President Obama didn't win office on experience, credentials, or accomplishment. He won for one reason only: who he is. He has a winning personality, and America had a love affair with their new American Idol; rewarding him with its highest office. Politics went from being about policy to being about personality. Republicans who supported Obama didn't care about his specific positions, they just felt that it was "time for a change," and were moved by Obama's flowing oratory. Even those of us who didn't support Obama were at times moved by it, and personally speaking, I disagreed with much of what Obama ran on.
Prior to this last election cycle, politics, and especially presidential politics (at least in my memory), were never centered around personality, or wanting to have a beer with the candidate. Reagan won in large part due to the poor performance of Carter, the Iran hostage crisis and inflation. Bush Sr. won on the tails of a successful Reagan presidency. Clinton won mainly due to the interference of third party candidate, Ross Perot. Bush won in a near even split of the electorate. In all of these elections, the personality of the candidate had less to do with getting elected than their policies did. In fact, more often than not, it was a choice of the lesser of evils based on their policy stance, and personality was largely irrelevant.
The exact opposite was true with the election of Obama. During the campaign, the most common description of Obama was that from a policy standpoint, he was a blank slate, a vessel in which his fans could place their hopes and dreams. His campaign slogans reflected this by using vague terms like "hope" and "change," and enthusiastically telling supporters, "Yes we can," as if before Obama, they weren't sure if they could. He was a master of non-specifics, and of high minded, soaring, intellectual and often times inspiring, if vague, rhetoric.
For the first time, it wasn't the greatness of the country, or of the structure of our government and freedoms set forth by the framers, which inspired confidence in America and would get us through the economic crisis. No longer did we put our stock in the idea that there is something special about Americans, all Americans, that despite the odds, despite how bleak the picture was, that we would always, via our ingenuity, hard work and freedom, come through the problems of the day; as we had before, time and time again, when facing worse threats in our 200 plus year history. This time, America's doomed fate could only be saved by one person: a man named Barack Obama, who given the chance, promised to change the country, without much real discussion about how.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
0bama was objectively the least experienced major-party Presidential candidate since 1944. But he still won. And in a time of war and economic crisis!
Why? Because of unprecedented media bias and the complete disaster that was Dubya's second term.
The GOP brand is in the toilet. I don't see 2010 as a breakout year, although I hope I'm wrong. Maybe 2012 will bring back conservatism. Or maybe I'll just emigrate to Austria or the Czech Republic or something.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Or maybe I'll just emigrate to Austria or the Czech Republic or something.
I always knew you were odd, RJ...
"Austria: proudly combining xenophobia and paranoia since 1938!"
3 - Baronius
OA, I have to disagree with you. Looking at every election you mentioned, the more likable presidential candidate has won. Think about the losers: Mondale, Dole, Kerry, McCain, et cetera. Those are some pretty unpleasant personalities. Nor is this really a new phenomenon. Guys like Abe and Ike were elected as much on image as on experience or ideology.
4 - roger nowosielski
The Czech Republic, though, is fine. Beautiful women - the Czechs: Sylvia Saint, Yana Kova, and I could name more than three dozen. But they've all immigrated to American and took over the porn industry. So no! I'm gonna stay here and hope to run into one of 'em - even second or third rate.
With few exceptions, they're all blondes.
5 - Dr Dreadful
The Czech Republic would be tolerable if only for the beer.
6 - roger nowosielski
Yes, the Pilsner.
7 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius,
I said, "never centered around personality." Personality is always a factor, but it was never THE factor. This is the first election where it was the primary factor in who won the election. Personality trumped position because people wanted to believe.
I like Pilsner.
8 - RJ
Doc,
If you define "xenophobia" as "not wanting your country to be flooded with extremist Muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate" then I guess Austria's populace is indeed "xenophobic."
Related.
9 - RJ
roger:
You're judging an entire country by a handful of porn stars?
And anyway, everyone knows the best porn comes from Japan.
/sarcasm
10 - Joanne Huspek
"Great speeches aside, we can't look to the government to fix our problems. "
Amen.
11 - RJ
Communication is an important skill for a President to possess, however. While 0bama may rely too heavily on the teleprompter as a crutch, at least he is able to speak in complete paragraphs. One of Dubya's biggest problems was an almost complete inability to articulate a clear message.
People look towards their President for leadership. So when a President can barely speak a sentence without committing a gaffe or butchering basic grammar, that's a significant problem.
That being said, eloquence only gets you so far. 0bama's inexperience has already done damage to his presidency. The poor vetting of nominees, the half-assed way he handled the visit by Gordon Brown, his mixed messages on the economy, etc. have hurt him.
This is aside from partisanship and ideology. His administration's incompetence thus far has even liberal media types and some of his supporters wringing their hands. Howard Fineman and Warren Buffett are just two examples.
