by on

Interesting piece by Charles Oakland at Conservatives4Palin about Sarah Palin’s charisma. More specifically, it’s an examination of just what charisma is and why Palin appears to have it. I am, of course, delighted to see other people discussing the phenomenon of charisma, as I have done so myself very often on this blog.

It’s piece worth reading, in my opinion, regardless of your views on either Sarah Palin or Mr. Oakland.* Putting the political aspects of the thing aside, it is a very interesting read, and touches on many of the same points I have in my ongoing blogging about charisma.

Having said all that, I have to confess that I’m shocked that one could write such a long article on the nature of charisma and not mention the work of Max Weber, who is probably the primary reason we have the word charisma today. But quite apart from that, Weber’s writings are indispensable for understanding the concept of charisma. As he described it, charisma is:

“…a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which one is “set apart” from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These as such are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as divine in origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.” 

No question, the religious origins of the word are indeed important, and Oakland is surely right to discuss it. But Weber has studied the implications of charisma with particular regard to politics, and therefore it is surely worth mentioning his efforts in an examination of a political figure’s charisma.

*For those readers who really don’t enjoy reading words of extreme adoration for Sarah Palin, you only have to read the article from the passage beginning: “As some readers know, my interests also include languages and biblical studies….”

by on

Charles Oakland has posted an interesting piece over at Conservatives4Palin about leadership and the ability to inspire loyalty. He puts particular focus, naturally, on Sarah Palin and how, by virtue of everything she has achieved in her career, she has earned the loyalty of those she leads. It’s well-written, though it is slightly longer than War and Peace. (I kid, I kid. Read it, it’s worth your while.)

However, I think his overall point is wrong. Palin, whatever her accomplishments, does not inspire such loyalty because of them. Rather, she does so by the sheer force of her personality. Charisma, as I’ve said so many times, is the key to her leadership, as it is to President Obama’s as well.

This is not to deny her accomplishments, or Obama’s. Rather, I am saying that their accomplishments are irrelevant. I believe that the nature of charisma is such that they inspire loyalty because of who they are, not what they do or have done.

by on

Of late, Glenn Beck has been going on about various weird incidents involving animals and insects and President Obama, culminating in repeatedly using the phrase “The bees know”, and even selling a t-shirt with that phrase.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf

The reason I mention this otherwise minor thing is to point out what an interesting technique Glenn Beck brings to his radio and TV shows. He traffics in conspiracy theories and hints of Satanic omens and the End Times, all while mixing it in with humor, political satire, semi-libertarian philosophy and other, more uplifting Christian symbolism.

Conservatives often complain that Jon Stewart is able to quickly move back and forth between being serious and being funny, and that this makes him immune from serious criticism, because he can always say he’s being an entertainer. This is true to an extent, but Beck is way ahead of Stewart in this area, in my opinion.

It’s remarkable that the man can go from being humorous to being serious the way he does and inspire such loyalty and devotion from his fans. (And no, I don’t think he has charisma, but I may be wrong.) I mean, most public figures and politicians do this to some extent, but Beck can go from very over-the-top humor to, say, apparently heartfelt patriotic sentiment very quickly, and diminish neither the humor nor the sentiment that appeals to his audience.

by on

“…[A] certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.”–Max Weber on Charisma.

“The cult of personality surrounding George W. Bush was abominable. It might have been even worse than the one engendered by Barack Obama. The United States has suffered three consecutive administrations of Presidents with severe narcissistic disorders: God knows we don’t need another.”–Christopher Knight, proprietor of The Knight Shift, recounting the recent history of U.S. elections.

A cult of personality must have at its center a person of extremely high charisma. Indeed, it is one of the defining aspects of charisma itself that it engenders this cult-like behavior in those surrounding the charismatic person.

As I have tried to establish on this blog, charisma is also key to winning elections in the United States in modern times, just as Paul Graham observed in his excellent essay. This being the case, however, it is all too likely that cults of personality will continue to form around Presidential candidates. Indeed, in this day and age, it’s almost a prerequisite.

I think Matt Taibbi was on to something in his bleak, cynical profanity-ridden tirade “Mad Dog Palin” when he wrote:

“…huge chunks of American voters no longer even demand that their candidates actually have policy positions; they simply consume them as media entertainment, rooting for or against them according to the reflexive prejudices of their demographic, as they would for reality-show contestants or sitcom characters.”

