We Like Mike?
One can never fail to be amused or mystified by the American political process. The race for the presidency among the Republican candidates helps one to remember that media-driven politics in the U.S. – especially of the presidential variety – is very similar to another American phenomenon: the carnival sideshow. There a snake oil salesman – the slippery carnival barker – stands in front of the crowd promising thrills and chills, a peek perhaps at a bearded lady, a strongman or a Siamese twin, or two. Eager for entertainment, the public slaps down its greenbacks to enter the tent and see for themselves what they may otherwise find difficult to believe, oblivious of the fact that they are being had.
Witness the ascendancy of Mike Huckabee who won the Iowa caucus. The prevailing punditry would have us believe that Mr, Huckabee, a former minister, swept to victory in Iowa because he most clearly embodied the conservative Christian values characteristic of the majority of rural Iowans. Some have said, however, that the real key to Huckabee’s success could be found in his practice of speaking plainly, in his capacity to connect with ordinary folks; according to these commentators, the former Arkansas governor possesses a large measure of that mysterious innate quality that cannot be taught in schools, that cannot be honed by experience in public office or developed through the rigors of the campaign trail: that quality is likability.
Mr. Huckabee made a number of potentially campaign-killing gaffes and procedural mistakes on the road to the Iowa victory: he said he hadn’t heard of a widely-reported national intelligence review that effectively reversed the government’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities; he made a comment after the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that “there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality;” he decided to leave Iowa the night before the caucus in order to appear on the Tonight Show, a move that some experts described as political suicide. What made Iowans overlook the governor’s policy blunders and apparent political naiveté? Could it be his likability?
Likability – or the lack of it – is a subjective phenomenon that has nothing to do with an individual's capacity to govern, yet it is continually seen as an important metric in the life of a campaign. It is frequently mentioned as a problem for Hillary Clinton, who has worked hard to increase what might be termed her likability quotient. Unlike her husband Bill, who was able to project warmth and sympathy as well demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the issues of the day, Mrs. Clinton has been described as cold, distant, and abrasive – personality traits that some say could make the difference in her electability.
Up against the automated, managerial persona of Mitt Romney, Mr. Huckabee’s easy-going manner may have at least helped him to garner many of the undecided. Likability may have also enabled Iowa voters to overlook Huckabee's inconsistencies as a knight of conservative Christian values. When challenged during the debates to account for the many pardons he granted to Arkansas inmates as governor, the former minister insisted that he was tough on crime and proudly trumpeted the fact that he carried out 16 executions, more than any other governor in his state’s history. When queried for his opinion about how Jesus might treat the death penalty, the presidential candidate quipped “Jesus was too smart to be a politician.” That Governor Huckabee had preferred to act in a manner similar to Governor Pilate did not make him a hypocrite in the eyes of his Republican base nor in those of the journalists who found the remark so amusing – it just made him more likable.
The fact that a former man of the cloth can project sincerity in a way that speaks directly to voters may be a testament to the degree of disgust and cynicism the electorate has with blow-dried political salesmen and patrician cowboys who lie to their constituents time and again. What is simply astounding, however, is that after two terms of George W. Bush – a man who has proven the disastrous consequences of ineptitude in office – many Americans apparently have no problem in throwing their support behind another likable southern governor who is intellectually shallow, has a meager command of the issues and who allows faith rather, than reason, to dominate his judgment.
It is clear that the Republican Party is foundering in a perennial search for the ghost of Ronald Reagan. They thought they had it in Fred Thomson, but he has turned out to be just an other B-list actor. Divorced from the process, exhausted by a military quagmire in the Middle East, in fear of unseen enemies and the daily pressures of an unstable economy, those who still have faith in the GOP want, more than anything, someone with whom they can connect. The truth is that the race for the presidency in 2008 may not be simply a quest for votes but a search for intimacy. It may, as always, be a simple contest to determine who we would prefer to see on TV.
