Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Which Mark Krikorian Asks an Intentionally Provocative, But Darned Good, Question
Your claim is at least partially testable. Is there an example of someone who was generally reported to be stiff and unnatural before the election and who was reported to be sincere and natural after winning? I think that there is extensive evidence of the relationship running in the other direction. First, there’s clear evidence in cases like Gore that the candidate was widely recognized to be stiff long before losing the election. I remember Gore testing different images during the debates. I don’t recall similar discussion of Bush or Obama. Second, the suggestion that the candidates appear to become more sincere and natural after the election does nothing to explain the electorate’s wildly swinging preferences in policy as reflected in the elections. How does the country make such drastically different choices on a frequent basis? If the media exerts a strong influence, how did Bush or Reagan win? If you’re saying that the voters are concerned about policy and paying attention to policy, then you’re essentially saying that they’re either hopelessly fickle or stupid. I tend to think that moderates are simply somewhat more flexible about policy, up to a point, not committed to either conservative or progressive approaches to policy.
Anyway, I find the suggestion that charm isn’t at least part of electoral success and that the impression of charm is imposed on recollections of winners before they won to be hard to accept without some kind of good example. Going back four decades, I can’t think of an example like you describe, an uncharismatic politician transforming into a charmer in the popular imagination. At best, people like George H. W. Bush might become familiar and comfortable like old shoes, but they don’t become charming. I realize that the quality of charm is not formally defined, so I’m not asking for quantitative evidence. I’ll be happy with just a name that resonates as an example.
I hope I didn’t say that it wasn’t part of it. It’s a complicated thing. You need a certain amount of charm to get elected. If you win, you are seen to be more charming.
On a slightly related note, I was somewhat surprised in 1973 after when Nixon had won re-election to see the nice stories about his new administration in the newspapers and weekly magazines. The media had hated with an intense fury since 1948, but when he was a winner they found things they liked about him. They got over it, of course, but I’ve never forgotten the good perceptions that come to those who are winners. Note, too, how the media try to nurse these perceptions along by referring to Obama’s aggressions in domestic politics as “wins”.
I’m not going to argue the point and am not trying to prove anything. I’m just pointing this out so people can observe and evaluate these things for themselves as new events unfold.
First, saying nice things about a person, in other words, complimenting someone, isn’t the same thing as finding the person charming. Second, I was alive but not politically aware for Nixon’s presidency, but I can’t imagine that the same media that fairly or not, destroyed Nixon and the same media with many members featured prominently on his master list of enemies could have been reinventing him as a charming politician.
I’m arguing the point a little because I think that having a realistic view of how one gets elected is important to understanding the prospects for the Republican candidates in the election. I keep seeing that someone like Cruz cannot be elected because his style is too artificial and his political image too harsh. My point is that he has a pleasant, natural demeanor that shines through when he drops the artificial style, and the middle of the electorate won’t decide based on his politics. Compared to the last election where candidates like Huntsman, Pawlenty, Roemer, Johnson, and Romney, plastic people, dominated the field of flawed candidates, in this field, since Walker left and thanks to Trump, there are almost no candidates remaining alongside whom Clinton will seem charming.
Just to be clear, my point about moderates is that unless the candidate’s policies appear beyond the range defined by Reagan at one extreme and Clinton at the other, the candidate will be acceptable to moderates, and all policy things being equal to moderates, the moderates will naturally view the contest as a contest of personalities.
Obama succeeded because the media screened Obama’s actual politics from the moderate’s consciousness. None of the current candidates have to worry about being exposed by the media. The candidates have positions largely in line with Reagan’s positions. As with Reagan, if the media simply calls someone extreme without evidence of offensive or frightening policy positions, the media won’t get much traction with moderates in any attempt to make the candidate seem politically unacceptable.
This is what I think that most people posting should consider about electability: a confrontational candidate can win and win by a large margin if the candidate is enthusiastically supported by the base and personally liked by moderates. That seems to be the common quality of winners going all the way back to Coolidge and beyond. By this measure, the only Republican with a serious, seemingly uncorrectable problem is Bush. He isn’t really supported by the base of the party, and he doesn’t seem to be able to come across as much if any more likable than Clinton.