The Ultimate Political Battle: Political Rhetoric, or Political Stances?

Over time, the most ambitious, charismatic speakers have continued to win elections. This charisma is almost contagious, and the American people tend to believe and feel connections with those that can move them with their speech, or rhetorically. Yes, the issues matter in every election, but do the people really believe in them or are they just electing someone based on their magnetism and powers of persuasion? The answer is the latter, unfortunately, this is a climbing trend and will not be stopped until people take the time to read up on issues, look at records, and involve themselves more thoroughly politically. This blog will examine elections that prove that the more charismatic leader is the one that is elected into presidency.

The first example is Bill Clinton. He was very charismatic, comfortable under all spot light circumstances, and young at heart. Paul Graham, a famous essayist, author, and “was” Republican said this about his vote during the presidential election of 1993, “But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters” (Graham 2006). He didn’t base this vote off of the issues, but off of the personality. People believe in someone who is more energetic. They believe, even if they just use their upbeat personality to prove it, that they will be a better more engaged president.

This is proven later when in 2004, Gore who is seemingly dry and uninteresting ran for the presidency against George W. Bush and had almost identical policies as Bill Clinton, but without the charisma that Clinton portrayed. Because of this lack of charisma, he lost to George W. Bush and will probably never be considered for the office again. At the time, George W. Bush seemed more charismatic, and the people wanted to believe in him because of it. This may not have been the sole cause of the win, but the overwhelming confidence in Bush definitely played a role in his triumph over Gore.

Four years later, it is again the case. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was pretty much a known fact that Kerry was smarter, and more articulate than Bush. He was a lawyer, debating was his strong suit, but he never quite had the edge over the confidence and charisma of George W. Bush. Kerry was seen as a stiff, especially after the political debates, where he held a very condescending attitude towards the man that had held the office for the last four years. People wanted to see Bush succeed after all that had happened, including 9/11 and the recent engagement of the war in Iraq, because of his attitude and confidence about the matter. Because Kerry was so condescending and “stiff”, he lost the race.

Now I am going all the way back to the 1960 presidential debates, between Kennedy and Nixon. These were the first ever televised presidential debates. Although television was quite new at this time, many people still had one. Those who were listening on the radio though that the debate was about a tie. Those watching the debate on television thought that Kennedy won. Unfortunately, many people watched this on TV and drew their own conclusions, based on the charismatic looks of Kennedy, without even knowing. He was younger, wore make up for television, and seemed more energetic by the looks of him. Nixon, on the other hand, had just recovered from illness, refused to wear make up for television, and looked significantly older. This ended up really hurting him, because he didn’t look to be as energetic and capable as Kennedy. John F. Kennedy ended up winning the election, of course, and it could have been because of his outstanding charisma.

Although I think it is ridiculous that one could base their presidential vote off of charisma, it happens. Many people think that politics are dry and boring. They do not want to be involved and think that they are not going to make a difference either way. When a charismatic man is running for office, people start to want to involve themselves. They want this person to succeed because this candidate is actually helping them want to be involved in politics. They are interested in their actions, because they are an actual fan of this person. If I were not interested in politics, whatsoever, but I knew about the current state of the economy and I didn’t have adequate health care of course I would have voted for Obama. He was engaging, charismatic, friendly, and seemed like an everyday man.

Speaking of Obama, this is the best example of charisma winning the presidency. Many people perceived him as ready to take office, without him even finishing one term in the Senate, because of his rhetorical abilities. Talk show hosts wanted to have him on their shows, venues wanted to host his speeches, everyone wanted to associate themselves with President Obama during the election because whether or not they supported him, he was a fascinating speaker. He engaged so many people that would not have normally been interested. If someone were to (and MANY people have) sit down and look at his record and education next to John McCain, John McCain would have won outright. John McCain is a steady man, with a strong sense of self, has many policies that are different from George W. Bush and was ready to make a change as well. He didn’t voice it soon or loud enough, because when Obama took the reigns after Hillary stepped down, he was off to victory.

Many people saw John McCain as old and tired, and feared he was incapable of being a president based on his age alone. In a debate where his chair wasn’t the right height for him, he was swiveling around, and people thought that this was the sign of uncertainty or nerves. He may have been the most confident candidate, but he certainly did not portray that in the charismatic sense that president Obama did, and because of this, John McCain lost the 2009 election.

Although their policies do matter, and are important the society today, people are mostly swayed by the personalities and attitudes of the candidates in presidential elections. John Kerry, confident but stiff, could not have run the country because of his condescending attitude. Al Gore, knowledgeable and like-Clinton he was in his policies but his dry personality kept him from the victory that Clinton had experienced the last two elections. Nixon, more qualified and ready to take the country further in his presidency, lost based on the public perception of him versus the young ambitious Kennedy. The trend continues to climb, and, after having the most charismatic president that we have had thus far, will continue to climb most likely indefinitely. When voting, make sure you are reading the policies, because you never know when you are voting for someone based on the tone of their voice.


http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon\
http://www.paulgraham.com

How politicians are currently reaching potential voters: the Internet

Our society is changing, technologically and otherwise, and makes it very difficult for politicians to reach voters their traditional ways. Before, voters could be reached via home phone and paper mail. Commercials were also very effective before, but as TiVo and DVR become more common in homes, they can be easily surpassed. Those who have a home telephone are no longer in the majority, and cell phone companies do not give out a phone directory that is accessible to politicians. Not only this, but paper mail is not read quite as often because with online bill paying, people no longer have to wait for their paper bills to arrive. With all of these changes, politicians need a way to reach voters that is different from the traditional means of communication; the Internet.

