Over the last few weeks, a familiar polarization took over Iowa City residents. On March 4, voters hit the polls, ready to vote for the open Iowa City City Council chair. Regardless of the winner, the tension leading up to Election Day took the spotlight.

Yet, Iowa City’s special election was not a partisan fight. It was the debate of which issues people care about more. With a focus on social issues, both candidates tried to demonstrate their platforms’ alignments with current political and social trends in an attempt to be perceived as the suitable option.

Both platforms’ websites include a brief outline of each candidate’s main concerns and how they have previously helped the community. With housing rights as a given for candidates Oliver Weilein and Ross Nusser, voters looked at their other promises in making a decision.

The top promises of candidate Nusser include affordable housing, expanded mental and behavioral health resources, support for those in need, and local food initiatives.

“With Ross Nusser, we’re not just electing a representative — we’re choosing a leader who truly cares,” Nusser’s campaign claims. He seeks to support local nonprofits and help local governments dealing with financial concerns. Nusser’s platform, while addressing community needs, focuses largely on tangible policy issues that can be shaped and implemented within the council’s capacity, aiming to provide relief to vulnerable populations.

His opponent Weilein takes on a more leftist approach. Along with housing concerns, reproductive rights and trans mutual aid are among Weilein’s campaign issues. Weilein has also been more vocal about social issues — especially online. Following his 2018 tweet calling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers “pigs” and “evil f*cking traitors,” he joined in the Feb. 3 protest against President Donald Trump’s mass deportations. His campaign reflects a commitment to addressing broader social justice issues, positioning himself as an advocate for marginalized groups to resonate with the younger, more progressive base in Iowa City. While Weilein’s positions are tied to pressing local needs, he focuses on national and global movements such as reproductive rights and immigration reform rather than purely local solutions.

While mental health resources may be vital, they aren’t thought of as the top priority for the city council — namely in a city with a university that already offers extensive mental health resources. As for immigration protection, local efforts are appreciated but are not a top priority for many residents.

This brings up an important question: What can Iowa City’s local council actually achieve for national and
social issues?

Not much. But that doesn’t seem to matter. Those issues are how leaders win, and that is how they show they care.

This isn’t new. When Trump ran for re-election, the same phrase kept emerging: family values. Ideally, one can’t run their campaign on something so baseless and vague. Yet, Trump did. And won. I wouldn’t say his victory was solely because of promoting family values, but it certainly had an influence. The Republican Party is a strong advocate for traditional American families, and Trump’s campaign successfully appealed to the public with his emphasis on heterosexual, pro-life, and ultimately picket-fence lifestyle. Although he couldn’t necessarily enforce “family values,” he gained support from those who have the same principles.

His opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, took the same approach. Instead of emphasizing specific policies — which she received criticism for — she rooted her campaign in relatability and authenticity.

“My values have not changed,” Harris stated, emphasizing consistency in her beliefs and actions. To reach younger voters, Harris became a prominent figure on platforms like TikTok, often using humor and viral trends, such as coconut memes, to engage with a demographic typically harder to reach through traditional political methods. She showed the American public she stood with them while also running for them. This emotional appeal with her genuine desire to be in touch with the people propelled her campaign within months.

Just as Trump and Harris’ values influenced their policy decisions, Iowans want a leader whose decisions reflect their morals. That is exactly how American politics work. More and more, we’ve begun to decide our vote based on how we assume someone will approach certain policies. Giving an overarching idea of who someone is as a person speaks more volumes to citizens than specific policies ever could.

American history has proven this to be the case.

In the 1980s, former President Ronald Reagan realized he couldn’t run on economic policy alone. With his tax cuts only benefiting the rich, he shifted his campaign to more moral and social issues to draw in more Democrats. Thus, the idea of “Reagan Democrats” was born. Reagan recognized that many working-class Democrats who had historically supported unions and government programs were disillusioned by the Democratic Party’s drift to the left on social issues. So, he redefined the Republican Party by addressing concerns about law and order, traditional family values, and religious freedom — issues that resonated with socially conservative voters. These voters, many of whom might have supported Democrats in the past, shifted toward Reagan’s vision of America.

Gage Miskimen has been on the city council for Marion, Iowa, for the last two years and has noted this ongoing trend.

“Candidates should be asking themselves who they are and who they want to be for the community,” Miskimen said. “Because we want leaders that are comfortable with these social issues and are a voice for the people.”

“It is tough in the Democratic Party, because a lot of voters aren’t satisfied with just policy alone,” Miskimen continued. “Showing and being there does numbers for voters, especially among those who feel underrepresented or unheard.”

And he is right.

Ideally, specific policies and changes would dictate which way people swing in elections. But America has changed, and along with it, the voting patterns. We look to our leaders for more than just public policy — we want a role model who thinks like us and thinks of us.

“People don’t want to vote for potholes in Iowa City. It is less about voting for someone that will make an instrumental change, but rather someone who they identify with,” Justin Cosner, University of Iowa director of graduate studies for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said.

Although potholes might directly impact Iowa City residents more than immigration policies or mental health resources, they don’t say much about the candidate. Rather than reflective, individual decision-making, voting has become a team sport — a sport about charisma, not skill.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing — if done right.

The highest voter turnout for a special election occurred on March 7, 2023, for the development of a public water system. According to unofficial results, 476 residents of Johnson County voted. Presidential elections have always had the most turnout, even though some national policies might not directly impact Iowa City residents. The last presidential election had the highest voter turnout in Johnson County with 87,107 voters.

Consequently, it’s safe to say not many people vote in local elections unless they are on the presidential ballot. Most Americans don’t know who represents them in the state governments, much less what they do. Still, the public pays trillions of dollars in taxes at the state level.

And so if locals run a campaign rooted in national, disseminated issues, heads will turn and head to the polling stations.

The nationalization of district elections is inevitable, especially since the last presidential election was so prominent in the news cycle. We were constantly bombarded with new data, speeches, and media coverage.

So, instead of sifting through mountains of information and specific policies, many people just focused on the character of the candidate. Trump was a domineering, bold pick, while Harris had a caring, inspirational persona. Thus, the public was left to choose between which adjectives they preferred — even if they didn’t directly relate to being a strong leader.

This shift in focus from policy details to personal branding is what has defined modern elections, where the strength of a candidate’s identity often trumps the specifics of their platform.

As Cosner put it, “Playing on buzzwords is the game in town. But the alternative is like not playing at all, a choice to just
give up.”

Gage Miskimen is a former executive editor at The Daily Iowan.