Hard for me to decide at this point; but I will say this: Gordon Brown has anti-charisma. I don’t know about David Cameron, though.
This is the thing about televised debates: they give charismatic politicians a huge advantage.
Charisma
The Unstoppable Force vs. The Immovable Object
Andrew Sullivan writes:
“Palin is not appealing to the Republican super-ego (in so far as one has survived the last ten years); she is directly, umbilically connected to the Republican id (and some other male organs). Her appeal is visceral not rational….
Who else puts all this together for the GOP? No one. Huckabee is crippled by a record of spending and leniency. Romney is crippled by being Mitt Romney and Mormonism. Pawlenty: seriously? Santorum? Ditto. Brown? We are beginning to see the depth of his predicament. DeMint? Rubio? C’mon.
Yes, many tea-partiers do not think Palin is “qualified” to be president. But primaries are won by enthusiasm and star power. Palin has both.”
In other words, she is charismatic. No other known Republican candidate right now is. Sullivan is right to think she has a legitimate shot.
That’s not to say she will be the nominee, of course. She might not be seeking it. She could command nearly as much influence over the political system with less work by continuing to do what she’s been doing. Indeed; in the past, this has been the way of charismatic women. They do not hold the political offices that men do; they instead serve as symbolic figureheads for a movement. That’s hard to do if you’re going to be President.
It doesn’t help her cause that if she did run for President, she’d be going up against an opponent who is stunningly charismatic in his own right. I have to admit that, given the power of charisma that I have cataloged on this blog, it would be interesting to see a Palin vs. Obama election in 2012.
Bill Halter.
This guy is challenging Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in the primaries. Again, as is so often the case, neither has much in the way of charisma. (Halter reminds me of Bobby Jindal.) It’s important to bring these examples up to remind us of why charisma on an Obama or Palin level is such a powerful force.
Why does Obama hold so few press conferences?
NewsBusters gives their analysis of The Chris Matthews show’s analysis of why that is. NewsBusters probably thinks it’s because Obama is an idiot, and Chris Matthews’ crew… well, they don’t really know why, but they sure like to speculate randomly about it. They generally feel it’s because he’s uncomfortable because of the time constraints.
Well, each explanation might be correct. But I have an alternate theory: I suspect Obama may be finally starting to figure this charisma thing out. He knows that it’s the best weapon in his–and his party’s–arsenal, and that by using it sparingly it only becomes more effective. Last year, as Helene Cooper rightly says, Obama was basically overexposed. (Of course, she then wanders off onto the idea that the press conference was boring–more on that below.) Not that charisma wears out, of course; but it’s still best to hold your most powerful asset in reserve for when you really need it–which for Obama will be in 2012.
If I were in his shoes, I’d keep a low profile for a while–let everyone forget about him.
Now, as for the Matthews gang, what the hell is this: “It was a lot of econ, it was a lot of just in the weeds stuff. It got really boring. I thought.” It’s only boring if you’re a shallow person, with no interest in policy matters. The President’s job is not to entertain you. Part of the reason charisma is such a big factor in Presidential elections is that people forget this fact.
Also, Chris Matthews, well… I stand by my previous statement regarding Matthews.
Palin to try to bail out McCain, again.
Palin will be campaigning today to help McCain in his primary battle with J.D. Hayworth.
Let’s go over this again: having a charismatic person campaign for you does not work. Her followers–the Tea Party crowd–will not like McCain better for it. This seems strange, I know, but it is what past experiences tell us.
I think it’s largely because charisma involves projection of one’s own ideas onto the charismatic person. So, even though a lot of the Tea Party crowd likes Palin, they will project their own liking for Hayworth onto her, and rationalize that she was only campaigning for McCain out of gratitude for him. So, the bottom line is that they’ll vote for Hayworth and think no less of Palin.
Health Care reform prophecy.
Back in January, right before Scott Brown’s victory in the Senate race, I wrote:
“Once a campaign takes on an aura of extreme importance, it changes things. Epic struggles and charismatic people complement each other beautifully…. I speculate that charisma doesn’t just help a person get involved in great events, it almost demands them to.”
I then said:
“All sending Obama to help Coakley does, I think, is demonstrate how important the election is. And that plays right into Brown’s hands.”
I was right, I think. But what I didn’t think of then was that Brown’s election didn’t mean the end for “Obamacare”, it just made it into an ‘Epic Struggle” to get it passed… and guess who the most charismatic guy in that fight was?
I’m not sure if this actually is the reason it passed; but it certainly would fit in with what I’ve said before on this blog about charisma.
And if I’m wrong….
…and health care does, in fact, pass, the obvious question is: does it relate in any way to Obama being the most charismatic guy in Washington? (Okay, maybe that’s only obvious to folks who regularly read this blog.)
Frankly, I don’t think the bill’s fate actually relates to Obama’s charisma that much; most of what he’s doing involves persuading other politicians, who I suspect have developed immunity to charisma because of high exposure to it over the course of their careers.
The job market is improving.
Yet more not-so-bad economic news.
As I’ve often said, charisma is the #1 factor in determining elections. In elections where there is not a meaningful “charisma gap” between candidates, however, the economy is often the deciding factor. And, right now, an improving economy benefits the Democrats.
Scott Adams is on to something…
In his blog post today, he has a very interesting discussion of “leadership energy”, which sounds very similar to what I’ve talked about on this blog under the name “charisma”.
It’s well worth reading; and as I said in my first post on the topic, Adams has influenced my thinking on charisma a good deal.
It seems like Adams, Paul Graham, and Max Weber are the only people who have really explored this in much detail. Do you know of anyone else?
Colorado Democratic caucuses.
Andrew Romanoff, the more charismatic candidate, won them. As the article notes, however, that doesn’t mean he’ll win the nomination.
Still, it’s a victory for charisma.
