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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post and as I read it I found many of the same ideas that I was thinking while I was writing my own post. It’s funny because as I read more blogs from everyone, it’s ironic that we almost all think the same things on many of the subjects, it’s just the impact that some of us disagree on.
I figured I’d comment a little bit more on the part of your blog about John Kerry and President Bush in the 2004 elections. In 2004, John Kerry came to my high school (evidently he couldn’t find another venue that would host him in the Aurora area). I was fortune enough to be able to be in the gym when Kerry spoke and I remember multiple times that he would tell such a dry joke, that no one else realized that his statement was a joke to begin with. As he gave the “Kerry smile” expecting a laugh, many times it took a dely before the rest of the audience laughed along with him. After he came, I spoke to a lot of people who said they would still vote for Bush, aside from their dislike for him, but they just thought it’d be cool to see Kerry in person.
As for the rest of your blog, I can’t help but agree with you on how important charisma is, especially as it was in the last election. I touched on this in my blog, and I questioned if we are heading towards voting for someone who gets famous due to YouTube or some other social network where its charisma, not intelligence, that matters.
Although we have some differing opinions, I enjoyed the information on your post and I am glad to see a lot of us have the same opinions on a lot of things.
This blog begins by questioning whether or not citizens believe in the political issues or if they are voting on a politician due to their magnetism and powers of persuasion. The author states that in order for people to really understand the issues of politics they must devote themselves to the issues and involve themselves more thoroughly politically. The author uses examples from past elections and does an sufficient enough job of representing the importance of involving your self politically in order to really take a political stance.
ReplyDeleteWait, John McCain lost the 2009 election too? I had no idea, but I admire him for dusting himself off and trying again just a year later. He is truly a maverick. I'm kidding, that was probably just a typo. I enjoyed your historical evidence of the more charismatic candidates winning over their sometimes more qualified opponents. I must say however, i think this may be a good thing. The president is supposed to be our spokesperson, the person that comes to mind when the world thinks about America. For this to be a positive thought, we ought to have a very charismatic and likable president. I can say fist hand that it's a much friendly world to the American traveler now. Last summer, While reading one of Obama's books, I was cornered in an Italian laundromat by a group of people that were so enthusiastic about Obama that they wanted to know everything I could tell them about him. Four years ago, I was harassed in a New Zealand coffee shop when the cashier snidely asked how my war on terror was going. This brings me to my next point. I think that Bush's second election victory had more to do with an Osama Bin Laden video tape surfacing a convenient 4 days before the election, than his charisma. But every other case that you mentioned I completely agree with.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great argument hear about people not necessarily being attracted to candidates’ platform or qualities. Often times we elect the person based on their personality. I work in sales and the old psychology in sales is people often buy the person, not the product. I have seen time and time again where an election is decided on by personality and not the qualities that perhaps we should worry about. The American public loved “slick Willy” because of his cool demeanor, even though the signs of his possible wild side were there.
ReplyDeleteI recently went through an election process in my fraternity and happened to notice that some favoritism does take place in elections. Often times it’s the candidate with the most friends or most liked, not the most qualified, who gets elected. I think back to George Bush Jr. and his election. I think we can all agree that George appealed to a large part of the population, although not necessarily the sharpest tack in the drawer. He has that “I would like to sit and have a beer with this fella” quality that got him elected.
If you look back throughout history, even George Washington wasn’t jumping to be elected, but he had a quality that most people found to be endearing and trustworthy. Sometimes the standards which we elect people under are not necessarily their qualifications, but their appeal to the masses.
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteI agree that our politics have become relatively flat, as you use the term yourself. It does seem that on the presidential level, those who win the high office are the ones who look the best. As you said it yourself, viewers perceive the winner, and looks and style is very much a part of this. I wish I could have read some more analysis from you about the different campaigns. For instance, it may have been helpful to speak of why some ways we could improve the system. Could we change the structure of debates? How will we ever be able to get around voting without looking and hearing from the candidates? I pose these questions because your essay leaves me wanting more. I thought you chose a great topic, and your title was a quick draw into your blog.
Jack.
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteI like the article and how you see the flaws in electing officials based solely on their rhetorical strategies. I agree that rhetoric alone cannot be the deciding factor in an election, and I am saddened that it usually is. Obama is a great speaker. And while I may not like his policy or any of his political ideals, I do like to listen to him speak. The problem though, with rhetoric outweighing policy, does not lie with the politicians. As a public, we need to demand a different approach. But, as we are mostly lazy and uninformed, I don't see this happening anytime soon. For that reason, I think Morgan Freeman will be the next President, because people really enjoy the sound of his voice.
In the future though, there is hope. There are currently two types of politician's. Ones that can talk and ones that can work. We need a hybrid, like that vampire/lichen from Underworld, that can bridge the gap, and give us what we need. This new type of politician would resemble a movie star, talk like plato, and have the values of your favorite high school teacher. But I dream...
Well let's just hope that Obama backs up some of his rhetoric with results before too long. He has to pay off that Nobel award somehow.
Thanks everyone for your comments, i should have left a bit on how this system could be improved, but I did this in my last blog on policy/issue voting. And yes Mark, it was a typo.
ReplyDeleteNikki,
ReplyDeleteGood Job writing this blog and using concepts of how political rhetoric is key factor in getting politicians elected. The argument about political image is important, because it is unfortunate that voters look more towards this than the actual policies of the politicians. Obama's image defiantly related to the youth and his charisma was very noticeable. Maybe McCain did have some good policies, but your right when you describe him as tired and old. In the town hall debates McCain wandered around aimlessly and this also hurt his image. Good job with relating the issues discussed in class along with your own ideas.
Nikki-
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a couple of your blogs, I think that we have similar political views as well. In this post on political rhetoric, I thought you pointed a lot of things that I strongly agreed with. I’m a strong believer that the most charismatic speaker have continued to win elections, and I often question if this is because people actually believe in them or if its is because of their persuasive rhetoric. I thought that your quote from Paul Graham about the 1993 election was a perfect example this. People have shown to vote for the person who can put on a smile and address people with confidence, which is a good. The way you continued your blog with historical examples gave you creditability and add to your argument.
Good job at expressing your own ideas!
Natalie
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting look at how candidates display their visual rhetoric through their campaigns. It's interesting to think that a majority of the American population would choose a presidential candidate solely based on looks and charisma. You did a good job at expressing your opinions about the different candidates, and comparing candidates through out several campaigns. Regan also had had this charisma and charm that you compare Bush and Obama with. It's interesting to look at how the televised debates have such a strong effect on a candidates image though out a campaign. The Gore/Bush election was in 2000, but regarding the 04' Kerry/Bush election I can see how personalities can effect the overall candidate image. You make that point that no matter the qualifications of the candidate, the overall image still plays a huge factor in deciding an election. Good work! Interesting to read.
-Mandi