There is something almost ridiculous about the political (as opposed to policy) pronouncements of some of our smart blogging wonks. For example, when discussing the malleable concept of electability we get this:
the most important but least discussed factor in electability: charisma. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both had it, but long resumes couldn't compensate for Bob Dole's or John Kerry's lack thereof. Cohn argues that the Democrats should vote with their hearts instead of trying to calculate who is the most electable. I would say that the Dems would be wise to still consider electability, but they should replace resume with charisma as the most important factor in measuring it. As the example of Clinton demonstrates, in practice those two bits of advice will often amount to the same thing.
I have two words for you: Richard Nixon. No one would dare call him charismatic and yet he won by 23 points and got 61% of the vote. Clinton never got even 50%. I think electabilty is a real phenomena, but the fact that the most important electability factor is never discussed shows how little Dems understand politics. More
That factor? The power of a candidate's party brand. NOTHING is more important. That is why I have criticized Barack Obama:
When we talk about Barack Obama's political rhetoric and style, we are not questioning his heart, mind or commitment to progressive policies. But rather his political approach. We now see Hillary leading McCain and I fear that the wrong lessons will be learned
[T]he recent Newsweek poll showing Hillary up 7 over McCain would also support his view. Personally, I don't buy these polls so far out and do not think Hillary is very electable. But that is the least of it. More so than Obama, I find Hillary's political rhetoric and style an abandonment of the Politics of Contrast (see my posts on the subject for more detail) that I think won Dems the 2006 election and the type of politics that Dems must adopt in the near future in all national elections. To wit, Hillary is BENEFITTING from an improved Dem brand and weakened GOP brand but her style was not part of that success. To adopt it, or Obama's, is to reject success.
Recently, Ezra and Duncan have joined some of us in criticzing Obama's style. And faced harsh, unresponsive criticism as a result. Duncan said:
Obama's triangulation is more rhetorical than real. One can triangulate by picking a Third Way position, or one can triangulate by picking a position and calling it the Third Way and that's what Obama tends to do. See Tomasky's review of his book in the NYRB. It may be dishonest or he may genuinely mean it, and I don't much care. Dishonesty has an honorable place in politics. My problem with triangulation has nothing to do with dishonesty or personal affront - I don't expect politicians to cater to me in their speeches. My problem with triangulation is that it's a way for a man to win an election, but not a way to build a party's brand. It's a short term strategy to benefit an individual, not a long term strategy to increase the size of the tribe.
Except it is NOT a way to win an election, because by destroying your Party brand you lead the way to your own defeat. This, my dear Obama supporters, is why we criticize. Not because we do not respect, even admire Obama. But because we worry about the political style path he is following.
Is charisma real? Of course. Does it help? Of course. But if anyone thinks any candidate's charisma is more important than the strength of her Party brand, then they are not paying attention. This is why any candidate who believes that criticizing their own Party is smart politics just does not understand politics.
The most successful Presidential candidates of the 20th Century in terms of votes were:
FDR, who won 57% of the vote in 1932, over 60% in 1936, around 55% in 1940 and 53% in 1944. Was he a partisan? Damn right he was:
We all know the story of the unfortunate chameleon which turned brown when placed on a brown rug, and turned red when placed on a red rug, but who died a tragic death when they put him on a Scotch plaid. We all know what would happen to Government if it tried to fulfill all the secret understandings and promises made between the conflicting groups which are now backing the Republican Party.
There is something very ominous in this combination that has been forming within the Republican Party between the extreme reactionary and the extreme radical elements of this country.
Ronald Reagan, who won 51% in 1980 and 59% in 1984. Was he partisan? Of course he was:
Myth No. 2: Reagan was a uniter, not a divider. Reagan's tenure is being depicted as a brief moment of national unity before the advent of today's strident partisanship. In fact, apart from Richard Nixon, it's hard to think of a more divisive president of the twentieth century. As I've noted, Reagan was, during his first two years, one of the least-liked presidents of the postwar age. The festering economic doldrums, the worsening Cold War tensions, and doubts about his temperament conspired to make him less popular than Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and even Carter were at comparable points in their terms. Nor was Reagan's second term free of strife. Starting in 1986, the Iran-contra scandal revived widespread criticism of his leadership—including calls for his impeachment—and his poll ratings went into free fall.
Richard Nixon, who won 61% of the vote in 1972. Partisan? You don't need a link for that I hope.
Please note one important fact; each of these candidates and Presidents were masters of negative branding. Of the Politics of Contrast.
Charisma is great. I am all for it. But give me a candidate who understands negative branding and the politics of contrast, as John Edwards has recently displayed with his McCain Doctrine comment, over charisma any day. Or better yet, let's have a candidate with both.