How to Win an Election

Facilitation Guide
Common Text 2016 – Loyola University Maryland

Amy Becker, Communication

Doug Harris, Political Science
Joe Walsh, Classics
 Contents

I. Introduction
II. A Note or Two on the Context of Our Text
III. Just Human Nature? Campaigning for Office Then and Now
IV. Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer: Positive vs. Negative Messaging
V. Get ‘Em While Their Young: Youth Political Engagement and Social Media Authenticity
VI. Common Text Student Study Guide
VII. List of Common Text Related Events

I. Introduction

The author of How to Win an Election concludes his letter, “It is not that I know more
about politics and elections than you, but I realize how busy you are and I thought I could
more easily set out these simple rules in writing” (p. 85). In this spirit, this teaching guide
is humbly offered to busy colleagues who will do the good and important work of
introducing the Class of 2020 to seminar‐style, textually‐focused discussion on Common
Text day 2016. In writing this guide, we make no claim to superior knowledge of the
subject much less to anything close to an understanding of what is going on in the 2016
American national elections.

But this is as it should be—we are often at our best in the classroom when students
see us puzzling, straining to understand, and laboring to apply lessons learned from the
ages to contemporary problems.

As such, what follows is background material, useful resources, a list of suggestions

for discussion, as well as questions and themes that struck us as we read How to Win an
Election and as we experienced the election happening around us during the summer of
Hillary and Trump. Elaborated versions of the Study Guide that students were given at
Summer Orientation, these are meant to prompt you to make these lessons your own or to
come up with your own approach to leading students through this text and helping them to
make meaning of it and of contemporary politics. Use or discard these recommendations
as you see fit.
 II. A Note or Two on the Context for Our Text
[feel free to skip!]

Details on Rome’s political system, form of government, and the period in which our text
was written can be found in the readings and watchings below. Here, though, are a very
few observations concerning the context for the text that might be useful.

 Most folks living in and around Rome were not voting citizens – no women, no slaves,
no foreigners (and, of course, no children). In Cicero’s day, women and slaves
outnumbered adult males by a significant number. So, most adults couldn’t vote.

 The Greek historian Polybius famously analyzed Rome’s form of government as mixed,
and that blending, Polybius thought, was one of its great strengths. For Polybius, the
consuls (the office Cicero was running for) represented the monarchical element, the
senate the aristocratic element, and the assemblies (the gatherings of citiznes that did
the electing and passed laws) the democratic element.

 The way Roman elections actually worked favored the wealthy. (‘Watching’ No. 3
below gives one example.) Of course, our elections often do not reflect the will of the
majority either. Two quick examples. In 2011, the twelve Mountain and Upper Mid‐
West States with a population of 27,607,110 had 24 senators; the Mid‐Atlantic States
[us!] with a population of 47, 764,662, had only 10 senators; in the 2000 presidential
election, Bush got 50,456,002 votes and won, while Gore got 50,999,879 [over ½ a
million more] and lost. (This is true regardless of the contested outcome in Florida).

 Polybius’ description and assessment of the Roman Republic’s government greatly

influenced our founding fathers, directly and through the French Enlightenment
philosopher Montesquieu’s writings.

 The election our text is providing advice for took place when the Rome Republic, the
form of government that had overseen Roman conquest of the Mediterranean world
and beyond, was straining to survive and ultimately failed in that effort. Starting in 133
and ending in 27BCE, the Roman state endured considerable turbulence –
constitutional crises, political violence on the streets of Rome, assassinations, and even
intermittent civil wars. Thirty‐seven years after the text’s election, a young man named
Octavian had won the last round of civil wars and began the transformation of the
Republic into what became, for all practical purposes, a monarchy. He took the name
Augustus and became Rome’s first emperor.

 It is worth noting that violence often marred elections in Cicero’s era.

o Both Ciceros – the author and his more famous brother to whom our text is
addressed – fell victim to the political upheaval. Both were executed in 43BCE.

