The personality versus plan issue arose as Titus was bestowing some pearls of wisdom upon me, in the event of any political future. My thoughts were, and remain, that while plans are immeasurably important, that personality is the deal maker or breaker. The American electorate basically knows what it wants - victory (in war time), security, low taxes, "fixes" to problems such as health care etc .., and each candidate will sell their version of a solution to those issues. And while the policy differences will be huge to political wonks, what gets a candidate elected is how well he sells himself, not his plans.
Did Reagan sell people on his economics or any other plan? No, he gave them something even more valuable and unassailable - he gave them hope. He made them feel good about being Americans again. And he did all of this via his personality, not a 100 day plan. The historical examples are endless, and Jambo has elaborated quite nicely, but everyone should keep in mind that this originated as how best to get elected in the future - and this puts particular emphasis on personality. The break neck speed of media in this day and age is beyond extraordinary. I have heard estimates that technological break throughs in the last 100 years surpassed the sum total of the previous 1000. I can only imagine at what measure the last 25 years of information accessibility has grown by - perhaps more than all of prior times combined. And that very much lends itself to personality. Impressions, likability, sense of humor, timing, camera friendly, a good smile - for better or worse in the world of instant downloads, 5 second sound bites and 6 minute baked potatoes, all of these will be more decisive in an election then "plans." Post election, then the plans will play a larger role - but even then - as we have seen countless times, the affability factor gets sh** passed. Could Reagan have gone over the heads of the media and gotten people to call and write their congressman in order to secure passage had he not been "liked?" And as I mentioned before, an entire candidacy was based on the phrase "I like Ike." Not, "here's what Ike wants to do once he's elected." That's much less catchy.
Now, in terms of whom is running now ... Hillary seems to me to be void of any personality whatsoever. She's bland. Outside of the base who loves her, and the opposition which hates her, she's plain yougurt - not a good formula come the general election.I wouldn't vote for her because she's a socialist by any other name (5000 just for being born? Shut up.), but if I suddenly awoke from a coma (some here may think that has yet to happen) and I saw clips of "Rudy" at ground zero, with the hard hat on, compared to clips of Hillary basically walking around in meets and greets, that's not even close on the personality or personal impression front. And don't think those 9/11 clips won't be in ads. And by the way, he earned the right to that in my opinion although the Dems will no doubt scream that he is politicising 9/11 to his benefit. What they really mean is that they can't, so he shouldn't. Also, in the debates I think much of his stump speech will shine through. Have you heard him discuss the war on terror? He gets it man, and he's passionate and to the point. In a debate will Hillary be able to pull off "likability" when she has yet to utter the word victory in a single debate to date? I doubt it.
Also, this business about the letters G-O-P being a hindrance due to Bush's low poll numbers. That is an opportunity for a Guliani. Bush's numbers are so low that Dems, as they have demonstrated over the years, are going to mention him - and his poor performance (their words) - every ten seconds if not more. In other words they will go negative. Guliani needs to sell what Reagan did - hope. Be positive, a bright future is ahead, we can win, etc. Chris Matthews once said that "Americans always vote for a president that has the sun on his face." The upbeat personality of "America is great", here's how I'll make it even greater, head held high will always win if packaged with a short, to the point message of what you'll do. But you see what comes first there - the messenger, not the message.
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think I have had a revelation… an epiphany, if you will…
I will refrain from checking the Bund until such time as I have the ability to come into the blog after a full and restful eight-hours of sleep. As it stands now, my first real opportunity to check the thing comes after 9 hours of hell in a nightmare of a casino here in NEPA, right as I am supposed to be cooking and feeding three kids and two adults. This is obviously NOT a good time to do this kind of debating, because my first reaction to posts like this is always the same…
Why does no one ever listen to me?
Obviously, I am incapable of making the point to you that is so abundantly clear to me… that SOMETIMES, when an incumbent President is unpopular enough come election time, the opposition party has a chance to take the election by showing they have a PLAN. This doesn’t always work, but it has worked in the past on some occasions.
The only other alternative is for the opposition party to run on a campaign of “Vote for us, we’re not THEM!”
Ronald Reagan COULD have won the election of ‘80 based SOLELY on the latter strategy… and won it easily, I might add. He did, to a degree… but not like I think most people would imagine he SHOULD have. Instead, he pointed out the failings of the Carter administration, and clearly stated what he would have done differently, as well as what he would do in the future. THAT constitutes a PLAN, my friend. He explained in clear and measurable terms what he would DO when he was elected President. Did his charm and charisma having a role in his election? OF COURSE! No one is denying that… not me… no one. To a degree, that is true of EVERY winning election, isn’t it?
However, not every good-looking, photogenic candidate is elected, are they? Dan Quayle was good looking, he was funny, and regardless of bad press, rather articulate… and he got his ass handed to him in the election. Much the same could be said for Dukakis (although you’ll never hear me call him good looking), and he got waxed, too. What about Gore? Out of the “old-guard” mold, a new generation of Democrat and intimately familiar to the US public, and part of a wildly popular administration that every effort of the GOP couldn’t wipe away… yet Bush had a PLAN, and all Al wanted to sell us was “more of the same”.
Want to contrast a winning campaign with a loser? How about Reagan and Kerry… Reagan had a plan (as stated) and voiced it at every opportunity with poise and panache. Kerry kept saying what he had already done-said-accomplished, but pussy-footed around the answer of what he WOULD DO in the future constantly. Never gave a solid “This is my PLAN” speech, even once. Reagan ran on issues, and he won. Kerry ran on “I’m not Bush”… and he lost. Reagan didn’t need to make Carter look bad… he simply let us see him for what he was. Kerry tried to make Bush look bad at every chance, and only made himself look stupid in the process.
What is the point of all of this?
The point I was making is that the Dems haven’t learned a damn thing in 8 years, and even less in the last 4. They are running a campaign based solely on “I’m not Bush” with no meat and no potatoes… NO PLAN. No real explanation of what is going to happen in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or in regards to the War on Terror. No explanation of what they will do to fix Social Security, or provide health care to the millions of uninsured, or how to bring relief outside of additional welfare programs. No discussion on how they plan to fix what they say Bush has destroyed… America’s reputation in global politics, US credibility with the UN, relations with countries like France, Germany, Russia, China… and, yes… North Korea (remember Biden’s comments?).
If the GOP wants to win… deliver a plan we can bite into and VOTE FOR.
Post a Comment