The Internet provides many different avenues for political communication. Many politicians have made social networking sites, on networks like Facebook and Twitter, in order to reach the younger generation. Participation in these sites is effective because it sends out daily messages which are simple and easy to understand to the “friends” of these sites. It can bring about the topic or platform of the candidate without causing discrepancies, because the casual setting makes these topics less controversial. They are also presented in a less controversial way, as to not detour friends that may not be the same political affiliation as the candidates. For example, here is a recent status update from John McCain, “CIT Bankrupt – taxpayers investment of $2.3 billion wiped out,” instead of stating plainly, “Obama misuses taxpayer dollars” or something of the sort. This way, people are not turned off to the statement, especially Obama supporters. He can’t say, “I was right, taxpayer dollars are being misused and if I were president this wouldn’t be happening,” so he has to do it subtly.

Twitter is also a great way for politicians to reach supporters and those who are politically inactive. Many of the people who are not extremely active in politics have these social sites and Twitter, for example, can involve these people constantly. If someone follows a politician, they can see their every update right on their home screen. This is nice because they see that these politicians are not just politicians, they are people. Yes, some updates include policies and comments that are similar to their current predicament, politically, but there are also many updates about every day things. For instance, the politician could say, “Bronco’s vs. Steelers tonight, hoping the Donkey’s pull through” or something of the sort. This is in some ways homophily and they reach potential voters on an entire new level. If the voters feel like they have something in common with the politician, like I stated in my earlier blog about Obama and homophily, they will be more likely to vote for and like the candidate. Politicians are dishonest; they do what they have to in order to win an election or win votes for a policy. This small piece of their personal lives helps the voters look at the better side of these politicians.

Status updates on Facebook and Twitter are among the few ways politicians can reach voters via the Internet. The next which is also effective is Gmail. Many people have no idea that every email you send on Gmail is run through a process and then advertising in your email is based on what you write about. For example, if someone sends you a YouTube video of Barack Obama or George W. Bush, Gmail will then advertise candidate web sites or blogs on the side of your inbox, where it is easily accessible, and probably something that the account holder will be interested in.

Another way politicians can make connections with their potential voters and also bring up policies in a more casual way is through blogging and town hall meetings. Reading a politicians blog is much more interesting than reading a mailer or a piece of paper that is hung on your door knob. When I get mailers, or door hangings, I know that I just throw them away and do not give them a second’s glance. I am sure many people are the same way, because we just see it as a nuisance clogging our mail box. Blogging can tell the people reading them the day to day struggles with the lives of being a politician and also can portray their policies in a simpler manner. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR: 3rd District) isn't blogging yet, but he began hosting an online town hall chat with his constituents. This is pretty amazing- people do not have to leave their home to be involved in a town hall meeting. This way, many more can be held, and people like single parents, or people that work at night, can maybe participate whereas before they could not. The ability for the Congressman to send email invitations for people to join a town hall chat is amazing, and will be very effective in getting more people to be involved in current politics.

An obvious way politicians can reach potential voters is through their web sites. During an election, every potential candidate has their own web site. Through this site, they post their positions, background, current issues, ways for people to volunteer, a blog, national highlights, and an area for people to donate. Anything that anyone wants to know about a politician can be looked up in just seconds. This is a great resource for the uninformed voter, because they can look up the candidates’ positions and make the best decision for them.

Although the Internet makes it more efficient for politicians to reach constituents, it can also be problematic for them. Not only do candidates and politicians have Twitter and Facebook, but the rest of the country can have it as well. People are constantly posting updates about something they do not agree with politically, and everyone can see it. Just as the politician’s updates can help them, the updates from non supporters can hurt them. When Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook account that the Healthcare Reform included death boards, there was an up roar all over the country. It didn’t even take a day for the press to get a hold of it and for Obama and Healthcare Reformation supporters to have to form some type of defense for the misinterpreted information. This brings up another good point about the Internet: news travels fast. In this example, the Obama Administration was hurt temporarily until the “death boards” controversy was cleared up, but usually, the Internet making news travel quickly is a good thing. These politicians are reaching the people quicker.

Blogging, which as stated before can really help the politicians, can also hurt them. Many people, without any type of credentials, can have blogs where they depict and twist the words and policies of politicians which is detrimental to them. Bloggers read each other’s blogs, and then respond to them, and write other blogs in response. With each step, the information becomes more and more skewed, and eventually the information that these bloggers are writing about politicians is hardly true. When many people read these blogs, however, they do not take that into account and maybe take what is said to heart.

The Internet has brought about a more efficient means of communication where politics are concerned, but simultaneously has brought about an entire new list of issues. Before, when the media would not choose to focus on something, it was left out. Now politicians have to watch their every move because it is all documented via the Internet, but they can now, at the touch of a button, share their ideas and policies to millions of people.