MADISON, Wis.–While the federal elections today give the impression everyone in the country is following and participating in the voting process, a significant number of people actually remain politically disengaged—and many of those individuals see credit unions in a negative light.
Now one researcher is attempting to find out why as well as answer whether credit unions are about to enter a “political danger zone.”
In 2019, Filene researcher Andrew Turner of the University of Wisconsin Law School, released his first research report titled “Who do Credit Unions Belong To?” sharing that most people in the U.S., whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, admire credit unions and do not perceive them as associated with any particular partisan cause or social movement. But he found that wasn’t true of those not engaged in political participation.
Now, Turner is conducting follow-up research to analyze why the politically disengaged have negative views of credit unions. Turner believes there are four strategic approaches credit unions can take in the immediate, post-election aftermath to help their members navigate the muddy waters, re-engage with their communities and double-down on successful messages and strategies.
While no one knows how today’s elections will turn out, “ultimately, someone is going to win. And perhaps surprisingly, that poses a particular threat to credit unions,” wrote Turner.
Conservative or Liberal?
Citing his earlier research, Tuner asked, “Are credit unions politically conservative or more liberal? The initial evidence was, to be honest, completely confounding. My personal hunch – likely formed by living in credit union-heavy and more progressive Madison, Wis. – was that credit unions would be perceived as liberal institutions. I had guessed that such a finding would lead to some self-reflection about how to avoid credit unions becoming typecast in the eyes of the public.
“That’s not how it turned out,” Turner continued. “In fact, credit unions are well loved by people across the political spectrum. The vast majority of liberals do, in fact, love credit unions. Then again, so do the vast majority of staunch conservatives. That sounds like great news for credit unions, but there was a worrying punchline hidden underneath those results.”
That hidden punchline, according to Turner, are those who are politically disengaged. “Though the numbers were small, they were striking,” Turner said.
The Danger Zone
Striking enough, according to Turner, that he refers to what he calls the “credit union danger zone,” adding, “We’re about to harvest a huge new crop of disillusioned voters.”
Turner said the “grinding reckoning on racial issues, economic upheaval, and a previously unthinkable global pandemic” have been “leavened by deep partisan divides in the United States, and have led a huge number of Americans to view the election as an existential matter. These high stakes and deep partisanship almost assures that an unprecedented number of Americans will be angry, frustrated, disillusioned, and numb regardless of who ultimately prevails.”
Some Theories
Turner added today’s election in and of itself is “unlikely to cure the problem.”
So, why do disengaged citizens reject credit unions?
It’s a question Turner said he is now researching, but he also offered several theories:
- The disaffected and disengaged may not have a particular problem with credit unions – perhaps they have a problem with everyone.
- Some people are simply checked out.
- The disaffected and disengaged might be cynical – not just about politics, but about the economy, business, schools, and pretty much everything else. For people who have deep-seated distrust, what credit unions may intend as authentic messages may be perceived as no more convincing—and hypocritical—than a sales pitch by a major commercial bank or retailer.
Turner’s full analysis and additional details can be found here.