12 - The Obnoxious American
"at least he is able to speak in complete paragraphs. One of Dubya's biggest problems was an almost complete inability to articulate a clear message. "
It's just not true. Dubya wasn't the best speaker, but he was able to speak in complete sentences, he wasn't illiterate. It's absurd when I read this. Is Obama a better speaker? For sure. But let's not make Bush out to be a monkey please.
13 - The Obnoxious American
To make my point, here are the first two questions asked at the last Bush press conference. Not taken for substance, just the first two responses in his very last press conference.
No, it's not poetry, but this isn't an autistic kindergartener either:
Obama doesn't do much better in the Q&A phase of press conferences. Compared to Obama's constant disingenuous attack of strawmen (republicans want to do nothing, stem cell issue is about science, not politics, etc etc) and his constant "uh" noise, I'd take Bush over that any day, supposed incomplete sentences and all.
14 - RJ
Well, I'm not saying that Bush is a moron. (I'm sure he's got a triple digit IQ, which, pretty much by definition, means he's smarter than at least 50% of the population.)
And 0bama isn't a genius. Smart, but not NASA-smart, so to speak.
They are both men of above average intelligence, in my estimation.
But 0bama is just a smoother speaker. And people respond to that. It's an important leadership quality, especially in the television age.
Look, we wouldn't elect a morbidly obese President, regardless of his/her other qualities. Is that fair? Perhaps not, but it still is. And we wouldn't elect a deaf-mute, either. Or someone with a horrible stutter. Or a midget.
The people expect certain things from a leader. There are many qualities they look for. And confident, clear speaking is one of them.
15 - RJ
Oh, and we actually did elect a morbidly obese man (Taft) President once, but that was before the television age. There might have been a stutterer or two as well. But, again, that would have been before the era of the television.
TV changed everything. It probably got JFK elected over Nixon in 1960, for example.
16 - bliffle
Of course this election was decided by personalities. It usually is. It's the cheap shot that most voters prefer. It's what the BCers prefer.
The BC discussions focused on personalities, despite pleas to discuss policy.
17 - The Obnoxious American
Agreed. Honestly, I think I posted in response less to your specific point, and more to the endless comment that Bush couldn't speak in full sentences. I've been hearing this sentiment more and more all over the place, especially in the press. It's like talking about someone after they leave the room and it annoys me.
18 - roger nowosielski
RJ #9;
It's a matter of preference. I have a weakness for blondes, gay or straight - so long as they're "lipstic lesbians."
19 - Baronius
OA - Your comment #7 was fair. I still don't agree, but part of that might be due to a defect in me. I've always found Obama as eloquent and sharp as a tree stump. Ronnie, Bill, and W had charm.
20 - roger nowosielski
"W had charm."
You must be kidding. Like a snake oil's salesman, perhaps. Unless you're referring to his smirk.
21 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius,
Totally agreed.
Roger,
Try not to think purely in Michael Moore charicatures.
22 - Baronius
Roger, snake oil salesmen are the most charming people in the world. W had a completely masculine confidence and an indifference to people who looked down on him, mitigated by the humility of a Christian and alcoholic. Besides, he ran against the two least charming people in the Union. Gore's vocal tics and feigned Tennessee accent made Bush look like a smooth speaker, and Kerry's every movement screamed "bully".
23 - roger nowosielski
Bar,
Forget about Gore or Kerry. They're both automatons. I'd say the only reason why Gore wasn't elected because of his methodical, machine-like delivery to the American people: he spoke to them as though they were children, cadencing every word and syllable lest they misunderstand. (Except even children shouldn't addressed in that fashion but rather as little adults.) A completer turnoff.
As to W, I'm sure he'd fun (especially during his drinking days) to be with and have a beer or two.
24 - Baronius
Look at each of the matchups since 1980:
Reagan-Carter
Reagan-Mondale
Bush-Dukakis
Clinton-Bush
Clinton-Dole
Bush-Gore
Bush-Kerry
Obama-McCain
The names on the right are some of the most unlikable people you'll ever meet. If you're considering a candidate's personality as a factor, you've got to take the other candidate's personality into account. I think that in every case but the most recent, the more likable guy won (and I recognize that for whatever reason, I underappreciate Obama's charm).
Now, I took 1980 as the cut-off because that's what OA used in his article. I realize that if you go back a little further, you run into the almost inhumanly uncharismatic Richard Nixon. So personality isn't everything.
25 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
Props for not suggesting it was due to Jeb.
I actually voted for Gore, largely due to how I felt about Clinton. I didn't like Bush, but he changed my view of his ability after 9/11. And I supported regime change in Iraq in 1991, and 1998, seeing the liberal backlash when a GOP president decides to follow in Clinton's footsteps really turned me off to the left in many ways.
And since then, their intellectual dishonesty has sealed the deal. There are a number of left wing views that I hold (though I disagreed with "hillarycare" back in 1993). But ever since the left has been totally taken over by the most extreme liberal wing of the party, as evidenced by the selection of Obama as the general election candidate, I simply cannot support them in any way. Socialism isn't what America is about.