials, giving them popularity amongst people. This is usually used to garner more votes in swing-vote states and is usually effective as the focus is made on an individual belonging to an affiliated party, and thus, his influence is backed by the population that approves of his/her work. This permanent campaign doesn’t provide a fair ground for competition with other alternative leaders but rather provides an elevated ground for the opponents.

A permanent campaign affects the government functions through poor decision-making in an attempt to achieve popularity and, hence, gain more votes. The poor choices affect the population and are always felt economically through a rise in living standards and the growth of the gap between the rich and the poor. This brings about imbalance, prompting chaos and demonstrations in a country.

Such campaigns also lead to discontent amongst different groups in society as it is using up too much of their money. The tax rise and prices are escalated to get money for their disguised campaigns by politicians, bringing in irresponsibility by leaders over their citizens as they are only concerned about their selves. However, the intentions of good governance through policy implementation and development cannot be mixed up with permanent campaigns as that would lead to a deviation from the service delivery as intended by the government, thus rendering the administration weak.

Slow implementation of policies by lawmakers as they are busily vouching for their re-election instead of working (Doherty,2007). Health, education, and sports activities are on the rise, and many young people remain unemployed in such cases. This is always termed as steering or being in control, but in the real sense, it is a directionless drift that encompasses one’s desire to rule the people without their fair consent. This affirms that the more campaigns break into governing, the more it is expected to overrule the values of steer manship and instead instill the values of the campaign.

Permanent campaigns have also led to the privatization of public services, cutting out others from services, e.g., the healthcare system. This is common through economies and is influenced by cutting the cost of public expenditure in an attempt to save up for the campaigns. This affects the public directly as they cannot afford healthcare services.’

The attentiveness to the public and constituency is good in keeping the government in check for the provision of its services (Ornstein,2000). Although these channels are used for the well-being of society, they can still be used to propagate rumors and propaganda aimed at overshadowing ongoing campaigns. This thus makes all development projects politicized and the progress held back. More attention to the public and constituency gives an overview of what the government is up to, and since manipulation is, at its best, more public and consistent for democracy,

Constant participation of public and constituency attentiveness makes one participate in a permanent campaign as he/she is always onto information that can be manipulated to sway you from the real course. It is thus good to know what is going on around you, but it should not be used by politicians to manipulate you and use you as a stepping stone to his ascension to the top seats. Permanent campaigns have taken over many administrations and leveled governance; thus, it is not good for democracy in America. It has also received a negative review and should be done away with as it is not helping to strengthen the democracy and economy of the country.

Due to polar delusion through political rhetoric that is the opposite of the truth, it is easy to create an alibi and make people believe what is not correct by making a cover-up story (Ornstein,2000). For efficient administration, it is important to focus on governance rather than re-election, as a legacy is a legacy, and it doesn’t matter how long it takes to build. To some neo-conservatives, lying is believed to be good for good statesmanship, which affirms the fact that the political scene has been infested with campaign delusion that keeps them in check all the time, abandoning the governing tasks.

Permanent campaigns have led many democracies astray as the focus from governance to power and manipulation has led to poor administration in the major economies. This has had implications on economic stability, and many have become afflicted with attention-deficient democracy, which has rendered them less satisfied with the government.

The focus on winning elections has changed, and the permanent campaign is its major influencer. The governance is neglected, and the shift of focus goes to campaigns affecting service delivery. This affirms that liberty is not guaranteed in a democracy, as there are people who are constantly pulling strings to remain at the top even when their style of ruling is not good enough. Such leaders portray greed and are never content with what they have.

Permanent campaigns are a good way of maintaining one’s position in governance but have proven to lack projections, and their implications are worse than their direct advantages. The permanent campaigns are most successful in the coming election, but its citizens feel neglected as the government maintains the white collar jobs for scholars who would vouch for them and attract young voters to them. Much attention also should not be focused on the constituency and the public as it prompts people to believe in lies and get used up by political influencers to achieve their desires.


Ornstein, Norman J., and Thomas E. Mann. The permanent campaign and its future. American Enterprise Institute, 2000.

Cook, Corey. “The contemporary presidency: The permanence of the “permanent campaign”: George W. Bush’s public presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32.4 (2002): 753-764.

Doherty, Brendan J. “Elections: The Politics of the Permanent Campaign: Presidential Travel and the Electoral College, 1977‐2004.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 37.4 (2007): 749-773.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message