The AP released a story this morning asserting what I have long suspected: "Character Trumps Policy" when Americans enter the Voting Booth.A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.
Strategists from both major parties agree. According to the AP article, Ken Mehlman, the Goon who ran Dubya's 2004 election campaign, (notice I didn't say: RE-election?) is quoted saying: "Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is".
On the Democratic side of the aisle, Chris Lehane offered this insight: "Modern day presidential campaigns are essentially character tests, with character broadly defined to encompass a mosaic of traits -- looks, likability, vision, philosophy, ideology, biography, communications skills, intelligence, strength, optimism, empathy, ethics, values, among others" .
Granted, Mehlman and Lehane are both controversial figures. Lehane was the Campaign Spokesman for Gore in 2000 and encouraged Kerry to say nasty things about Howard Dean in 2004. Mehlman, as previously mentioned, was part of the D.O.P. (Damned Old Party) Team that felt that they should win at least one of their four year terms. Both will be accused of playing "politics as usual".
It is because of men like this, the high minded will say, that we are forced to choose between two empty suits each year...and isn't it time for a change?
But I can't shake the conviction that Mehlman and Lehane are right. After all, the AP story notes that, even though voters had already begun turning from the war in Iraq, they didn't turn from Bush until they began to doubt his character.
I can't help but believe that the American voter is basically an uncomplicated animal at heart: we make our decisions about leadership the same way elk do. We watch the bucks (and this year, one doe) prance back and forth waving their antlers in the fresh morning air, posing, pawing at the ground, and occasionally butting heads.
Then, we choose the elk with the biggest rack.
Sources:
AP Poll: Character Trumps Policy for Voters, by Ron Fournier and Trevor Tompson, March 11, 2007
The Spinner: How Chris Lehane, revered by some and reviled by others, gets the campaign consultant job done
Daily Kos: Chris Lehane is history, September 15, 2003
If you like Rip and Read, check out
8 comments:
"Modern day presidential campaigns are essentially character tests, with character broadly defined to encompass a mosaic of traits -- looks, likeability, vision, philosophy, ideology, biography, communications skills, intelligence, strength, optimism, empathy, ethics, values, among others".
If this is true, then how did someone like Bush get elected? None of these traits apply to my view of him.
You say that the American voter is an uncomplicated animal like an elk, but I think that the comparison could just as easily be made with a dog. We are too easily led and too trusting of the hand that pats us on the head.
If this is true, then how did someone like Bush get elected? None of these traits apply to my view of him.
In all fairness, you and I may feel no bond with Bush; but there are a great many in our country who would prefer to hang out with Bush by the Grill watching NASCAR than have a far reaching discussion with Al Gore about the consequences of Global Warming over a plate of Sushi.
There are great many people who find big words and complete sentences intimidating and arrogant. They prefer Bush’s sloppy syntax and blunt style.
Last but not least, there is the classic “Fight or Flight” instinct at play. Americans, as a rule, when threatened, chose FIGHT over FLIGHT and George W. Bush is quite straight forward about that…he doesn’t raise complicated questions, he doesn’t question our own honor or conduct, he simply lowers his head to charge.
Those of us who like to think of ourselves as something other than a herd animal tend to allow ourselves more choices than only two…but, again, to a majority of people there are only two options. Fight, or Flight….and so if you are not fighting, you must be fleeing…
Last but not least, the dog analogy might work as well….but follow the biggest rack is a funnier exit line!
Bottom line... just like many other things, Americans are quite shallow in that we choose 'style over substance'.
Yup, that was pretty much my point. And, of course, it tracks back to the debate we are having about how best to tackle the problem of impeachment.
This is exactly why I feel that impeaching first and asking questions later is bound to backfire on the Center-Left coillition...we MUST build a solid case...one that the American people cannot deny...and THEN go for the conviction.
i think that americans want style AND substance, but don't really believe they can get both. additionally, candidate pools often look like a choice of one or the other.
for many, trying to judge substance is hard - you have to take time to understand what is at stake, get to know the candidates, and to make some best guesstimates about leadership abilities. many folks barely have time to do the laundry and feed the kids before they fall asleep worrying about how they're going to pay the utility bill.
i wish politics were more accessible to more people, at the same time i realize you can lead a horse to water... and style wins out.
Kate-
True, and yet, at one point is it the fault of "politics" and not the fault of "people"?
You wouldn't expect someone to run a bank with a tiny time investment, you wouldn't expect somebody to run an office with out putting in at least a few hours per week.
Hell, you wouldn't be able run that household without devoting some time to it.
And yet, while we Americans say that we cherish "Freedom" and "Democracy", and while we claim to understand that this means that "we" run the government...we expect to be able to run the most powerful nation in the world but doing very little more than visiting a polling place once every year.
Is it the fault of Politics that we can't find the time....or of ourselves?
depends alex, sometimes "politics" helps to ensure that people can't physically or financially afford to put more effort into how their country is run (hence, my example of the weary family previously). we elect 'em, but they don't always try to represent or achieve the semblance of representing the people (some do). it's just hard for the average joe to keep up with all the hidden agendas... and the money that makes sure those agendas are represented. this is obviously chicken and egg, and all that.
You are correct to a degree that the two situations are overlapping.
However, I don't agree that it is too tangled a web to unweave.
Following the New Deal and World War Two, the American middle class had acheived huge strides.
The gains were there for them to keep.
However, I would say that Americans allowed themselves to be seduced by easy living- until they found that, under Reagan, and now Bush, most of the gains that they had won, thanks to the great suffering of the Depression and the Second World War had been wiped out, and that Big Business and money were back, as firmly in the saddle as they had been at the start of the twentieth century.
I'd like to blaim Big Busienss, but frankly, they ran the table because nobody else decided to show up to the game...until it was too late.
Post a Comment