Pre-eminent sociologist Max Weber, while discussing "leadership" in his essay "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," identified traditional , charismatic and rational forms of authority. For our current discussion traditional authority is irrelevant. Weber defines charismatic authority as being possessed by a leader whose mission and vision inspires others. It is based on the perceived, extraordinary, characteristics of an individual. Leadership based on rational authority is derived from significant, hands on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. While the latter translates into "competence," a technocratic ability to perform well within institutions, the charismatic individual is described as someone with a compelling attractiveness or charm inspiring devotion in others. This is someone who possesses a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm, especially if this person is a public figure.
While defining the terms in our original question helps to identify some of the players in our current presidential election, it does not help us decide their importance relative to the process they are engaged in. David Brooks, in a column entitled: "In Praise of Dullness" (N.Y. Times, May 18, 2009), suggests that, when it comes to leadership, people skills don't matter - it is organization and execution that counts. Pat Murphy, a columnist for the Waterloo Region Record, agrees that "in politics, competence almost always trumps charisma." However, Thomas Bateman, a professor at the University of Virginia, contends that: "Charm without substance is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst....poor people skills undermine a leader's credibility, reduce people's commitment, engender cynicism and other negative attitudes, and undermine motivatiion and commitment." He argues for a significant role of what we call charisma in the public sphere.
While we absorb these observations, we might rephrase the question we opened with to: How does charisma and competence, incorporated in electoral strategy, affect the outcome? It seems prudent to stipulate that most voters ultimately prefer competence in their political leaders. However, although the majority of voters may not select candidates without any regard for substantive experience, achievements and vision, many don't really follow issues and current events very closely. They may look to the general election debates to see who has the most personality. Our electoral history provides multiple examples of very competent candidates being upstaged by more charismatic counterparts. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry came with impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their competitors. George H.W. Bush had a fairly successful first term, but Bill Clinton had star power and overcame all that. Obama had charisma, but no real experience. Mc.Cain and Romney possessed loads of competence, but they could not overcome his personal appeal.
Which brings us to our current election. I don't intend to slight Bernie Sanders, who has lots of charisma, inspired millions, and who has given the Democratic front-runner much more than she expected. However, looking forward to the general election, we should consider the presumptive nominees of both parties. Hillary Clinton has decades of experience as First Lady, as Senator, and as Secretary of State. Nevertheless she comes across as canned, unauthentic, programmed and robotic - as the Time Magazine article suggests, "boring." By her own admission, she is a lousy politician. While campaigning with her husband in 1992 her approval rating was only 38%. After becoming First Lady this improved to 66%. During her campaign against Barack Obama her polls came in at 48%, only to rebound to 66% during her stint as Secretary of State. She is liked as a technocrat, not as a candidate.
Donald Trump has no public record of policy and legislative competence. His "competence" is based on a perception fed by choreographed imagery. However, he has an innate, magnetic charisma. His detractors believe that he suffers from "grandiose narcissism, believing himself to be the smartest person in the world, and behaving accordingly." But, like other charismatic people, he can make others "drink the kool-aid." Whether this appeal with his substantial following will hold throughout the election cycle is somewhat questionable. Charisma, by nature, is unstable. The appeal to his base may diminish as he begins to pivot towards more mainstream policy prescriptions. Besides, charisma unsupported by substance is usually a recipe for failure. Flash works for a while, but eventually people want more substance.
Having said all this, there are six months left in the election campaign. Tactics change as "red" and "blue" states and majority opinion within each become the primary focus. Weber did not suggest that charisma and competence are necessarily mutually exclusive. Most of us want both personality and ability. History tells us however that charisma often trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. When we vote for empty promises, no matter how cleverly packaged, we get what we pay for. Whatever side you are on during our election, we should consider the consequences of registered uninformed decisions based solely on a candidate's charisma. If we make the wrong choice, we will be stuck for years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment