Posts
It has been said that, since the advent of the television era, the winner in US presidential elections has almost always been the candidate who seemed most cheerful. The one exception is 1968, when Humphrey's “politics of joy” was beaten by a dour Nixon. In that case, Humphrey's joy just seemed callous in light of the circumstances.
I think the truth is a bit more complicated. Cheerfulness helps a good deal, but I think what it is really about is likability. Americans are voting for someone they are going to then see a lot of over the next few years. That said, it seems so. Reagan's politics might have been out of step with the popular will in his day, but his ability to seem upbeat and non-threatening on TV made him the “Teflon president.” Bill Clinton weathered scandals that would have taken down many politicians, because he looked and acted such a likeable rogue. George W. Bush might have been blundering, but he always came across as having a good heart, as a guy you could sit down and have a beer with.
This factor is overwhelmingly overlooked in political analysis. Political analysts, being deeply interested themselves in policy, naturally suppose we choose our leaders on their policy stands. I doubt that most of us do. We are too smart to. For one thing, politicians really cannot be trusted on this; they usually choose the policies they think will get them elected, and rarely honour their commitments in office. For another, we cannot guess what issues will arise over the next few years, and therefore cannot know their positions in advance, or which of their positions will be most important.
It is simply logical, then, to vote on our sense of their character.
This is one big reason why I believe Hillary Clinton will not be the next president. Clinton fundamentally lacks likeability. She seems stiff and artificial, when she does not seem slightly deranged: both insincere and out of touch. She is lost in the uncanny valley. By contrast, there is something undeniably lovable about Bernie Sanders, everybody's indulgent uncle, who, in trying to still appear hip, will let you get away with anything.
Martin O'Malley, despite his efforts, suffers from being too good looking. Being too good looking is not loveable; it is enviable.
Among the Republicans, Mike Huckabee has the likeability factor in barrels. It pulled him from nowhere into the thick of the race in 2008, and could catch fire again. I think John Kasich has it; and he has had the smarts to key his campaign so far on a note of hope and optimism. Ben Carson has it. Marco Rubio has it. I think Jeb Bush has it. Rick Perry has it. For him, it is obscured by the memory of his debate flub last run. But someone with likeability can get past that sort of thing; he could catch fire.
Bobby Jindal, given his record of accomplishment, ought to be doing much better in the polls than he. He has a problem harder than Perry's to overcome: his robotic performance when delivering the Republican response to Obama's address to Congress in 2009. Incompetence or venality are easier to overcome in the mind of the American public than an impression of soullessness. Ted Cruz suffers, in my mind, from an irritating voice. Scott Walker, despite his surging poll numbers, seems to me too bland to pull it off in the end. Dull ordinariness, with competence, works in Canada, but not, I think, in the USA. Harry Truman might have been ordinary, but he was not dull. For this reason, of the two current leading Republican candidates, I give the edge to Bush. Rubio, as well, is not quite there, because he is a bit too good looking.
Now for the candidates who are weakest on the likeability factor: Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie have the strongest current unlikeability to likeability factors (http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-no-slump-after-attacks-on-mccain/). It follows that it would be a bad idea for the Republicans to nominate any of them. Unfortunately for them, it is entirely possible for this to happen. The most cheerful candidate does not necessarily win his party's nomination. At this stage of the process, there is a greater premium on voicing the base's discontents, or the party's ideological concerns; the people voting in the primaries tend to be more issues-oriented. In the general, just about everyone is voting a second choice.
On the other hand, the very characteristics that make such candidates a bad choice as party nominee can make them a good choice for the vp slot. Here, if they have charisma, they can play bad cop and fire up the base.
Carly Fiorina is doing a very good job of auditioning for vice president: avoiding criticising other candidates, and making very effective points against Hillary Clinton. Chris Christie would be a good match for the role as well, if the nominee happened to be on the right of the party. Santorum simple lacks charisma. He has a good run when he could consolidate the Christian right behind him on ideology, in 2012, but this time he has competition for that support.
And then there's Donald Trump. I still expect him to implode soon. However, if he does not, yet still does not get the Republican nomination himself (a disaster for the party) he should probably be every other candidates first choice for the vp slot. He'd be great in the role, a natural attack dog, and it would pre-empt both any further criticism of fellow Republicans, and any third-party run. If Trump is not on the team, he has the money to go it on his own, and the split in the Republicans' natural base could lose them the election.
