by Matthew J. Lacombe
Policy feedback scholarship has illustrated how policies shape group behaviors and political processes, primarily focusing on the benefits accrued by their proponents and supporters. This narrative typically celebrates the “winners”—those who benefit from policy enactments. However, less attention is paid to the groups that oppose the policies—what happens to the policy “losers”?
I shift the focus to these overlooked groups and explore how policy losers turn their defeats into strategic opportunities for power-building. These groups often successfully engage in post-loss power-building efforts, especially when the policy (1) recognizes their members as a distinct class, and (2) does not undercut incentives for membership and mobilization. Such policy setbacks enable organized groups to point to the negative consequences these changes could have on their members, thereby increasing the political relevance and salience of their membership. In turn, organized groups strategically leverage these setbacks to their advantage, transforming defeats into opportunities to strengthen their group identity and collective action.
I apply this framework to the realm of gun politics, focusing on the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its responses to two legislative defeats: the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Act of 1993 and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Both losses mark significant moments when the NRA failed to prevent the enactment of stringent gun regulations. The data is obtained from various sources, including public records of gun legislation and its amendments, key NRA communications such as newsletters, press releases, and statements, as well as gun sales and membership data.
Here are some of the key findings:
- In the aftermath of legislative defeats, the NRA framed new policies as targeted threats to gun owners as a group. The NRA leveraged these perceived threats to cultivate shared grievances among its members and to rally support for pro-gun candidates in subsequent elections and policy battles.
- In response to losses, NRA supporters, following the organization’s lead, expressed frustration with how the new laws treated them. These sentiments likely influenced the NRA’s membership numbers and gun sales, with each increasing in the aftermath of gun laws being enacted.
- The NRA’s post-loss actions manifested in subsequent political battles, often as strong opposition against the policy. The NRA, in short, was able to use anger about losses to mobilize strong support during downstream policy debates.
This study highlights the power of strategic framing in political mobilization. Policy losses can fortify a group’s resolve, cohesion, and future political capabilities when these losses do not disrupt the incentives that groups rely on to drive collective action. This paper invites policymakers and political strategists to reconsider the effects of legislative outcomes not just on policy winners, but also on those who initially face defeats. Understanding that policy losers might use defeats as a springboard for greater organizational cohesion and political power could influence both the design and communication strategies around new policies.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Lacombe, M.J. (2022) “Post-loss power building: The feedback effects of policy loss on group identity and collective action.” Policy Studies Journal, 50, 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12446
About the Author
Matthew Lacombe is the Alexander P. Lamis Associate Professor in American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University and the author of Firepower: How the NRA Turned Gun Owners into a Political Force.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 