What I Learned from Participating in Frank Luntz’s Fox News Focus Group

In the Summer of 2016, I counted myself among the two-thirds of the American electorate who thought our country could do a lot better than the two candidates for President of the United States that had been foisted upon us.

On the one hand, there was Mr. Donald Trump—a man who’d been a liberal for most of his life, but now suddenly wanted to be taken seriously as a purported conservative.  Much of his bona fides as a conservative were rooted in his crass opportunism as the would-be leader of the long-discredited “birther” movement.  About 15 years earlier, I’d completed my political journey from left-to-right on the political spectrum and had recently been elected to the Executive Committee of my county’s Republican party.  At a time when my party’s candidate (who would square off against a deeply flawed and unpopular Democrat opponent) should have been making a concerted effort to appeal to younger voters, single women, ethnic minorities, immigrants and more… our candidate, instead, seemed to revel in offending the sensibilities of so many of these same voters.

Then came some truly disgraceful moments for any candidate.  Early on, the biggest of these was his horrible smear on Sen. John McCain.  Certainly, like most conservatives, I’ve long been frustrated by the voting record of the Senator.  Still, like Senator McCain, my late father was a Vietnam-era US Navy veteran.  It wasn’t too difficult to imagine a scenario where my own father might’ve been a POW.  To have that terrible experience be the object of mockery by our party’s candidate – a man with four draft deferments to his name – was a bridge too far.  Even though I agreed with many (but certainly not all) of his policy prescriptions, his behavior had disqualified him from getting my vote.  Big time.

On the other hand was Secretary Hillary Clinton—an individual who had been one of the most divisive politicians of my lifetime and had recently revealed herself (yet again) to be serially untruthful about easily verifiable events.  Her husband, a gifted and calculating politician, had been relatively popular in the ‘90s due to: 1) rosy economic times, and 2) centrist policy wins.  Already weighed down by her obvious deficits in extending her charisma beyond the most devoted members of her party base, Sec. Clinton spent much of her time disavowing nearly every legislative achievement of her husband’s time in office (e.g., free trade policies, cuts in capital gains taxes, welfare reform, Defense of Marriage Act, felony sentencing guidelines).  Her most consequential vote in the Senate was to authorize the use of force in Iraq (which likely cost her the nomination in 2008), a vote from which she backtracked nearly from the moment that she cast it.  Her record as Secretary of State failed to produce any significant foreign policy achievements—indeed, it’s hard to point to any of her “achievements” in either the executive or legislative branch that couldn’t have been duplicated with relative ease by any conventional Democrat.

So why her?  Other than being married to a President, identity politics, and some snappy “I’m with Her” sloganeering…  Why would she even get close to winning her party’s nomination?  Some thought her “stand by your man” loyalty equated to “paying her dues” for her party’s nomination.  Though such logic might hold for a subset of partisans, it didn’t hold water elsewhere in the electorate.  She was wrong for me in so many ways.  Wrong on achievement, ethics, integrity and vision.  And policy?  Not a chance.  She, too, had disqualified herself from my vote.

So, I’d prepared to “sit out” much of the election.  I knew that I’d eventually get out and vote but, absent a truly extraordinary event, I refused to punch the ticket for either one of the major party candidates.   Over time, the course of the two campaigns only served to reinforce my initial decision.

No sooner had I resolved to dial down my involvement in the election, I was contacted by email to participate in a Frank Luntz focus group in Cleveland—the site of the 2016 Republican National Convention.  Their only instructions were to: 1) show up wearing business casual, and 2) be ready to share my opinions about politics.  Really?   Shoot my mouth off about politics?  With the cameras rolling for a nationwide audience?  Not.  A.  Problem.

A group of us were selected for involvement on a televised panel that would ultimately air first on CBS This Morning and then get some play in the local Cleveland media market.  Some of us were invited back to appear with Mr. Luntz – LIVE! – from the Cleveland Convention Center every night of the Convention.  Over a year later, it remains one of the most surreal experiences of my life.  A scenario that involved me, a decades-long political junkie and outspoken conservative, being given first-class treatment to: 1) go live on Fox News every night of the week, 2) during my party’s nomination, 3) from my “adopted home city,” and 4) being encouraged and prodded to let my opinions fly all night long.  A politico’s fantasy camp.  I was all in.

Over the years, I’ve had my share of opportunities to meet some famous folks.  Of all of them, Frank Luntz had among the smallest gaps between the person you see on your television set and the person who remains when he’s away from the camera and the lights.  Minus his colorful (albeit very good-natured) use of profanity during the commercial breaks, the difference was nearly imperceptible.

As a side note:  Frank was a most gracious host and did more than any professional pollster I’ve met to: 1) make his participants comfortable and put them at ease, 2) challenge simple talking points and dig deeper to get at root feelings and impressions, and 3) draw out and highlight diverse points of views of people from all sides of an issue and walks of life.  If you’re lucky enough to be given the chance, I highly recommend that you take him up on his offer to participate in his focus groups.

Still, I couldn’t believe this turn of events.  I’d just written off the election and now Mr. Luntz had completely reversed my plans.  I felt like Al Pacino in Godfather III.

Going into my focus group involvement, I’d been like far too many other political junkie Facebook friends, coworkers, or family members…  Set in my ways, fixed in my opinions, argumentative to a fault, and both polarized and polarizing.  That would soon change.

Much of the reason for the change had little to do with Mr. Luntz, the Fox News folks (who were also very professional, full of good humor, and delightful hosts), or even being on national TV discussing subjects about which I was (and remain) so passionate.  Instead, it was the people with whom I spent so much time that summer.

