PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FAIL TO INSPIRE

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks recently produced a piece titled: "Why Joe Biden gets none of the credit that he has earned." In it he, perhaps unexpectedly, enumerated a significant number of positive outcomes of Biden's policies: The Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act, designed to encourage the growth of the U.S. semiconductor industry. With the "misery index," which helps to determine how the average citizen is doing economically, at 7.7, the lowest it has been in decades, 13 million new jobs created, economic growth at 2%, inflation down to 3%, unemployment down to a historical low level of 3.6% and "a zillion positive indicators for our economy," Biden should be cruising to an easy reelection victory. But he is not! At least 74% of Americans still think the country is on the wrong track. Brooks blames some of this on a "moral injury" and "a collective loss of confidence" or faith in ourselves incurred during the Trump era. "We lost national self esteem and are assuming national incompetence." His diagnosis is that we can't argue people out of that psychological and moral state with statistics and fact sheets. President Biden needs to get out from behind the protective walls that were built around him and come up with "a national story that will give people a sense of coherence and belonging." In other words, Brooks and others are of the opinion that President Biden needs to begin exhibiting charismatic leadership. Thus far, candidate Biden, although a very competent technocrat, lacks the personality that inspires his audience. Joe Biden is by no means the only candidate running for the presidency next year who has projected deficient inspirational oratory skills during this election cycle. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who imagines himself to be the GOP's rational alternative to front runner Donald Trump, should be a shoo in, especially since he spews the same culture-war vitriol as his mentor. He is young, a graduate of Yale and Harvard law school. He won reelection with almost 60% of the vote, and he does not need to confront the looming criminal investigations that could turn away undecided voters. With his background, and a deliberately manufactured extreme right legislative record in Florida, his campaign should have expected him to deliver his speeches with all the conviction of a fire-and-brimstone preacher. Instead, he has been observed to speak with all the animation of bored teenagers annoyed they have to look up from their phone. One of the most recent tracking polls show DeSantis losing to Trump by 38%. Both examples emphasize a need which is well recognized by each candidate's own support group. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a staunch supporter of President Biden, downgraded his administration's first year's performance, because, in his words: "The glaring problem is that there is absolutely zero charisma in the Biden administration." He went on suggesting that " it may be unfortunate that it is even a consideration, but in a social media and sound-bite world where everyone is a performer, someone has to have the charisma that connects to people and overwhelms memes, headlines and sound-bites as a source of information." Ron DeSantis' staff complains that the governor looks awkward and shies away from Q and A sessions on the road. Again, the complaint is "zero political charisma - boring," and ineffective. Charisma is defined as "a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others." A personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure, or a person who possesses special traits that attract, inspire or fascinate people. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), a foremost theoretician of charismatic authority or leadership, identified three types of charismatic authority: personal, traditional - based on historic, cultural norms and conventions, and legal authority exemplified by statute and competence. Personal charismatic authority grows out of the personal charms or the strength of an individual personality. "Men obey him because they believe in him. The leader's actual power or capabilities are irrelevant, as long as his followers believe that such powers exist." President Biden and Governor DeSantis can both claim traditional and legal charismatic authority. But, arguably the only dominant candidate in the line-up for the 2024 election who can legitimately claim personal charismatic authority right now is Donald Trump. His followers seem unfazed by lies and innuendos. He keeps things simple. He does not confuse his audience with numbers and statistics, and he continues to draw crowds by effectively rehashing the same message. He did this successfully during the 2016 election when he defeated Hillary Clinton, a highly competent candidate, but one who lacked the necessary charismatic qualities. Ultimately, unless some of the qualified candidates can manage to relatively rapidly acquire the necessary messaging skills, the election battle may again be fought between a seriously unqualified candidate, who nevertheless inspires his following, and the remaining electorate resigned to chose among a limited number of unexciting, but highly competent candidates, no matter how boring. Theo Wierdsma

DOUBLE STANDARD

On June 18, "Titan," a submersible operated by the tourism and expeditions company OceanGate, imploded. The mini sub was on an expedition to view the wreck of the Titanic in the North Atlantic Ocean, about 380 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. On board were four paying passengers who each contributed $250,000 for the experience. Two of these were billionaire businessmen: a British subject Hamish Harding, a Pakistani Shahzada Dawood, Dawood's son Suleman, a French deap sea explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, and OceanGate's CEO Stockton Rush. For several days after the expedition's surface crew lost contact with the submersible the entire world appeared to be on pins and needles, holding its collective breath. All media outlets continued to feature every step of the rescue effort. The search and rescue operation was all encompassing. It included the U.S. Coast Guard, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the U.S. Air National Guard, a Royal Canadian navy ship, several commercial and research vessels and a number of underwater drones - ROVs - one coming from as far away as from France. After the Titan had been missing for four days its oxygen supply would have predictably been exhausted. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy reported that it had detected a sonar signature early on. Ultimately the rescue team concluded that the submersible had imploded during its descent, killing all five passengers instantly. Four days before the world became obsessed by round-the-clock media coverage of the effort to save these five billionaire tourists, off the coast of Greece, the Adriana, an overloaded fishing trawler with 750 migrants on board sank, killing more than 600. Most of its passengers were from South Asia and the Middle East, fleeing poverty and violence in search of new lives. Total revenue received by the ruthless smugglers who crammed these migrants onto shoddy vessels, sending them on their way to uncertain shores across the Mediterranean, might well have exceeded the revenue received by the Titan's parent company. However, while the billionaire passengers expected to enjoy their adventure and return to their comfortable lives, most migrants on the Adriana paid for their passage with all they owned, and expected to start their lives all over from scratch after completing their journey. Yet, this humanitarian disaster off the coast of Greece received little more than scant media attention across the world. Reports indicate that officials, using radar, telephone and radio, watched and listened for 13 hours as the migrant ship lost power and floated aimlessly off the Greek coast. Satellite imagery and tracking data obtained by the New York Times apparently showed definitively that the Adriana was drifting in a loop during its final six and a half hours. With dozens of officials and Coast Guard crews monitoring the ship as it drifted, one might legitimately assume that rescue ships would be employed to save its passengers. However, when the Adriana capsized, it sank in the presence of a single Greek Coast Guard ship. Of the 350 Pakistani on board, all of which were crammed onto the bottom deck, only 12 survived. The women and young children, which occupied the middle deck, went down with the ship. The top deck was reserved for Syrians, Palestinians and Egyptians, many of which survived. So, why did we see such dramatically less intense rescue and media coverage for this much greater calamity? According to some authorities, the lax response to this preventable maritime disaster in the Mediterranean is not because some people are indifferent. It is in the degree of familiarity. The United Nations International Organization for Migration (I.O.M.) estimates that the number of migrants who have died trying to reach Europe has so far this year already exceeded 2,000. Arrivals by sea to Mediterranean Europe has this year already surpassed 82,000 - against 49,000 last year. Many countries formulate their approach to the influx of unwelcome migration in terms of law enforcement, not rescue. Individuals attempting to facilitate this migrant movement are often criminally prosecuted out of fear that their actions could encourage future migrant movement. Judith Sunderland, Acting Deputy Director for Europe at the group Human Rights Watch, during an interview while comparing the two rescue operations, remarked: "We saw how some lives are valued and some are not. We cannot avoid talking about racism and xenophobia." Years and countless boat calamities later, the deaths are no less appalling, but attract much less attention. Aid workers call it "compassion fatigue." Theo Wierdsma