It is fitting that Taibbi used the analogy of television shows. Back before radio, and especially television, charisma’s impact on elections was considerably less than it is today. But nowadays, a less capable individual with charisma will get noticed and adored, while a more capable, non-charismatic individual will be passed over. History seems to have decided that the great turning point was the Presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. Kennedy’s charisma, they say, won over the television audience, and provided him with the edge he needed to win a close election.

Of course, charisma was a factor long before modern technologies enhanced the distribution of it. But, in times past, it was used to greatest effect mostly by prominent military leaders. Caesar and Napoleon achieved power through instilling fierce loyalty in the men under their command, and using their military force to gain power.

But now, mass communication makes it much easier to “transmit” the charisma, and so, in the developed world at least, military coups have been replaced with charismatic leaders who sell themselves as appealing individuals to the populace at large. Hence, the television analogies.In some ways, then, it is not humans who have changed but rather our technology that has facilitated the charismatic domination by these individuals. And, in its way, it is better that it should be so; after all, is not the endless conflict of these cults at least now being fought with votes instead of swords, guns and bombs?

All the same, it seems that Democracy is now reliant upon endless personality cults to sustain itself. I do not know if the current and past two Presidents really did have “severe narcissistic disorders”, as Knight believes, but to a large extent that is irrelevant. They must behave as leaders of a cult to maintain their power. In the end, they must use the worshipful tendencies of their ardent supporters, whether they want to or not, in order to achieve their goals.

This is, I feel, a dangerous situation. The blind loyalty felt by the devotees to their political messiahs is something which fundamentally alters the nature of the political conflict. And it is this, I believe, which drives the oft-bemoaned lack of “civility” and “moderation” in today’s discourse. Cults are not rational, but emotional.

What makes this all the more troubling is not that it is a corruption of the democratic system, but rather that it seems to be the logical conclusion of it. The average voter, after all, cannot really be expected to keep up with the nuances of the issues. To do so requires too much time. Therefore, rooting for the most appealing personality, as Taibbi says, is the only way most people can hope to participate in the political system at all.

So I think we must resign ourselves to the fact that charisma–and the resultant cults of personality–are going to be the driving energy of our political system for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for, at this point, is probably that our elected leaders will not abuse their charisma. Given the corrupting influence of power however, that seems unlikely.

by on

It occurred to me that the discrepancy in the reactions to Hayward’s yacht race and Obama’s golfing may not be due to media bias or anything like that. It may just boil down to good old-fashioned charisma.

Obama has tons of charisma, Hayward… not so much. And when you’re charismatic, you can get away with things like that.

by on

Says the great British atheist: “She [Sarah Palin] has got no charisma of any kind.”

It is said that women become more attractive the more thoroughly drunk you are. Apparently, this isn’t working for Hitchens.

Kidding aside, you have to be crazy if you think Palin has no charisma. I mean, I can understand maybe not seeing the charisma yourself; after all, I can’t see what was so appealing about Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. But I can clearly see that they had charisma. I mean, you just don’t get that many people that excited about you unless you have charisma.

Likewise, I assume lots of conservatives don’t “get” Obama’s charisma, but no one could reasonably deny that he has it. It’s why he’s President and John Kerry isn’t.

by on

Yet more mistakes by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. She’s admitted to not reading the Arizona immigration bill, but nevertheless has gone ahead and criticized it. She also cut funding for security for New York’s mass-transit system and then lied about it.

Napolitano has never struck me as an especially competent individual. I strongly feel that she botched the response to the Christmas day attempted bombing–though it was largely merely a PR failure on her part, it suggests a rather high degree of incompetence, and if it were not for extremely good fortune on that day, the consequences of DHS stupidity could have been much more severe.

More than anything–and maybe we can chalk this up to anti-charisma–Napolitano has displayed a rather stunning level of tone-deafness. I’ll tell you up front: I haven’t read the Arizona immigration bill either;  but I still am more than qualified to pass judgment on it. But Napolitano was easily lured into saying something that made her sound less confident and more like a clueless hack–and by John McCain, no less!

Here’s what I’d have said:

 “I am familiar with the law to the extent that I recognize the potential exists for it to be abused for the purpose of infringing upon the rights of citizens.” 

Napolitano’s anti-charisma exacerbates all of her mistakes, of course, but it’s getting harder and harder to see what actual skills she possesses that make her worth the PR headaches she creates.