DEMOCRATS HAVE A MESSAGING PROBLEM

Special Counsel Robert Hur released a long anticipated report concluding his 15 - month investigation of President Biden's possession of classified documents when serving as vice president. While he opted against bringing criminal charges against the president, he did manage to ignite a political firestorm when he described the president as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Prior to being appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Hur served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland during most of the Trump administration. Unsurprisingly, the president's supporters attacked the characterization of President Biden as a political hack job. Vice President Kamala Harris slammed the report, calling it "politically motivated" and "gratuitous," more of a political assault than an unbiased legal document. During a hastily scheduled news conference following its publication, President Biden dismissed criticism of memory lapses and diminished mental acuity. Under the circumstances his need to respond may well have been the right approach. However, he did not do himself any favors by his less than forceful stage presence and by feeding concerns about cognitive decline when, during an interchange with assembled reporters he identified Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi as the president of Mexico. For Democrat operatives struggling to distinguish the substantive differences between their candidate and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, the message ought to be clear. A recent NBC - News poll indicates that 59% of voters expressed major concerns about the current president not having the necessary mental and physical health to be president for another term. This compares to 34% of voters who had major concerns about former president Trump, who, by the way, is only three years the president's junior. Multiple backers of President Biden have pointedly suggested that Trump's gaffes significantly exceeded those accredited to Biden. Conservative attorney George Conway, during an interview with Anderson Cooper, claimed that he could easily produce a "five hour clip" or "weekend special" of "absurd, embarrassing and inaccurate statements" uttered by candidate Trump. He, for instance, confused Nikki Haley with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; he claimed that Biden could plunge the world into World War II; he confused Biden with President Barack Obama - stating that he was leading Obama at election polls; and he incorrectly identified Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban as prime minister of Turkey. The difference is not the content of the message, it is the messaging and the messenger. President Biden has a plethora of substantial accomplishments to flaunt. Donald Trump has nothing but bombast and empty rhetoric. Yet, his base supports whatever he produces. Years ago, during the run-up to the 2016 election battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I published a column discussing the power of charisma. My point of reference was sociologist Max Weber's work on charismatic authority. He identified three forms of charismatic leadership: traditional, charismatic and rational. Then, as well as today, traditional charismatic leadership, which focuses on patriarchy and hereditary leadership, like the monarchy, is irrelevant for our discussion. Charismatic authority, in Weber's analysis is based on the perceived, extraordinary characteristics of an individual fed by charm and personality. Perception being the operative concept. Leadership based on rational charisma is derived from significant hands-on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. This equates to competence. During that election Clinton clearly filled the "rational" category. She was the most competent candidate for the job. However, whatever other strategic decisions she has been accused of, her campaign suffered from what Time Magazine at the time coined "boredom." She came across as canned, unauthentic. programmed and robotic - a technocrat. Donald Trump, without a public record of policy and legislative competence, flaunted a more magnetic personality, enhanced by choreographed imagery and supported by, what has been called a grandiose narcissism, was able to have his followers "drink the Kool-Aid." As predicted, his charisma, even devoid of competence, won the election The message ought to be clear. While some dynamics have clearly changed during the past seven years, for the Democrats to have a chance at winning the upcoming election, referring subtly to the major accomplishments of the Biden administration won't do it. People not only need to know, they need to believe wholeheartedly. Biden supporters can't hide behind esoteric media reports that won't even stand the scrutiny of less inquisitive voters. Most of us want personality and ability. Historically, though, charismatic candidates survive lack of scrutiny and win elections. Charisma trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. We have many months to go to the next election. However, for some involved in this process, there is no time to waste. Theo Wierdsma