 No one thing killed the Roman Republic, of course, but among the causes were
o flaws in a constitution that turned out more fit to acquire empire than to run it
 o a moral breakdown among Rome’s leadership whereby their outsized ambitions
made them more loyal to themselves than to the state
o neglect of the army and its veterans, who wound up more loyal to their generals
than to the Roman state
o aristocrats’ neglect of the great mass of poor Romans, which allowed ambitious
o at times, unscrupulous politicians to exploit social and economic tensions for
their own benefit. And plenty more.

Brief Background Readings & Watchings

READINGS
(1) A brief written description of Roman magistrates, including a handy chart:
http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romangvt.html

(2) Mary Beard’s BBC thumbnail narrative/explanation of the end of the Roman Republic
(133‐27BC), a process that transpired in the Ciceros’ lifetime and in which they played a
significant role:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofromanrepublic_article_01.shtml

WATCHINGS
(3) A video providing a clear explanation of how the Roman government worked and the
political offices that comprised it (including consul, the one Cicero was running for); well,
kinda clear…the Roman government was unbelievably complicated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mue9FuANpAA

(4) Cicero [recipient, not author, of How to Win] scenes from the excellent tv show Rome
[HBO 2005‐2007]

a. dysfunction of the Roman Republic in its last years; first, the meeting of the senate that
declared Caesar a public enemy and thus precipitated the civil war that led to Caesar
defeating Pompey and having himself declared Dictator – a major nail in the coffin of the
Republic; second, political violence in the streets of Rome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLjgrFciJhE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbnkrfOdnQ

b. Caesar’s death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSker3eWcs

c. Cicero’s death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNg_Jt2c1As
 III. Just Human Nature? Campaigning for Office, Then and Now

 The author of How to Win an Election seems to think that political success requires
candidates to recognize weaknesses in potential voters’ and supporters’ character and
then exploit those weaknesses. For example, he admonishes his brother “to learn the
art of flattery – a disgraceful thing in normal life but essential when you are running for
office” (p. 63). And later the author suggests, “The most important part of your
campaign is to bring hope to people and a feeling of goodwill toward you,” which might
sound commendable until he adds, “On the other hand…stick to vague generalities” (p.
79).

…which suggests the following questions for our students…

 Can you recall other strategies in How to Win that depend on the
manipulation of our vulnerabilities? Do politicians today also target
human weaknesses? The same ones? Different ones? Do you think the
strategies from How to Win that are being employed in this year’s election
are likely to be effective? Can you connect some examples from this
election to specific passages in the text?

 Scholars have noted that How to Win seems oddly short on advice concerning policy.
That is, the author does not seem to think it important for candidates to explain or even
indicate the policies and programs that will be enacted after the election. Indeed, it
almost seems a candidate doesn’t need to have any programs or policies at all! Rather,
the focus is more on satisfying specific groups – it can strike the reader that the core of
Roman politics was ‘us vs. them,’ or, at least, taking care of our own.

…which suggests the following questions for our students…

 In what ways does knowing a candidate’s policies matter in electoral

choice? What else matters in choosing between candidates and how can
one discern those other important factors? To what extent are our
politics, despite all the highfalutin rhetoric, really about us vs. them,
taking care of our own? Can you come up with examples from the current
presidential campaign that suggest ideology and political philosophy
really matter? What examples exist that suggest American politics and
this election are really about tribal identity, taking care of our own? And
how would the author of How to Win interpret your examples?

 A simple question that might get the discussion going while focusing on the text…
o What pieces of advice in How to Win are candidates employing in our present
election?
 IV. Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer: Positive vs.
Negative Messaging

Discussion Questions & Activities

 According to Quintus, “politics is full of deceit, treachery, and betrayal” (p. 57). There’s
been a lot of discussion in the media about the tone of the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Think about the balance of positive vs. negative content in the coverage of the 2016
election. Quintus tells Marcus to “remind them [voters] of what scoundrels your
opponents are and to smear these men at every opportunity with the crimes, sexual
scandals, and corruption they have brought on themselves” (p. 79).

…which suggests the following questions for our students…

 Have candidates and the media taken this suggestion by Quintus to heart?
On balance, do you feel you’ve heard more negative or positive things
about candidates’ character and policies? How much of our voting—this
year or in general—is centered on voting for a candidate as opposed to
voting against his or her opponent?

