As the flight leader of the Nimitz Interceptor wing told Lt. Commander Toland in Stornaway, let's play. Can't leave this one buried in some obscure comment thread no one will see.
Titus says that people elect plans, and popularity is secondary.
He scoffed at my example of FDR as a popular figure in 1932.
Let's look at your boy Hoover for a second.
I'm checking my books, online stuff, all resource materials and I have nothing concerning regular radio addresses to the public during the crunch of the Depression. Now, I'm not saying Hoover was the cause of it, I'm not saying Hoover's inaction furthered it, the great Depression was global and there were too many factors to lay blame at one man's feet. But during the campaign of '32, FDR initiated radio interviews and "talk time," which after his election became the fireside chats history remembers. Keeping in mind campaigning then and now is apple and orange comparison, and FDR's ability to press the flesh was greatly enhanced by his ability to move and not be restricted by the pressures of the White House an incumbent faces, his personality was far more visible than Hoover's. Granted, Hoover had four years to make himself known, make himself heard when it came to policy. It's what got him elected in the first place. But he's a cold turd compared to FDR. The election wasn't even close, even by modern standards. He didn't outline the first hundred days. He didn't map out the NRA or the TVA or the BLR or Social Security. He smiled, he laughed, he told people that he heard them and everything was going to be better, that there'd be change, and he won. personality, no plan. No elitist family, no governor scandals, he was the people's man even as a millionaire. Which Hoover wasn't.
Fast forward to 1948. Truman had no plan. Truman had nothing, including campaign money. But he jumped on a train and "stole" the election of Dewey because 1) he made himself visible, and 2) he was a more likable guy. He didn't sell a plan. He certainly didn't ride on the laurels of WWII victory. Dewey was the elitist snob and Dewey is the historical model for why polls fail. (Something modern politicians keep forgetting. Go figure.)
1960 is too easy but I'll stop here anyway. Kennedy had no plan. Camelot was never a policy initiative. Nixon went in knowing what he was going to do, moving ahead with the same policies Eisenhower had championed for 8 years. Nixon sounded good but looked bad, and in the brand new world of television Kennedy wins by a nose hair. Nixon almost fits your bill of personable (before the paranoia of the hostile vocal minority takes root) and plan touting, but still loses to youth and good looks.
1980 is my personal favorite. St. Ron is a massive underdog going into the early debates in California. Ron has shown a plan, sketchy but identifiable by the catchy slogan "Reaganomics," and the plan, not the person is being shredded by the front runner, some cheesy war vet named George Bush, who uses the equally catchy and damaging slogan "Voodoo-economics" to describe the "trickle down" theory of tax cuts to the economy and the common man. The flaw in Reaganomics should cost St. Ron the debate, the primary and the election but for the immortal confrontation Ron has, not with George Sr, but with the moderator of the debate over microphone time. He wins on pure personality. He's called the Teflon president for the same reason. He's liked. He's likable. Not since Kennedy has there been a movie star president (no pun intended) like Ron. And the plan almost cost him the nomination and the presidency.
So, in review:
Charisma is mandatory. Popularity wins. That's why the opposition throws mud.
Plans without charisma fail.
Plans with charisma tend to hurt more than help. Use them only in closing when rebuttal is impossible, and keep them simple enough to be defended without a PhD in the appropriate field. Ron sold an economic plan doomed to fail, and an economic plan that he didn't follow in terms of government spending. But he also sold hope and that was the biggest part of the plan. (Man, I hope I get some of this trickle down.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dude… for the last time, I am NOT saying that PLANS win every election… only that if the GOP wants to win in ‘08, they will need a PLAN, because none of them are going to get a win on PERSONALITY. The closest they have is Giuliani… and he is NOT charismatic enough to beat Hillary in an open fight. Giuliani will still have the label REPUBLICAN after his name on the ballot, and that alone will be a first strike against him.
In an election where the sitting President is as unpopular as Bush is now (say, 1980...or 1976...or 1968), the incumbent’s Party is a liability more than an aid. “GOP” is a liability in this election…I dare you to deny it.
Thus, if the GOP wants to win, they will need to sell a PLAN, because they cannot sell a PERSONALITY. There is no Reagan in the wings… no Arnold, no Jeb, no glamour, no glitz. They need to show the American public that they can WIN in Iraq, that they can WIN the War on Terror, that they can keep the economy going while NOT sacrificing the environment, that the GOP has a PLAN that is good for America.
Otherwise, we are facing a Democratic President in ‘09, and it will probably be Hillary Clinton.
My placing Reagan on the PLAN list was a bit facetious, I admit… but how much PLAN did he need in the face of Jimmy “Crisis” Carter? Four years of one crisis after another… I could have won against Carter in ‘80, and I was only 12 at the time! He promised a stronger America (and I admit he delivered), and the voting public believed. Yes, he was likable and surprisingly popular outside of his California base… no questions… but it was the DISLIKE of Jimmy E. that won him the final leg.
Your point is terribly valid in as far as he was vying more for the GOP nomination than he was the general election… he was working his BASE more than the American people. Carter did all his work for him in that arena.
Post a Comment