Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Birthday
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
Elise Matthesen elbows her way onto the front page of Making Light:
We were discussing the comments of people who reacted negatively to Barack Obama because he is a charismatic speaker, and something occurred to me. People are saying they are suspicious of Obama specifically because he’s charismatic. They’re treating Obama (and, in some other conversations, Clinton) as if politicians are gaming characters, where there are only a certain number of points to be allocated, and therefore a high Charisma must be balanced by disadvantage points elsewhere, so either they’ve got a lowered Intelligence or a weak Willpower or some other compensatory flaw. That’s not how it works, though. Not in real life. Not unless you’re limiting people to only one facet for some reason. (I won’t speculate on possible reasons, because it would be impolite.)All I want to add to this is the observation that “cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom” may be the best line of the campaign so far.I’m particularly struck by the way that charisma is seen as a quality, not an achievement.
(In Obama’s case, charisma may indeed be an achievement—at least, political charisma of the type he is now demonstrating—and a meaningful one, and one that he got with help. See the WSJ article about the role of his wife Michelle in the campaign—and their roles in each other’s lives. But that’s a whole another thing.)
In particular, all this focusing on Obama’s charisma is served up with a side order of “he’s a starry-eyed idealist with warm fuzzy rhetoric full of emotional appeal about uniting, but short on actual specifics and real-world plans.” I’m not sure exactly what people think University of Chicago law professors are chosen for, but I suspect that warm fuzzy rhetoric long on emotions but short on specifics isn’t real high on the checklist.
The other thing that it made me think of was something a little more insidious. Charisma is seen as a quality intrinsic to the person; it hasn’t any connection with their skills or their smarts, either, and by some logic, it might lessen the chance that they have any. (No, really—just listen to the criticisms. What they’re reminding me of right now is the notion that a woman cannot be both brainy and beautiful.) There’s this weird implication out there in the discussions about Obama’s charisma—or “messiah status,” to grab the current buzz-slap—that charisma leaves no room for a mind and a moral center. It’s the political equivalent of reducing him to his looks.
It reduces him to a feel-good candidate, instead of acknowledging him as a candidate we can feel good about precisely because he’s got smarts and skills, a mind and a moral center, and because he’s not afraid to sound passionate about what he believes in and what he proposes to do.
I note here for the record that PNH just called me "Barack Obama district delegate Elise Matthesen," and I responded with, "That's Al Franken, Keith Ellison, and Barack Obama district delegate Elise Matthesen to you, bub."
Me and my mighty elbows. Heh.
Yeah, I noticed “cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom”, too, and thought "nice one".
I also liked his making concrete the accomplishments of hope, taking examples from our own history.
I've said it in here before: rhetoric does not mean "bullsh*t". Genuine rhetoric takes brains and skill, and Obama's got'em. And how.
I think that this is all right on target, but while I don't feel suspicious of Obama's charisma, I sometimes feel suspicious of my reaction to Obama's charisma. That is, it's very easy to get swept away by him without thinking too hard about the disappointments that are inevitable if he gets elected, given that he is more moderate than I'd like on many things, the inevitable difficulty of steering change through in a political system that is in part purpose-designed to stop it, etc etc. None of which is to say that he isn't a great candidate on the merits, but that it's sometimes necessary to pinch yourself a bit if you're one of his supporters, think realistically about what he is and is not likely to do &c&c.
What I've been seeing is more like what Henry describes in #3 -- a distrust of charisma itself. I've seen people arguing that there's something wrong with responding emotionally to stirring rhetoric, that a proper person evaluates everything dispassionately, without those messy hormones getting involved. (Yes, "hormones". I've actually seen people use that word.)
I can understand where this argument comes from. There's certainly plenty of dishonest emotional manipulation in our political process. But you can't move people without getting their emotions engaged somehow.
I don't feel a particular need to remind myself that President Obama is bound to disappoint, because I know based on my own experience in the world that if I were to become President of the United States and the Inner Solar System tomorrow, I'd disappoint. I'd disappoint me.
