The Americans have their Prince Charming, and, who knows, ours might be just around the corner. All the buzz here in Canada is over the rising popularity of Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, especially with the release of his new book, "True Patriot Love" (See for one review). Even our conservative leaning national newspaper, The National Post, seems to be warming up to Michael. Not only is Mr. Ignatieff a suave and sophisticated ivy league type, but he is apparently good buddies with the White House crowd cut from the same cloth.
All of this popularity is not surprising. Electorates love to be charmed by charismatic personalities. Those who bring sex appeal to the office, have a twinkle in their eye, can croon a tune, or dance a jig, certainly have a major advantage over the boring and bland. Poor old Joe Clark, Stephane Dion, or Robert Stanfield, never really had much of a chance to win in the political seduction game. But when Pierre Elliott Trudeau winked the populace swooned, even if the twinkle was accompanied by a naughty finger gesture. And how about President Bill Clinton! Here's a President who was tried for impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, who had inappropriate sexual encounters with a young female intern, and who was suspended from the practice of law, but who is still revered by millions as a great President. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, he is still so admired that there are many who will pay hundreds of dollars to hear President Clinton whisper sweet nothings in their ears. Compare that treatment with that accorded to poor Richard Nixon, who avoided impeachment by resigning, and who disappeared from public sight. Now you may say that this had nothing to do with Clinton's charisma, and Nixon's clear lack of it, but on that point I would respectfully disagree.
As I predicted in an earlier posting, Michael Ignatieff will be our next Prime Minister. Canadians will have our own Prince Charming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LK: "Electorates love to be charmed by charismatic personalities".
ReplyDeleteYou give a few examples in support, but your statement is so general that it ought to withstand a few counter-examples, yes? Lessee, among current Canadian premiers, (moving from east to west) let me select Gordon Campbell, Ed Stelmach, Gary Doer, Dalton McGuinty, and of course there's also PM Harper. (There are also a bunch of assorted maritime premiers in NB, NS and PEI who are so charismatic that I don't even know their names). You also mention Joe Clark, but remember, he actually defeated Trudeau in 1979 (and almost certainly would have won a majority government in 1984 had he not been so inept in handling a leadership challenge in 1983.) Recent former premiers - out of fairness, I'll keep it to the last dozen years or so - include such scintillating personalities as Lorne Calvert (zzzzzzz), Ujjal Dosanjh, Mike Harcourt, Ernie Eves, John Hamm, Dan Miller, Gary Filmon, Russell Maclennan, Bernard Lord, Pat Binns, ... need I go on?
Then south of the border there's George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, all of whom won at least one presidential election. You might cite Carter and Bush Sr. as examples of victims of charisma, but there were lots of other factors underlying their election loss (with Carter, the Iran hostage crisis in particular, and with Bush Sr., the economy). And that "poor Richard Nixon" fellow you mention won two presidential elections, the second one with the largest measure of popular vote in US history.
Need I go on?
It's true that occasionally a charismatic person comes along and wins. But lots of uncharismatic pols also win. Your statement is therefore questionable.
Interesting points "Mike".
ReplyDeleteBut I think you overlook a few things.
First not every candidate is a "Prince". When "boring" goes against "bland", either "boring" or "bland" will win. This might explain a few of your examples.
Look at Nixon. He lost against the clearly more charismatic Kennedy. He then beat Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. Mr. Excitements? I think not.
Then there was Bush One. He beat Dukakis. But then lost to Clinton. See a trend here?
How about Bush Two? The Bush haters will claim that he actually lost to Al Gore. Gore certainly had the popular vote. He then beat Kerry.
At any event, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But thanks for your comment.
Prof Klar,
ReplyDeleteYou are still making a generalization based on very, very few examples, and overlooking countless counter-examples.
Clark beat Trudeau just as many times as Trudeau beat Clark.
Howard Pawley beat Sterling Lyon.
Bill Bennett beat Dave Barrett (three times).
Don Getty beat anyone (anyone being more charismatic than him).
Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey.
John Major beat Neil Kinnock.
Robert Bourassa beat Pierre-Marc Johnson.
and so on.
And, again, you are completely ignoring other factors that underlie the examples you give. Do you think charisma explains Hubert Humphrey losing in 1968? Don't you think spiralling inflation, or a certain war in southeast Asia played a teensy, tiny factor? And do you seriously think people abandoned Bush Sr. in 1992 because he was boring? (For what it's worth, Bush Sr. has publically blamed Greenspan for his defeat).
This isn't a case, as you suggest, of "beauty being in the eye of the beholder": I'm agreeing with you as to who is charismatic and who is not. Where we disagree is that you think you have spotted a "trend" of charisma winning when you've spotted nothing of the sort. All you have done is draw selective examples from within a limited historical and geographical time.
I realize that you can respond with other examples, and so can I. My point isn't that you can't come up with examples. Rather, it's that you've made a general statement, without even acknowledging that other reasons (including well-known factors) may have contributed to the failures of so-called uncharismatic pols.
For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of empirical research on voter preferences.
Mike