 Quintus tells Marcus to “secure supporters from a wide variety of backgrounds” (p. 29).
He also suggests that “there are three things that will guarantee votes in an election:
favors, hope, and personal attachment. You must work to give these incentives to the
right people” (p. 33). Candidates from both parties have worked hard to appeal to some
subset of the diverse voting blocs in America (e.g., women, African‐Americans,
Hispanics, young people, the middle class, etc.).

…which suggests the following questions for our students…

 Using the 2016 election as a context, can you identify who are “the right
people” or groups that candidates are targeting? Has campaign messaging
helped you to feel a “personal attachment” or connection to a particular
candidate or party? How much of a role has identity politics played in the
2016 election? What are the stakes or costs when candidates work to
appeal to segmented groups/“the right people,” as opposed to the
broader population?

 Show students the web sites of the 2016 Presidential candidates or a set of candidates
running for an office in your home district, or even the mayor’s race in Baltimore. What
groups are these candidates trying to appeal to? Are there specific identity groups
mentioned on their web site? Are there groups that seem to be excluded or left out of
the discussion? How much of the media coverage of the 2016 election has focused on
identity politics and the concerns of these groups? Which groups seem to be left out of
the conversation?
 Lead a session using the Understanding Diversity Module (materials are on the Messina
Sharepoint site). Students will map out their own diversity wheels, determining which
components of their identity are most central to their everyday life. The questions in
the module will help students think about how varied aspects of their identity connect
with political and social life. After the exercise is complete, engage the students in a
discussion about the relationship between identity and the 2016 general election.

Brief Background Readings & Watchings

READINGS

(1) Heer, Jeet. (2015, November 18). Identity heft: Why the politics of race and gender are
dominating the 2016 Election. The New Republic.
https://newrepublic.com/article/124139/identity‐heft‐politics‐race‐gender‐dominating‐
2016‐election

(2) Rauch, Jonathan (2016, July/August). How American Politics Went Insane. The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how‐american‐politics‐went‐
insane/485570/

(3) Tesler, Michael and Sides, Jonathan (2016, March 3). How political science helps explain
the rise of Trump: the role of white identity and grievances. The Washington Post.
http://wpo.st/HEek1

WATCHINGS

(1) Huffington Post Video: Why Identity Politics May Define the 2016 Presidential Election
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/55cb9acbfe344497a2000637

JUST FOR FUN:

(1) Hersh, Eitan (2016, June 28). How many Republicans marry Democrats?
FiveThirtyEight. http://53eig.ht/1QdaMA3
 V. Get ‘Em While They’re Young: Youth Political Engagement and Social
Media Authenticity

Discussion Questions & Activities

 Quintus encourages his brother, Marcus, to “make good use of the young people who
admire you and want to learn from you,” (p. 7). He later suggests, “It will help your
campaign tremendously to have the enthusiasm and energy of young people on your
side to canvass voters, gain supporters, spread news, and make you look good” (p.
51). Each election cycle, we hear a lot of hype about the value of winning “the youth
vote.”

…which suggests the following questions for our students…

 Thinking about the 2016 election cycle, what in your opinion have
candidates done to appeal to you and your generation as you are
about to vote for the very first time? Why do you think young voters
vote less than older voters? What are the special advantages to a
candidate or a party in appealing to young voters?

 Quintus tells Marcus, “it is vital that you use all of your assets to spread the word
about your campaign to the widest possible audience” (p. 75). Part of connecting
with the youth vote is engaging with the media young people use, which in 2016
means apps like Snapchat, Instagram, and more.

…which suggests the following questions for our students…

 How have you encountered and will you continue to encounter

political information this election cycle? Do you feel a connection … to
a candidate? a Party? a cause? In what ways do campaign messages
seem authentic to you? How does the medium used to convey a
message lend authenticity or lead you to question its value? In what
ways might such campaign messages be just more manipulative
attempts to persuade the youth vote? Can they be both authentic and
manipulative?

 Check out the Instagram feeds for the 2016 presidential candidates (or use Twitter,
Facebook or another social media platform). What about the candidates’ feeds feels
authentic? What posts lack authenticity?