One can never fail to be amused or mystified by the American political process. The race for the presidency among the Republican candidates helps one to remember that media-driven politics in the U.S. – especially of the presidential variety – is very similar to another American phenomenon: the carnival sideshow. There a snake oil salesman – the slippery carnival barker – stands in front of the crowd promising thrills and chills, a peek perhaps at a bearded lady, a strongman or a Siamese twin, or two. Eager for entertainment, the public slaps down its greenbacks to enter the tent and see for themselves what they may otherwise find difficult to believe, oblivious of the fact that they are being had.
Witness the ascendancy of Mike Huckabee who won the Iowa caucus. The prevailing punditry would have us believe that Mr, Huckabee, a former minister, swept to victory in Iowa because he most clearly embodied the conservative Christian values characteristic of the majority of rural Iowans. Some have said, however, that the real key to Huckabee’s success could be found in his practice of speaking plainly, in his capacity to connect with ordinary folks; according to these commentators, the former Arkansas governor possesses a large measure of that mysterious innate quality that cannot be taught in schools, that cannot be honed by experience in public office or developed through the rigors of the campaign trail: that quality is likability.
Mr. Huckabee made a number of potentially campaign-killing gaffes and procedural mistakes on the road to the Iowa victory: he said he hadn’t heard of a widely-reported national intelligence review that effectively reversed the government’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities; he made a comment after the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that “there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality;” he decided to leave Iowa the night before the caucus in order to appear on the Tonight Show, a move that some experts described as political suicide. What made Iowans overlook the governor’s policy blunders and apparent political naiveté? Could it be his likability?
Likability – or the lack of it – is a subjective phenomenon that has nothing to do with an individual's capacity to govern, yet it is continually seen as an important metric in the life of a campaign. It is frequently mentioned as a problem for Hillary Clinton, who has worked hard to increase what might be termed her likability quotient. Unlike her husband Bill, who was able to project warmth and sympathy as well demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the issues of the day, Mrs. Clinton has been described as cold, distant, and abrasive – personality traits that some say could make the difference in her electability.
Up against the automated, managerial persona of Mitt Romney, Mr. Huckabee’s easy-going manner may have at least helped him to garner many of the undecided. Likability may have also enabled Iowa voters to overlook Huckabee's inconsistencies as a knight of conservative Christian values. When challenged during the debates to account for the many pardons he granted to Arkansas inmates as governor, the former minister insisted that he was tough on crime and proudly trumpeted the fact that he carried out 16 executions, more than any other governor in his state’s history. When queried for his opinion about how Jesus might treat the death penalty, the presidential candidate quipped “Jesus was too smart to be a politician.” That Governor Huckabee had preferred to act in a manner similar to Governor Pilate did not make him a hypocrite in the eyes of his Republican base nor in those of the journalists who found the remark so amusing – it just made him more likable.
The fact that a former man of the cloth can project sincerity in a way that speaks directly to voters may be a testament to the degree of disgust and cynicism the electorate has with blow-dried political salesmen and patrician cowboys who lie to their constituents time and again. What is simply astounding, however, is that after two terms of George W. Bush – a man who has proven the disastrous consequences of ineptitude in office – many Americans apparently have no problem in throwing their support behind another likable southern governor who is intellectually shallow, has a meager command of the issues and who allows faith rather, than reason, to dominate his judgment.
It is clear that the Republican Party is foundering in a perennial search for the ghost of Ronald Reagan. They thought they had it in Fred Thomson, but he has turned out to be just an other B-list actor. Divorced from the process, exhausted by a military quagmire in the Middle East, in fear of unseen enemies and the daily pressures of an unstable economy, those who still have faith in the GOP want, more than anything, someone with whom they can connect. The truth is that the race for the presidency in 2008 may not be simply a quest for votes but a search for intimacy. It may, as always, be a simple contest to determine who we would prefer to see on TV.
Comments