We're savannah primates and we don't get to magically become gods or superheroes. That said, some savannah primates are preferable to others. After seven years of George W. Bush, the prospect of being angrily disappointed with President Obama looks pretty good.
Genuine rhetoric I can admire, and Obama definitely can get there.
I definitely view charisma as an intrinsic; some people got it, some don't. Lots of things reinforce that view, including most of the descriptions of how an actor becomes successful. And, in the *very* rare case where somebody acquires it, it's often regarded as a veneer, a fake, a put-on.
I distrust charisma, because at some level I'm convinced that if my neighbors are ever united, with sincere emotion and conviction, in any endeavor, eventually they'll get bored with their original purpose and pick up pitchforks and torches and come after me.
I am aware that this is not a rational response, and I try not to let it influence my voting unduly. I did vote for Obama today. But I have to turn the radio off when his sound bites come on; I can't listen to any effective political rhetoric without feeling threatened.
Patrick @ 5... After seven years of George W. Bush, the prospect of being angrily disappointed with President Obama looks pretty good.
Hell, yes! But I bet you that too many people will see things differently. And they'll nearly forget. They had 8 years of Ronnie Raygun, 4 of Bush père, but did they keep that in mind when Bill Clinton moved to the White House? Did he disappoint? Yes. Was he better than 12 years of the GOP? Yes. Did that matter to many of those he disappointed?
What about all the people who like Obama because they recognise he's charismatic? That's one of his main talking points, after all: the idea that he can unite your country with his winsome leadership. You see it in the way he moves the polls -- he moves them, but when people see he's moving them, he moves them even further. It's a second order effect, as the evidence of his charisma boosts his claim once more.
I freely it -- I distrust charisma. Three reasons:
1) The people who work hardest to learn charisma are actors, who are frankly pretending. In them it's not so bad, because they *are* acting -- but even with actors, people get caught up and forget that, of course they *seem* nice, that's what they're pretending to be. viz, Ronald Reagan.
2) Historically, charisma has a *very* mixed record. To put it mildly.
3) Charisma generates a Reality Distortion Field. You start to edge over into the areas Cannetti described in Crowds and Power, where magical thinking takes over large groups.
With the mess the US has gotten into in the last 7 years, charisma may be the only engine strong enough to get everyone pulling us *out*. But it definitely worries me, and I think it should.
"What about all the people who like Obama because they recognise he's charismatic?"
Yeah, perish forbid people should be moved by an emotional connection to their ideals. Best to leave that sort of thing to the right wing, so we can continue to lose in austere intellectual purity, forever and amen.
"You see my husband as a saint and so he must be right in everything he says and does; and then you see him as a devil and so everything he says and does must be wrong ... My husband's neither a saint nor a devil. He's just a human being and he makes mistakes ... What do you stand for? I believe in my husband. What do you believe in?"
(Sarah Brady to Rachel Brown in Inherit the Wind)
Doctor Science, different people can study the same subject for different reasons. If Obama sees it as a necessary accomplishment for a politician, good for him. It means he's planning to appeal to the masses of voters. After George's administrations, I have a renewed appreciation for a politician who thinks that's worth doing.
As for Doctor Science: Absolutely, "charisma has a *very* mixed record." Unlike appeals to the body politic's pure higher intellect, unsullied by messy feeling.
For the latter, let's examine the wildly successful two terms of the Dukakis Administration. Oh, wait.
Charisma is about getting people to pay attention. Charisma is viral marketing before the internet. Charisma is a tool.
I hardly imagine it's Obama's only tool, and I hardly imagine that his policy is shallow to the point of depending on his charisma to make things happen.
"When religion and the state ride the same cart, and that cart is ridden by a living holy man (baraka), nothing can stand in their way."--Frank Herbert
Shall we say that Herbert had vision?
