by on

The more I think about this charisma issue, the more it’s confusing me. Like I said in my last post, it seems to allow a charismatic person the ability to get elected easily, but it does not grant that person powers of persuasion as such. This doesn’t really make sense to me; and perhaps it isn’t even accurate. But, in the past, I’ve noticed that politicians cannot use charisma to help another, non-charismatic politician.

I realized today that this may well extend to issues as well, meaning that a charismatic person can’t actually change peoples’ minds. But if he can’t do that, well, why does charisma seem so powerful? Why does it enable someone who has it to attract legions of loyal followers?

Thoughts?

by on

You may ask: “Why is Obama constantly going around making speeches about health care? We get it, Obama. Now please do some other President-type stuff.”

This constant stumping for health care reform is allowing for charges that Obama is a narcissist who loves to hear himself talk about these issues. It also makes him look like he’s got everything riding on health care, which means that it makes him look bad if it gets defeated. Why, people ask, won’t he quit talking about it and let Congress sort it out?

The reason is that Obama–more specifically, Obama’s charisma–is the Democrats only asset at this point. It is a great asset–but, as I’ve often said, you can’t transfer charisma. It seems to me that it can help you get elected–it almost guarantees it, in fact–and it can give you all sorts of power; but it can’t really make people like things that they aren’t predisposed to like. It makes for an eminently electable politician–so, from a career point of view it’s a great asset–but it’s not all that is required for endless legislative victories.

This is where the Elway analogy comes in. He was a great Quarterback, yet for much of his career, his Broncos came up short in the big game. They were mediocre teams, yet he was able to drag them into having some success, but never a Championship.

It’s very valuable to have a great Quarterback. You can get pretty far with that and nothing else. But you can’t get it all with just him. Elway finally won two rings late in his career when Denver finally got him a good running back in Terrell Davis, and a good coach in Mike Shanahan. Perhaps someday Obama will get a good supporting cast.

Unless Obama is somehow involved, the Democrats do not have the ability to pass health care. Their only hope is to let him use his natural charisma to persuade voters that it’s a necessary reform–but, as I’ve said, charisma can only get a person elected–I don’t know if it can actually change peoples’ minds on an issue.

by on

I’ve been reading the book Nixonland by Rick Perlstein lately, and it’s very good. It’s fascinating to see just how hard Nixon worked to achieve what he did. Nixon, as we all know, had anti-charisma. JFK, on the other hand, had charisma. Given that, it really is a testament to what a marvelous politician Nixon was that the 1960 election was even close.

by on

According to this article, Halter “positively oozes charisma”. I’ve watched some videos of him on Youtube, and I have to say I’m not feeling any charisma from him, but perhaps I need to watch more. Sen. Lincoln didn’t look to be terribly charismatic, but she’s not anti-charismatic either. It should be interesting. It’s an anti-incumbent year, of course; and I think that, in general, women are less charismatic than men to most people.

Also, the article says “[Halter] is actually seen getting out of a pickup truck at one point in the campaign ad (is this the Scott Brown formula??)” I do wish people would understand it was not Scott Brown’s truck that won him the election. It was the charisma gap. Brown could ride a Segway around and he would’ve won.

by on

Hutchison‘s a very liberal Republican.

Medina‘s from the Tea Party.

Perry is the most charismatic.

Perry will win.

UPDATE: And, by the way, what I said in January about charisma being less meaningful in primaries is still true. But it is still a big factor, especially when the candidates differ as much as these three do.

by on

Gene Schwimmer thinks so:

“Barack Obama is a one-term president. If present trends continue, the next president will be a Republican. Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, your Aunt Petunia.

Or Sarah Palin. Whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012 becomes president in 2013. And that’s the key word: “Republicans.” Whoever the Republicans nominate.”

In my opinion, this is absolutely not true. There are very, very few Republicans who can defeat Obama that I know of. Mitt Romney hasn’t got a chance. However, it might comfort Schwimmer to hear that Sarah Palin has by far the best shot at defeating Obama. (Scott Brown also has a slim shot, but I don’t think he’s conservative enough for the base.)

Obama is a two-term President unless the economy stays at this level of unemployment or worse and  Palin gets the Republican nomination. As I see it, if the economy is still bad and Obama is up against Romney or someone like that, Obama’s charisma will enable him to make everyone forget about real issues. Likewise, if the economy improves much at all (as I expect it to) and Palin is the nominee, Obama and Palin will cancel out each other’s charisma, and Obama’s edge in experience will enable him to win.

by on

Their battle has already made for a weird ad, but how are the non-charismatic three doing lately?

Well, apparently, they’re busy arguing over who will do what to Israel. It seems to me that this is unlikely to be an important issue with the voters of California, given the shape it’s in, but maybe I’m wrong.

In any case, this is what happens when there is no charismatic or anti-charismatic candidate in an election for everyone to love or hate. (This is the majority of elections, by the way.) They just sort of meander from issue to issue, scandal to scandal, and external factors determine the election.

by on

In my last post, I mentioned Marco Rubio and this idea that he is the Republican’s answer to Obama. Having watched his CPAC speech, I have to say I’m not terribly impressed. Sure, he’s sort of good-looking and fairly witty, but he doesn’t seem to have that intangible charisma that Obama, Clinton and Reagan all do. He sounded–and this is my opinion only–sort of whiny and weak. He seemed, at times, like he was whimpering.

Still, I wouldn’t write him off on the basis of this one speech, and he has many good qualities, but I just don’t see him as capable of going up against Obama.