I think the truth is a bit more complicated. Cheerfulness helps a good deal, but I think what it is really about is likability. Americans are voting for someone they are going to then see a lot of over the next few years. That said, it seems so. Reagan's politics might have been out of step with the popular will in his day, but his ability to seem upbeat and non-threatening on TV made him the “Teflon president.” Bill Clinton weathered scandals that would have taken down many politicians, because he looked and acted such a likeable rogue. George W. Bush might have been blundering, but he always came across as having a good heart, as a guy you could sit down and have a beer with.
This factor is overwhelmingly overlooked in political analysis. Political analysts, being deeply interested themselves in policy, naturally suppose we choose our leaders on their policy stands. I doubt that most of us do. We are too smart to. For one thing, politicians really cannot be trusted on this; they usually choose the policies they think will get them elected, and rarely honour their commitments in office. For another, we cannot guess what issues will arise over the next few years, and therefore cannot know their positions in advance, or which of their positions will be most important.
It is simply logical, then, to vote on our sense of their character.
This is one big reason why I believe Hillary Clinton will not be the next president. Clinton fundamentally lacks likeability. She seems stiff and artificial, when she does not seem slightly deranged: both insincere and out of touch. She is lost in the uncanny valley. By contrast, there is something undeniably lovable about Bernie Sanders, everybody's indulgent uncle, who, in trying to still appear hip, will let you get away with anything.
Martin O'Malley, despite his efforts, suffers from being too good looking. Being too good looking is not loveable; it is enviable.
Among the Republicans, Mike Huckabee has the likeability factor in barrels. It pulled him from nowhere into the thick of the race in 2008, and could catch fire again. I think John Kasich has it; and he has had the smarts to key his campaign so far on a note of hope and optimism. Ben Carson has it. Marco Rubio has it. I think Jeb Bush has it. Rick Perry has it. For him, it is obscured by the memory of his debate flub last run. But someone with likeability can get past that sort of thing; he could catch fire.
Bobby Jindal, given his record of accomplishment, ought to be doing much better in the polls than he. He has a problem harder than Perry's to overcome: his robotic performance when delivering the Republican response to Obama's address to Congress in 2009. Incompetence or venality are easier to overcome in the mind of the American public than an impression of soullessness. Ted Cruz suffers, in my mind, from an irritating voice. Scott Walker, despite his surging poll numbers, seems to me too bland to pull it off in the end. Dull ordinariness, with competence, works in Canada, but not, I think, in the USA. Harry Truman might have been ordinary, but he was not dull. For this reason, of the two current leading Republican candidates, I give the edge to Bush. Rubio, as well, is not quite there, because he is a bit too good looking.
Now for the candidates who are weakest on the likeability factor: Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie have the strongest current unlikeability to likeability factors (http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-no-slump-after-attacks-on-mccain/). It follows that it would be a bad idea for the Republicans to nominate any of them. Unfortunately for them, it is entirely possible for this to happen. The most cheerful candidate does not necessarily win his party's nomination. At this stage of the process, there is a greater premium on voicing the base's discontents, or the party's ideological concerns; the people voting in the primaries tend to be more issues-oriented. In the general, just about everyone is voting a second choice.
On the other hand, the very characteristics that make such candidates a bad choice as party nominee can make them a good choice for the vp slot. Here, if they have charisma, they can play bad cop and fire up the base.
Carly Fiorina is doing a very good job of auditioning for vice president: avoiding criticising other candidates, and making very effective points against Hillary Clinton. Chris Christie would be a good match for the role as well, if the nominee happened to be on the right of the party. Santorum simple lacks charisma. He has a good run when he could consolidate the Christian right behind him on ideology, in 2012, but this time he has competition for that support.
And then there's Donald Trump. I still expect him to implode soon. However, if he does not, yet still does not get the Republican nomination himself (a disaster for the party) he should probably be every other candidates first choice for the vp slot. He'd be great in the role, a natural attack dog, and it would pre-empt both any further criticism of fellow Republicans, and any third-party run. If Trump is not on the team, he has the money to go it on his own, and the split in the Republicans' natural base could lose them the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment