Charm and other personal traits, as linked to political success

**PeterGustafsson** · 10-17-2004 07:33 PM

Hi!

In many elections the question of the personality of the main contenders comes up. This is especially true for US. elections, with their weak parties and TV-dependent campaigns, but applies to other countries also.

The percieved personality of a political leader can influence the election in many different ways:
1. Be a rallying point for his own party only (help me with examples here!)
2. Be a rallying point for both his own party and his opposition (Clinton)
3. Be a rallying point mostly to his opposition (GW Bush, Palme)
4. Considered "lukewarm", but this does not affect the election in a big way (Bush Sr.)
5. Considered so tepid so that it is openly conceded as a vote-getting problem by those on his side (Kerry)
6. Cross-over appeal, gets out the vote from his own party and takes some from the opposition based on personality (Reagan? partly a #2 also)

Full disclosure: Those who have read my political posts probably have gathered this by now, but here comes: I am rooting for Kerry. In the following, I will try to be as objective as possible, but perfect impartiality is probably an impossible task. Now you know which bias to factor in when you read the rest.

It has been written that Kerry lacks charm, or stuff to that effect. This has also been said about other politicians, and it has never made me think less of them. Almost always, when the pundits call it "charm", I call it "phoniness". Even if it were true charm, I would not give extra points to the politician in question, since I don´t think that it is a trait that should be useful, if the political process is working the way I think it should. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, I value charm very little when I deal with people in person. The rest of the Kerry personality (as described by media) - brainy, thinker, etc - is just the stuff to get points from me.

GW Bush, OTOH, rubs me exactly the wrong way, projected personality-wise. I can not recollect anything that has been said about him by those who claim to be on his side that has made him better in my book, at least anything that would be a difference from Kerry. It was written (in Newsweek, IIRC) that he - when presented with a speech draft - said that it should be redone with less difficult words, "I am not a professor". That really got my blood boiling.

(I like to think that I would have reacted the same way if it would have been done by someone on my side, but I can´t be sure before such a thing happens.)

So, after this preamble, here come the questions: Am I really that unusual? From the look of how the parties craft their campaigns, it seems as if they think that voters that think/behave/react as I do are so few as to be insignificant. Is this also your gut feeling? What effect does perceived charm have on you, and what do you think is its effect on the election in general?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

**jeff** · 10-17-2004 08:19 PM

I'm not sure about the 'rallying points' categories - I'll have to think about that.

In one sense, even though I despise Bush, he's right about the use of simple language for mass communications. The New York Post and Daily News tabloid newspapers are written at a 4th grade reading level, as are the ads in the subways. That makes it easier for more people to understand them. The side-effect that neither of those newspapers does an adequate job of actually conveying news highlights the problem. If you communicate in dumbed down language, you might get dumbed-down thinking.

I'm with Peter on his personality choices. I want a President that can see gray levels and nuance, and can think deeply and multiple levels. That doesn't mean liberal or conservative: Nixon had no problem seeing multiple levels of gray. Not that Kerry is like Nixon, of course, but I have no problem learning that he has brains and uses them.

On the other hand, I don't think Bush is a phoney: I think he pretty much is as he presents himself. It's said that Bush's father pandered to the religious right, while GWB is a member of it. I don't think he's faking this. Whether it's due to his religious beliefs (he has said that he believes God selected him to be President and this makes him secure in his decisions, whether based on information or not - he's also said he "just knows"), or because he's a privileged man who was never challenged (as in "prove it!", or "make a profit", or "find a job"), he does not take well to being contradicted, second guessed, or asked to justify a decision. That worries me, and I think it explains how we've gotten into the current mess.

**S. Hunter** · 10-18-2004 12:34 AM

Hi!

In many elections the question of the personality of the main contenders comes up. This is especially true for US. elections, with their weak parties and TV-dependent campaigns, but applies to other countries also.

The percieved personality of a political leader can influence the election in many different ways:
1. Be a rallying point for his own party only (help me with examples here!)
2. Be a rallying point for both his own party and his opposition (Clinton)
3. Be a rallying point mostly to his opposition (GW Bush, Palme)
4. Considered "lukewarm", but this does not affect the election in a big way (Bush Sr.)
5. Considered so tepid so that it is openly conceded as a vote-getting problem by those on his side (Kerry)
6. Cross-over appeal, gets out the vote from his own party and takes some from the opposition based on personality (Reagan? partly a #2 also)

Full disclosure: Those who have read my political posts probably have gathered this by now, but here comes: I am rooting for Kerry. In the following, I will try to be as objective as possible, but perfect impartiality is probably an impossible task. Now you know which bias to factor in when you read the rest.