I can’t speak to how Mr. Luntz populates his focus group—I’m sure that’s all part of his package of “trade secrets.”  But he really put together a quality cross-section of engaged, informed and conscientious voters.  In the first (taped) segment, our participation was essentially a “trial run” for participating in the convention a couple of weeks later.  In that initial spot, Mr. Luntz was quite effective at weeding out three types of participants.  The first two were: 1) folks who claimed to be non-partisan, but whose answers were rather thin and inevitably devolved into party-approved talking points whenever he pressed them for any semblance of original thought, and 2) folks who claimed to be non-partisan, but reserved all of their criticism for only one of the two candidates (and/or their party).  One or two of these folks were so comically inept in this regard, many observers wondered if they were “plants” from the campaigns.  The third type of disqualified panelist was any “hyper-partisan” individual who couldn’t seem to express their opinions without tearing others down, name-calling, or being mean-spirited.  Thankfully, there were even fewer of these folks.

Mr. Luntz had no problems with having solid Republicans or Democrats on the panel, and there were several of each.  He had huge problems with people who were trying to pass themselves off as independent thinkers or neutral observers when they clearly weren’t.  His mantra seemed to be:  Be honest with yourself and be honest with others—if you can’t do that, why are you here?

Once purged of these “hacks,” we were left with about two dozen people who: 1) had a range of opinions across the political spectrum, 2) loved talking about politics and public policy, and 3) were able to discuss numerous sensitive issues with each other—often for hours—without rancor or hostility.

I won’t say that the whole thing was a panacea.  There were a few moments where some of us fell short.  A conservative panelist repeatedly froze up when asked about why she disliked Sec. Clinton.  Articulate on a variety of other topics, she repeatedly whiffed when asked to provide detail, repeating only, “I don’t know; just something about her isn’t quite right.”  A liberal panelist told me during a commercial break that he doubted he could ever vote for a Republican because of what he called “the party’s prejudicial and discriminatory attitude about gays and lesbians.”  Not 90 seconds later, this same panelist was spouting prejudicial and discriminatory statements about Mormons and Catholics, among others.

Still, these were exceptions.  The vast majority of folks mixed it up—they sincerely explained themselves and they listened respectfully to others share their own perspectives.  They weren’t defensive.  They readily validated the viewpoints of people with whom they had sharply different opinions.  Even in debates, there were smiles and laughter.

After spending several nights like this, it came time to depart.  I imagine that a few of us still keep in touch with the folks we met that week.  (As for myself, I added a Facebook friend whose perspectives – and good humor – I always find to be both insightful and a refreshing departure from the mundane political jousts that clog my daily Facebook News Feed.)  Before parting ways, there were numerous hugs and handshakes.  Our country was being torn apart by the nastiest political environment any of us had ever witnessed.  All the while, our own political opinions were being unearthed by our moderator and scrutinized by millions of our fellow citizens.  Still, though we often had strong disagreements in our group, we still connected with each other, sought common understanding and respect. and prized the dignity and contributions of every single individual.

This experience had a short-term and a long-term effect on me.  In the short-term, I pledged to change how I would conduct myself when discussing politics.  I was never really much of a bomb-thrower or name-caller, but I wanted to do what I could to completely eliminate that kind of behavior in myself.  I wanted to be able to have disagreements, even heated arguments, that didn’t devolve into personal attacks and rancor.  I wanted to be able to demonstrate my understanding of where others were coming from, and maintain respectful discourse with someone regardless of their opinions.

I wanted to conduct myself in a manner that was more… civil.

Though there have been plenty of times when it was difficult to keep my newfound commitments, on balance, I think I’ve been moving in the right direction.  I still have friends who choose only to spout their propaganda for/against one side.  I still have some friends who engage in a lot of name-calling and personal top-to-bottom bashing of people who disagree with them.  And, yes, I still have some friends who criticize the President for his profane and outlandish comments by, well, retaliating and making profane and outlandish comments about him.  Whatever they were doing, though, I simply tried to change what I was doing.  Some of my friends and family noticed a difference.  They began to remark about it and encouraged me to stay the course.  Others began to find some of my arguments and positions to be more persuasive when they were devoid of the shrill quality they found in so many other places.  Keeping things civil even produced a few “converts” to my side on various issues.  A couple became Republicans (!) – no small feat in the “Age of Trump.”

One of the long-term effects of my experience was my decision to develop this blog.  I decided that the big picture, for me, was going to involve finding a constructive way to express some of my thoughts and ideas about the issues of the day.  And I wanted to do so outside of the typical social media context, which has been overrun with quickie “hit pieces,” hyper-partisan “gotcha” memes, and an assortment of nasty invective.

Once solidly left-of-center in my politics, these days I proudly self-identify as a conservative.  Why?  Plainly put, there is so much about America that is worth conserving.

A very small voice among countless millions, truly, my opinions don’t “count” any more than the next person.  At the same time, my experience on this focus group compelled me to find a better way to offer my contributions.  Social media may be accelerating folks’s determination to rip the fabric of this country in half.  Come what may, I’ll use my brief time left on this planet to try to understand and be understood.  This project is my modest attempt to do just that.

Many thanks to Mr. Luntz, the folks at Fox News, and my fellow panelists.  Their role in this singular experience crystallized my desire to take this step.

Many thanks, too, to my many friends and family who encouraged me to start along this path.  May my efforts be worthy of their support.

I hope that, in my own small corner of this world, I’ll do my part to promote a civil public square.

RK