I also think “charisma” is a difficult concept to define, and an easy one to retrofit. “he won the election–hey, he must be charismatic!”
My two cents about some of the folks you’ve named:
I never thought Jimmy Carter was charismatic in any meaningful way. He was an okay speaker in my recollection, prone to overintellectualizing things and perhaps a little moralistic. I’m not sure what charismatic would mean in his context, especially where speaking is concerned.
I agree that Bill Clinton is and was a very fine speaker, and a magnetic personality in a lot of ways (he’s the sort of person you’d walk into a room and notice, if you get my drift). But it took a while for people to figure that out. For years his best known speech was the one he’d bombed at the '88 convention–blowhardy, boring, and the antithesis of charismatic. And when he began separating himself from Tsongas and Brown and the others in the primaries, it had less to do with public speaking style than with empathy (remember the “I feel your pain” moment?) and a greater clarity on his part about *why *he wanted to be president and *what *he would do than the others. The charisma was real, but wasn’t definitive.
Obama, I’ll absolutely give you. And I’ll agree that Gore was not charismatic. (To say nothing of “Zorba the Clerk.” Though for Dukakis and Gore, how had they won so many prior elections if their charisma quotient was so low?) But I don’t see the vague notion of “charisma” as being of defining importance in whether you win an election.
I may be as guilty of the fault as anyone, but it’s best to look forward in a discussion, not look back to see who said what when. In fact my disjunction “charisma OR achievement” was just to accommodate achievers like Eisenhower or well-known big-state Governors (Bush-43) where lack of charisma might not disqualify.
Instead of “charismatic” perhaps I should use the even more general and ambiguous “has a pleasing personality, a personality that makes people want to pay attention.” Dukakis and Gore were uninspiring, forgettable or “wooden” — that’s why they lost. That’s why Gillibrand or Booker will lose if they run. IMHO.
How do these people become Senator or Governor if they lack the charisma to become President? Very simple. The electoral base is different. Many average voters barely know who their Senator is, and probably stayed home altogether if it was a “midterm.” In some cases, it is the Primary election — with policy-oriented voters — that determines a winner rather than the November play-off. It’s just the Presidential election, with televised debates, etc., where the under-informed masses get involved; and therefore where personality becomes of dominant importance.
This is my own thinking and may not be 100% correct. But the push-back I’m getting in these threads makes me think this important point is generally overlooked.
The importance of personality should have been clear from the 2016 election: Trump and Sanders dominated because of their personalities. Note that millions of voters apparently liked both Sanders and Trump despite that their stances on the issues were opposite. How do you explain that absurd fact except as the importance of personality? (Never mind whether you think wise Americans should admire Trump’s personality — many Americans are not wise.)
So we have two issues to debate:
(A) Is “charisma” or “captivating personality” — once we define them properly — truly a key criterion in guessing success for the Presidential election in November, 2020 ?
(B) How should we best phrase our definition of “charisma” to avoid distracting the discussion from issue (A)?
I’ll now pose these questions:
(1) Which issue is more relevant to the thread — and to the future of the U.S.A. — (A) or (B)?
(2) If it’s wrong to say that Trump’s “personality” or “charisma” was key to his election, then what was the key? His strong moral fiber and integrity? His appeal to the established leaders of his Party? His deeply intelligent grasp of the issues? His respect for people of all races, creeds and genders? The warmth and love for humanity he projected?
Oh, terrific. We’re going to choose a presidential candidate, and eventually a president, based on something we can’t even define?? :smack: Yeah, that’s right up there with "I can’t define [pornography], but I know it when I see it.
Forget putting a man on the moon; I’m sometimes amazed Americans kept from starving to death or tripping over their shoelaces and bashing their heads in long enough to declare independence. :dubious:
When a candidate has it, everyone knows it, supporters and critics alike. No one denied that JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama had it. In fact, their opponents tried to use it against them. So at least we know that if a candidate has it, we’ll all pretty much agree on it. So that’s the easy part. Even easier is getting those candidates nominated. Except for one time, Reagan in 1976 when he was running against an incumbent President of his own party and still almost won, these candidates always win their nominations.
The hard part is actually finding such candidates. Most of the time you won’t. So you need a plan B. Heck, you CAN’T actually find them. Candidates that have it introduce themselves to the public without having to be sought. This is kinda like saying, “Okay, we need to pay our mortgage, so check this out. First, we win the Powerball.”
So there will either be such a candidate or there won’t be. assume there won’t be, because that’s when you have to make actual decisions.
Neither did Bush the younger, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, or Truman. I actually think having four in only 60 years is historically unusual. The law of averages says we might not see even one in the next 60.
Hmmmmm, I don’t know… Dewey was a star in his time, not JFK-level, but pretty popular. HHH I think was more likeable than Nixon. And while I wouldn’t really call either Goldwater or LBJ charismatic, I think Goldwater was by far the better speaker and the more forceful orator. The public just thought he was an extremist.
A question inspired by an aside in today’s 538, that Nixon had a huge midterm beatdown but “Democrats’ high turnout in 1970 presaged a landslide loss in 1972, when they nominated George McGovern.” -
Who, of the possible nominees, would, if nominated, be McGovern this next election cycle?
I’m not seeing any.
As to the charisma v achievement question - I submit that it is a poor way to look at it. The issue is being qualified for the job. The job qualifications include some ability to delegate and to manage a team, and maybe a little bit experience at navigating within government. It just happens however that a large part, maybe THE large part, of this particular job is SELLING the public, or at least enough of the public, on a particular vision for the country and of the world, thereby having the power to get Congress to follow the president’s lead. Pretty much the rest of the job can be delegated by someone who knows how to put a good team together and to manage them … or even just can hire a Chief of Staff who does that.
Achievements don’t necessarily provide the evidence needed for how good someone will be at that sales portion. So we are left with our gut reactions: does this person present in a way that “we” want to follow? “Charisma” is a word to try to capture how we judge if the individual has that specific qualification.
I’ve always been a bit hesitant to consider Brown a viable choice, mainly because of the old spousal abuse claims that continue to cling to him at the periphery.
However, on paper, he’s everything I’m looking for in a 2020 nominee: White, male, progressive, midwestern, comes from Ohio, good speaker, connects with blue collars. Pair him up with a woman VP, from a Midwestern or a red state (Tammy Duckworth-IL, Amy Klobuchar-MN, Sally Yates-GA), and that might be a solid ticket.
I think this is the first time I’ve heard Sally Yates suggested as a prospective VP. Interesting idea, but think I’d rather send her back to run Justice.
