Charisma wins elections
Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM PDT
One of the most frustrating things about being a Democrat is watching the party repeat its mistakes: We keep nominating candidates who can get the vote of every thinking man in the U.S., only to watch them lose to hucksters and hustlers who can hoodwink the voters with a tall tale and a smile.
Al Gore had the best résumé of any Democratic candidate in a generation - eight years in the White House, decades of experience in government - but he came across to voters as stiff and cerebral, and he lost to a dry drunk doing a fake cowboy routine. John Kerry was a great nominee on paper, with excellent credentials - but he couldn't do a sound bite to save his life, and he lost to a dry drunk doing a fake John Wayne routine. Dukakis and Mondale also wore the "thinking man's" cap, for all the good it did them; on paper the Democrats should have held the White House from 1908 to the present, if the "better" candidate always won... but here we are instead.
In thirty years only Bill Clinton has managed to square the circle, winning support from people who voted with their hearts as well as their heads: Bill Clinton was a policy wonk of the first order, but he also had charisma - he came across on television as a warm, caring, empathetic person. He did well against Bob Dole and the elder George Bush, both of whom appeared dry and dispassionate by comparison; Dole and Bush were both competent candidates with good résumés, but failed to spark with voters.
This year we have the most exciting Democratic primary in my lifetime, and the GOP is deciding which lamb gets slaughtered: I sincerely believe we started the primary season with half a dozen candidates who could win in November, and the GOP started with none. I think that whoever we nominate will win the election, and what's really at stake right now is about coat-tails, filibuster-proof majorities, and winning again in 2012; I think that in favorable conditions a "head" candidate can win an election - the elder Bush did it in '88 - but a "heart" candidate can transform the political landscape.
And so we come to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Hillary Clinton has the stronger résumé of the two; Obama fans might argue whether proximity counts as experience, but Sen. Clinton has undeniably been in the public eye for longer and has weathered some of the GOP's roughest attacks on any national figure. She's been active in the health care debate for decades, has demonstrated she can work with the GOP to get legislation passed, and is running on her credentials: She'll be ready on day one, says her campaign.
...but she does not have the charisma that her husband famously does.
For many voters, Hillary's public image is already locked in and unflattering: Cold and calculating, ruthless in her ambition, showing emotion only on cue and doing whatever is necessary to win the election. Some perceive that last part as an asset: If you think Kerry lost because he didn't go for the jugular, and you think the GOP's swift-boat hyenas are going to eat Obama alive, then Hillary is a candidate who'll give as good as she gets. But there's a real risk that Hillary tops out at 53%-55% of the electorate and never goes higher: She gets enough to win in '08, and we improve our Senate majority somewhat, but it goes downhill from there and the GOP makes gains in '10 and '12.
And then there's Obama. I think, at the margin, some of Hillary's fans actually see Obama as one of the hucksters: He's smiling and selling happy juice, people are drinking it up, and this absolutely infuriates certain partisans who don't understand how the GOP puts people like Dubya and Reagan into office. These are the scream-and-shake Democrats, the ones constantly fighting the urge to track down people who voted for Dubya in '04 and shake them by the shoulders until they can account for themselves - they don't understand why anyone would "fall for" Obama's rhetoric, they don't understand how their fellow Americans were fooled by Dubya's patter, and they don't understand how Obama could possibly be a stronger candidate in the general election than the more "qualified" Hillary Clinton.
But I tend to think Obama is the stronger candidate, and his charisma is the reason. Charisma alone isn't a good reason to vote for a candidate - I understand Mike Huckabee is a charming fellow once you get past the theocracy - but it's a powerful asset for a candidate to have. And Obama has substance to back it up, from his superior judgement on Iraq to his non-proliferation work to his continued leadership on ethics reform. I don't have any major complaints regarding either candidate's domestic policies, really, and I can't get worked up about health care plan differences (the candidate who isn't President next year will still be in the Senate, right?), so for me it comes down to preferring Obama's foreign policy and believing Obama has an easier path to a second term.
I think I'm supposed to put a poll here now.
Permalink | 54 comments