“This is the beginning of a whole new concept. This is it. This is the way they’ll be elected forevermore. The next guys up will have to be performers.” - Roger Ailes, 1968
In many ways Richard Nixon was a terrible person. We all know that. His tarnished reputation, which he was never able to restore, looms over and obscures his legacy. However, Nixon was an incredibly capable politician, probably the most gifted of his time. He was a successful legislator and his talent to collect and dispense power might be rivaled only by the Master Builder of New York City, Robert Moses. The combination of Nixon's fierce intellect and oratorical mastery granted him the perception of winning almost any argument, even when he was clearly in the wrong (see: Checkers Speech). And Nixon was not handed anything. He started with little but a fierce will to show the rich kids he could beat them in whatever game they were playing, and he won that game over and over until he was the most powerful man on the planet. Nixon was the archetype of post-war American political power. He was a master of policy, rhetoric, and even though he had been out of politics for 6 years when he decided to run for President in 1960, he had the full force of the Republican establishment behind him.
However, if Nixon came up 40 years later, the man wouldn't have had a chance.
American Politics evolved substantially with the election of Ronald Reagan. Unlike Tricky Dick, no one would ever accuse Ronnie of being an intellectual. Reagan was a charming actor/spokesman/salesman turned politician. He began his adulthood as a typical New Deal Democrat believing in the power of government to affect positive change. However, in the 1950s Reagan began working for GE. He was hired to tour the plants and give conservative, pro-business speeches to GE workers. It was during this time that Reagan began endorsing Republicans. In 1962, Reagan officially switched parties, and the GOP had the handsome face they needed to sell their brand. Soon, Reagan transitioned from endorsing conservative candidates to becoming one, and in 1980, he succeeded in selling himself to a majority of Americans. The Republican establishment witnessed the power of the Spokesman, and they were the first to seize on the idea (about a decade ahead of the Democrats) that the American Politician was no longer best defined by his/her qualifications or an understanding of policy, by ethos and logos. Ronald Reagan won because he could connect with his audience. He proved that an extraordinary gift of pathos could catapult a B movie actor into the ultimate pitchman: the Face of America.
And here we are in 2010. More than ever, politics is not about policy, and it's not about excellence.
It is about telling a good story and looking good. It's about attracting media attention and selling copy. It's about making a connection with your audience. It's about crafting the best narrative. It's about putting 200,000 miles on a pick-up truck during the two months of a special election campaign. It's about being a small-town Alaskan mom rising through the ranks of professional politicians as an antagonist to the Washington elite. It's about a middle-class African-American child of a single parent putting himself through Columbia and Harvard Law, developing the oratorical skills to bring peoples of different backgrounds together, to forge consensus and show the world that now is the time for the United States to choose someone other than a rich white male to lead. It's about good PR.
Yes, Obama had popular policy on his side. Yes he had the help of running against George W. Bush's legacy. But that's not why our President won 68% of the electoral vote. He dominated the election because the cameras love him. He sells copy. It's true John McCain is a media darling, but no amount of maverickizing could change the fact that throughout the 2008 campaign, McCain was terrible on camera, he had terrible branding, and next to his opponent, he looked like a grouchy and tired old man. Gore and Kerry also had the popular policy on their side, but they couldn't wear a cowboy hat like that other son of privilege they were running against.
Because I'm more of a progressive than anything else, I'm thankful things turned out the way they did in 2008. Still, the implication leaves me uneasy. The kingmaking apparatus has been steadily shifting away from inside the Republican and Democratic Party power structures, which historically forced potential candidates to rise up the ranks and prove to their peers a possession of strong aptitude as legislators and executives. Now the true kingmakers are the ones who control the narrative and the cameras, and it's not just the Washington Post and the New York Times we're dealing with. We're talking about Bill "Inside Edition" O'Reilly and Keith "Sportscenter" Olbermann. We're talking about People Magazine and US Weekly. There is no other explanation for the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin.
While online journalism, DIY investigative reporting and the continual decentralization of the media gives me hope, I'm not sure grassroots ingenuity will be able to neuter the rising ascendancy of pathos in political discorse. We recently decided we don't need authentic meteorologists to deliver the weather and we don't need actual journalists to give us the news. Soon we may decide we have no reason for real intellectuals or true leaders to represent our nation...unless, like our 44th President, they've got that winning smile.