 Politics can often be confusing, especially for first‐time voters. An open dialogue in a
friendly environment can help. What questions do students have? Ask students to
work together to answer each other’s questions. You can also discuss what students
plan to do on November 8th 2016 (their first Election Day). Having a plan of action
(or absentee ballot) can increase engagement and participation.
 Brief Background Readings & Watchings

READINGS

(1) CNET: How the 2016 presidential candidates measure up on social media.
http://www.cnet.com/news/2016‐elections‐comparing‐presidential‐candidates‐on‐social‐
media/

(2) Lee, Timothy B. (2016, March 14). How the internet is disrupting politics. Vox.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11211204/sanders‐trump‐disrupting‐politics

(3) Avrigan, Jody. A History of Data in American Politics (Part 3): The 2016 Primaries.
FiveThirtyEight. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a‐history‐of‐data‐in‐american‐
politics‐part‐3‐the‐2016‐primaries/

(4) Szalai, Jennifer. (2016, July 5). What makes a politician ‘authentic’? The New York Times.
http://nyti.ms/29goDSM

JUST FOR FUN

(1) Lafrance, Adrienne. (2016, March 29). Pompeii’s graffiti and the ancient origins of social
media. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/adrienne‐
was‐here/475719/
 VI. Student Study Guide

Introduction

The Class of 2020 begins college in the fall of 2016, a U.S. presidential election
year. Indeed, when we convene during Fall Welcome Week in August 2016, the national
nominating conventions will be behind us and the general election will be in full swing.

Amid national conversations that are likely to be polarized and acrimonious, Loyola’s Class
of 2020 will engage the election—freely and frankly, and with the experience and evidence
of the past as our guide. We will read together How to Win an Election which is Quintus
Tullius Cicero’s letter to his brother, Marcus, a candidate for Consul (the highest office in
the Roman Republic) in 64 B.C.

We may be concerned about contemporary politicians and politics, but it might help us to
make sense of our disillusionment to know that much of what we find so troubling has
been part of political campaigning for millennia. Cicero’s How to Win provides, as Philip
Freeman puts it in the book’s Introduction, “a keen sense of how elections are won in any
age.” Students who love the “game” of politics will relish Cicero’s clear‐eyed
recommendations. Students put off by America’s political flaws will gain a clearer sense of
why our politics can be so disheartening, perhaps as a first step to improving conversations
about the public good.

In any event, one of the many wonderful things that Jesuit universities do is contemplate,
debate, and pursue the common good through public and private words and deeds. Written
as frank advice to a candidate from his brother, How to Win an Election is our invitation to
you to engage contemporary political questions and this year’s election thoughtfully and
generously, and with the shrewd and critical wisdom of the ages.

Questions and Issues to Consider

Hunting for Votes: Flattery and Other Forms of Manipulation

 The author of How to Win an Election seems to think that political success requires
candidates to recognize weaknesses in potential voters’ and supporters’ character
and then exploit those weaknesses. For example, he admonishes his brother “to
learn the art of flattery – a disgraceful thing in normal life but essential when you
are running for office” (p. 63). And later the author suggests, “The most important
part of your campaign is to bring hope to people and a feeling of goodwill toward
you,” which might sound commendable until he adds, “On the other hand…stick to
vague generalities” (p. 79).

If we think of the candidates as hunters – but hunting for voters and supporters not
animals – flattery and vague appeals to hope are bait they employ to trap their prey.
Just as hunters in the wild need to identify and exploit what the targeted animals
 desire and need, candidates must identify and exploit human desires and needs to
succeed in their hunt. As you read through How to Win, try to spot other strategies
that depend upon the manipulation of our vulnerabilities. Do politicians today also
target human weaknesses? The same ones? Different ones? Can you come up with,
say, three specific examples of such manipulation from the current election that
strike you as comparable to those recommended in How to Win and assess the
extent to which you think they are likely to be effective?