It has been written that Kerry lacks charm, or stuff to that effect. This has also been said about other politicians, and it has never made me think less of them. Almost always, when the pundits call it "charm", I call it "phoniness". Even if it were true charm, I would not give extra points to the politician in question, since I don´t think that it is a trait that should be useful, if the political process is working the way I think it should. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, I value charm very little when I deal with people in person. The rest of the Kerry personality (as described by media) - brainy, thinker, etc - is just the stuff to get points from me.

GW Bush, OTOH, rubs me exactly the wrong way, projected personality-wise. I can not recollect anything that has been said about him by those who claim to be on his side that has made him better in my book, at least anything that would be a difference from Kerry. It was written (in Newsweek, IIRC) that he - when presented with a speech draft - said that it should be redone with less difficult words, "I am not a professor". That really got my blood boiling. (I like to think that I would have reacted the same way if it would have been done by someone on my side, but I can´t be sure before such a thing happens.)

So, after this preamble, here come the questions: Am I really that unusual? From the look of how the parties craft their campaigns, it seems as if they think that voters that think/behave/react as I do are so few as to be insignificant. Is this also your gut feeling? What effect does perceived charm have on you, and what do you think is its effect on the election in general?

The way you think is sort of funny to me - I like bush's personality and dislike kerry's. (Being an 'Intellectual' is a huge turn-off for me - IMO that is just something that rich people fake to make themselves feel superior.) Of course, I'd be voting for Badnarik, but in a personality race, Bush wins for me. I think that both bush and kerry are very genuine in their beliefs though - They couldn't take the heat if they werent.

As for the 'charm' factor, I believe It gets a candidate a lot of votes or loses his some. But then again, Nixon had negative charm, and he kept working at victory and finally won. On the other hand, Reagan had enough charm to boil water, and his victory was the greatest electoral victory well....ever. I think that in the end, Charm plays a small part, but if ya don't have good positions on the issues, then it really doesn't do much.

**Inquartata** · 10-18-2004 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1. Be a rallying point for his own party only (help me with examples here!)

Goldwater, maybe? Perot?

3. Be a rallying point mostly to his opposition (GW Bush, Palme)

Er---you really think Bush has no support? Did you see any of the Republican Convention? Have you been watching the polls?

It has been written that Kerry lacks charm, or stuff to that effect. This has also been said about other politicians, and it has never made me think less of them. Almost always, when the pundits call it "charm", I call it "phoniness". Even if it were true charm, I would not give extra points to the politician in question, since I don´t think that it is a trait that should be useful, if the political process is working the way I think it should.

So you didn't care for Clinton, then...

I can not recollect anything that has been said about him by those who claim to be on his side that has made him better in my book

How about by those who are NOT on his side? I think it was Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's daughter ( a Democrat herself and a Gore supporter ) that wrote a book about him, after having accompanied him during his 2000 campaign, which debunked a lot of the myths about him. A book which apparently has been forgotten or intentionally ignored since...

when presented with a speech draft - said that it should be redone with less difficult words, "I am not a professor". That really got my blood boiling.

Why? Do you think we ought to be governed by pedants? Is sophisticated English the best indicator of intelligence, wisdom, judgement, leadership, capacity for work, decisiveness, ability to get things accomplished within the legislative and bureaucratic spheres? Was Sir Walter Scott a better writer than Hemingway because he used bigger words and more complicated sentence structures?

Am I really that unusual?

Alas, I'm in no better position to make that judgement than you are. It's a matter for pollsters and political scientists skilled in electoral analysis, not for laymen.

From the look of how the parties craft their campaigns, it seems as if they think that voters that think/behave/react as I do are so few as to be insignificant. Is this also your gut feeling?

No, but then many things about political campaigns leave me nonplussed. So much money and effort gets spent on things that would seem to me not to make an iota of difference. Has any voter ever been won over by seeing the campaign signs that spring up in yards, lots and corners everywhere in election years, for instance? How many people even see the things after a while. much less pay any attention to them? Do phone solicitations really convert anyone, rather than annoy them? Yet these are ubiquitous techniques...

What effect does perceived charm have on you, and what do you think is its effect on the election in general?

Frankly I don't see what politicians and analysts call "charm" as charm at all. I see it as unctuousness, or an assumed guise, a veneer like those donned by actors and salesmen.

