THIS WEEK, following the now-abbreviated Republican convention, the presidential campaign will round into the home stretch. The candidates and platforms have come to maturity, and after a few weeks of brawling and mudslinging the decision will be offered to the electorate. In this election, as seems to be a recurring theme these days, the issues seem to matter less than the personal charisma of the candidate. Because of an obsessive amount of media attention on this election, candidates are also forever pursuing the elusive “bounce,” an electrifying event that will help them outstrip their opponent. Hence, the presidential election has become a battle contest of wills between two distinct cults of personality trying to produce a little added sparkle rather than a concrete discussion of the issues. Voters and the media demonstrate a preference for spectacle over substance.
This is very much the case in our own election. The parties are remarkably similar, as everyone seems to diagnose the same problems for the country—a weak economy, indolent congress, rising energy costs, problems in the near East, a lack of health care. Even social issues such as abortion and gay rights, long stalking horses of the Republican Party, seem played out. Rather than concrete solutions, however, the media have decided that the really important this is whether to choose “change we can believe in” or “McSame,” the “War Hero” or “The One” and the two parties have followed their lead, with Obama lapping up every publicity opportunity he can get and McCain complaining about the celebrity of his opponent.The entire election rides on the cult of personality of the two candidates, and by extension to their running mates.
Not that spectacle hasn’t always been important in American politics. In 1800, when John Adams ran against our own Thomas Jefferson, the two camps bombarded each other with insults and defamations that would make the Huffington Post or Rush Limbaugh blush. Adams’s supporters accused Jefferson of being an atheist, and of liaisons with his slaves; Jefferson’s men labeled Adams a monarchist and suppressor of liberties for his support of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Patriot Act of the era. Exaggerations? Very much so. But these spectacular exaggerations were deployed in order to create a negative public image of the opposition candidate.
Even from the early American political experience, spectacle and excitement have been viewed as a crucial element in successful politicking because they permit the parties to fight out the election in large part based on personality. Barack Obama thrives on politics of spectacle and personality. His electrifying oratory has lifted him above the spheres to which his lack of experience would normally relegate him. And this is a good thing for the Democrats. Their lack of personality, of charisma, of animate life even, in the last two elections has cost them dearly, as George W. Bush had the inestimable good fortune of running against two men who could do little to excite voters besides the impressive accomplishment of not being George W. Bush. The fact that he is not Bush will likely aid Obama as well, but to this he adds a great deal of excitement as a youthful-looking, ground-breaking candidate.
Now John McCain runs the risk of being the George H.W. Bush to Obama’s Bill Clinton—the last really charismatic man the Democrats ran for President. The elder Bush—Clinton comparison may be apt, as the pieces are in place for Democratic victory. In the past 50 years, electoral success for the Democratic coalition has relied heavily on precisely the two factors they are relying on now: an unpopular incumbent party and a charismatic candidate of their own.
Clinton rode an economic downturn and lackluster incumbent to victory. Jimmy Carter had the good fortune to be opposed in 1976 by Gerald Ford, who was tied inextricably to Richard Nixon’s ignominious exit. Lyndon B. Johnson came tied to the Kennedy movement, but also managed to win in his own right.
John McCain has tried to create his own personality movement, in a sense by not creating one. He has emphasized the superstar elements of the Obama campaign, most notably by comparing him to Paris Hilton. He has also gone the other way, however, and added a live personality to his own ticket in Alaska governor Sarah Palin, by all accounts a remarkable character. But in some respects she remains just that: a character, a young, exciting, different character. And in this move, McCain demonstrates that in the modern political climate, even the candidate who should be most averse to the politics of spectacle cannot help but enter in if he wants to win.
Robby Colby’s column appears
Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached r.colby@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 12 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
RASHID: Noncitizen students are under attack, and the University must act
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 2 days agoNow is the time to act, proving our commitment by protecting and expanding programs that keep the University open and accessible to all.