Positive vs. Negative Messaging: Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer
 There’s been a lot of discussion in the media about the tone of the 2016 Presidential
campaign. After all, according to Quintus, “politics is full of deceit, treachery, and
betrayal” (p. 57). Think about the balance of positive vs. negative content in the
coverage of the 2016 election. Quintus tells Marcus to “remind them [voters] of
what scoundrels your opponents are and to smear these men at every opportunity
with the crimes, sexual scandals, and corruption they have brought on themselves”
(p. 79). Have candidates and the media taken this suggestion by Quintus to heart?
On balance, do you feel you’ve heard more negative or positive things about
candidates’ character and policies?

 Candidates from both parties have worked hard to appeal to some subset of the
diverse voting blocs in America (e.g., women, African‐Americans, Hispanics, young
people, the middle class, etc.). Quintus tells Marcus to “secure supporters from a
wide variety of backgrounds” (p. 29). He also suggests that “there are three things
that will guarantee votes in an election: favors, hope, and personal attachment. You
must work to give these incentives to the right people” (p. 33). Using the 2016
election as a context, can you identify who are “the right people” or groups that
candidates are targeting? Has campaign messaging helped you to feel a “personal
attachment” or connection with a particular affinity group and in turn a candidate or
party? How much of a role has identity politics played in the 2016 election? How
much should candidates work to appeal to segmented groups/”the right people,” as
opposed to the broader population?

Do Ideas Matter? What Roles do Policy, Ideas and Rhetoric Play in the Winning of
Votes?
 Scholars have noted that How to Win seems oddly short on advice concerning policy.
That is, the author does not seem to think it important for candidates to explain or
even indicate the policies and programs that will be enacted after the election.
Indeed, it almost seems a candidate doesn’t need to have any programs or policies at
all!

There are different ways to look at this. One way – while issues mattered in Roman
election campaigns, it was wisest to avoid addressing them because being clearly
identified with a point of view or program would alienate too many voters. Another
way – issues existed and mattered, but your stand on those issues did not really
resonate with voters – they were paying attention to the sort of Roman you were (or
 presented yourself to be…) and the extent to which your election would pay off for
them personally. Do you find these explanations plausible? That is, that policies
and programs might have been irrelevant or even dangerous to electoral success?
Use our current election for comparison (and come up with three specific examples)
– are voters really interested in specific programs and policies, or are they mostly
reacting to the extent to which the candidates push the right buttons and seem like
the right sort of people, “our sort” of people?

 The political and electoral world How to Win addresses can seem tribal. Whole
sections of the text are dedicated to advising the candidate to appear to be a
member or advocate of as many groups as possible. Identify in the text what sorts of
groups the candidate had to win over and the strategies the text recommends
employing to do this.

There seems, then, to be little in the text that we would identify as ideology or
political philosophy, and hardly a thought to identifying what direction the country
should go in or what sort of country the Romans should want. Rather, the focus is
more on satisfying specific groups – it can strike the reader that the core of Roman
politics was ‘us vs. them,’ or, at least, taking care of our own. These days pundits
and politicians make much of political ideology, of grand visions for the country’s
future, but to what extent are our politics, despite all the highfalutin rhetoric, really
about us vs. them, taking care of our own? Can you come up with examples from the
current presidential campaign that suggest ideology and political philosophy really
matter? Examples that suggest American politics and this election are really about
tribal identity? And how would the author of How to Win interpret your examples?

Youth Political Engagement and Social Media Authenticity

 Quintus encourages his brother, Marcus, to “make good use of the young people who
admire you and want to learn from you,” (p. 7). He later suggests, “It will help your
campaign tremendously to have the enthusiasm and energy of young people on your
side to canvass voters, gain supporters, spread news, and make you look good” (p.
51). Each election cycle, we hear a lot of hype about the value of winning “the youth
vote.” Thinking about the 2016 election cycle, what in your opinion have candidates
done to appeal to you and your generation as you are about to vote for the very first
time?

 Part of connecting with the youth vote is engaging with the media young people use,
which in 2016 means apps like Snapchat, Instagram, and more. Quintus tells Marcus,
“it is vital that you use all of your assets to spread the word about your campaign to
the widest possible audience” (p. 75). Think about the ways you have encountered
and will continue to encounter political information this election cycle. Do you feel a
connection? In what ways does this shared material seem authentic to you? In what
ways might it be just another manipulative attempt to persuade the youth vote? Can
it be both?