It neither attracts nor repels me in and of itself, though. It's policies and overall world views---or at least purported world views---upon which I like to believe I base my choices, not appearance, or glibness, or rehearsed gestures, or tie color....

**Inquartata** · 10-18-2004 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by jeff

I want a President that can see gray levels and nuance, and can think deeply and multiple levels.

Or at least one who tells you he does, or whose campaign staff manages to convince you that he does. How does one know, really, how a man one doesn't know thinks? Especially one surrounded and protected at all times by handlers, assistants, consultants, speech-writers, publicists, media analysts and style coaches?

I have no problem learning that he has brains and uses them.

You're much more certain than I am. I myself am not so confident of my ability to see through a con. Perhaps it's why I am an habitual skeptic: trust in one's own perspicacity is one of the prime qualities swindlers look for in a potential victim.

On the other hand, I don't think Bush is a phoney: I think he pretty much is as he presents himself.

Again, how so? If anything he's even more carefully shephered by flacks, consultants and handlers than Kerry is, I should think.

**jeff** · 10-18-2004 09:46 AM

Oh Inq - have a little more faith in yourself. Surely you have better ability to see when they've put lipstick on a pig. Or at least, you've frequently posted as if you have such abilities.

This is one of the benefits of actually observing the candidates when they're on the stump, or looking at the arguments they present - even when prepared in advance. It's very hard to keep aspects of their character from being exposed. No spin in the world could have made Nixon seem like a warm, gracious man, or Carter a decisive one. The contrasting approaches and abilities of Kerry and Bush are visible today as well - if you're watching.

**Inquartata** · 10-18-2004 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by jeff

Oh Inq - have a little more faith in yourself. Surely you have better ability to see when they've put lipstick on a pig.

I think you meant botox and something to lighten the deep shadows around those sunken eyesockets, beneath that overhanging brow...

Or at least, you've frequently posted as if you have such abilities.

Opinions? Yes. Abilities, as in infallible perception? No....

This is one of the benefits of actually observing the candidates when they're on the stump, or looking at the arguments they present - even when prepared in advance. It's very hard to keep aspects of their character from being exposed. No spin in the world could have made Nixon seem like a warm, gracious man, or Carter a decisive one. The contrasting approaches and abilities of Kerry and Bush are visible today as well - if you're watching.

You are still more certain of your own ability to "know" things about people from watching them perform in plays than I am, clearly.

**jeff** · 10-18-2004 09:25 PM

I'm thinking "Lurch", some people think "Frankenstein's Monster". Great hair, though.

As scripted as those things are, they inevitably leak to the world something of the candidates' personality and abilities. There are spontaneous moments, gaffes, and (too rarely) wit. Certainly, you can see Bush unable to answer a question like "What 3 mistakes have you made?", or resort to repeating slogans.

Ultimately, there is no certainty - somebody might be playing you even while sitting right in front of you. But, few people are that skilled, and you have to go with the evidence presented to you.

**Inquartata** · 10-19-2004 07:02 AM

Oh, I don't think he was "unable". I think he was unwilling---and quite sensibly, too.

In the prevailing political climate, admitting to being wrong only furnishes ones opponent with fodder for attacks and vilifications. I think it is obvious to us all that had Bush stepped unwarily into that trap and named three such mistakes, they would have featured prominently in Kerry and Edwards speeches by the next morning and in campaign ads by the end of the weekend. Given that, anyone would be a fool willingly so to provide the rope for his own lynching.

**jeff** · 10-19-2004 12:21 PM

Cuts both ways (as a sabreur you'll appreciate that). MoveOn is running TV ads from a previous time he was asked that question, and was visibly flummoxed. Made him look like a moron - which is why they run the ad. The official Dem campaign runs a line saying "see, he still can't admit to mistakes, he just doesn't get it". Even people like me would gain some respect for him if he was able to say "I made some mistakes, working with the best information I had, and if I knew then what I knew now I would have done A, B, or C differently". Yes, he avoided exposing himself to attacks based on admitting flaws, but leaves himself wide open to attacks based on inability to admit a mistake

**Inquartata** · 10-20-2004 06:17 AM

It's a utility calculus, to be sure. I think the damage from the former would far outweigh the latter, as it'd be far more specific. And I think most of us overestimate our own reactions to others "doing the right thing". You may believe you'd respect admissions of error, but I'm not sure it'd counterbalance your scorn for "incompetence" and "screwing up". And most likely there are complex and expensive sociopsychological studies which have been done, or at least consulted, by both sides backing their respective strategies...

**PeterGustafsson** · 10-26-2004 07:11 PM

Hi!