Our last charismatic President was Reagan. The one before was JFK. I fear the untrustworthy charismatic leader. I fear the impulse that leads us to follow another, rather than our own hearts. I hate the media and electoral system that makes it easy for charisma to trump all else. A great many people have put their hopes onto Obama; they would give him their standard, and follow him to the promised land. Only where is the promised land? From my viewpoint, the Presidency has come to have all the problems of any secular kingship; it would take a king anointed by god ("messiah" = "meschiach" = anointed) to do the job properly. Obama, whatever his virtues, is not that, and I wish we'd stop trying to elect messiahs.
"If your leaders say, the Kingdom is in the sky, the birds will precede you; if they say it is the sea, the fishes."
I notice that it's only Obama's detractors that keep tagging him with the term "messiah."
"Yeah, perish forbid people should be moved by an emotional connection to their ideals."
Re #11: sorry, but you're misinterpreting me. I've got nothing against Obama's charisma at all. I think any unmotivated distrust of charisma in a politician would be a bit misguided.
I simply think this countervailing phenomenon to the one you're describing is more pronounced: I'd be willing to bet there are more of those who like Obama more when they recognise his charisma, than of those who like him less.
Elise, #17: "I notice that it's only Obama's detractors that keep tagging him with the term messiah.'"
Who do you have in mind?
Randolph #16 -- Bill Clinton has Reagan-level charisma. There's a reason he was the most popular president since WW2.
And your comments about messiahs are over the top.
Tony Blair.
Lots and lots of charisma. Cynicism may be a sorry kind of wisdom, but for those of us in the UK it is intimately connected to experience.
I liked Obama two years ago when he seemed to talk about Things, but I'm a bit tired of hearing about Vision and Change. I'd rather hear about policy.
I don't know that a gnostic text, about how only the elite, and those who have a different spark of the Divine, can truly know what is going on, is the best way to make one's point about charismatic leaders.
And using a word reminiscent of the man's name... invidious much?
elise, #17: I get the feeling that this may be a tactical maneuver.
On the one hand, it's definitely going to put up the backs of a lot of devoutly religious folks (not just the evangelists, either), because in their faith there is only one Messiah, so tagging Obama with that title brings along the connotational baggage of "false god".
On the other, it's an attempt to tar him with the evangelistic brush, and turn away people who distrust and/or fear evangelists in general, like many of us here. And it may be working.
When my best friend and I say Hillary Clinton has 'more experience', we don't mean experience being a politician. We mean experience facing the Republican juggernaut.
Obama is charismatic and inspirational, and that's wonderful. He's very good at reaching out to ordinary citizens and persuading them to trust him and work with/for him: that's why he's getting so many votes. Charisma is a valuable asset to a politician; Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are both said by those who've met them to be extraordinarily charming and magnetic when they want to.
But a president doesn't work directly with the voters: he works with Congress (other experienced and charming politicians) and the Executive Branch (now stuffed with Republican partisans determined not to do their jobs).
An interviewer asked Obama his greatest weakness. This is a standard job-interview question, which every job-seeker knows to answer with blather: 'Sometimes I work too hard", or similar. Obama answered honestly, and then was surprised when his honesty was used against him. If he was surprised at that, he really is not ready to face full-out attack.
Hillary had a close-up view of what her husband went through: the jibes about 'the failed Clinton administration' mere weeks after he took office, the vicious personal attacks, the seizing on any offer of compromise as a sign of weakness. She knows what it will take to accomplish real change.
I think Obama might make a good and useful vice-president. He could rally public support for the president's policies.
Randolph: I personally am more inclined to say that Herbert got carried away by a vision of the cosmos into a really loathsome quaqmire of eugenics, ubermen, and the glorification of totalitarianism, all justified by, gosh, necessity. But that's me.
I sometimes suspect that the fear of charisma is related to depression. Depression makes it hard to trust your emotions. But that's a biochemical defect, not a superior way of living. In healthy people it's good to feel enthusiasm, and if the problem is that we end up sometimes trusting the unworthy, that just means that judgment hasn't gone out of fashion.
But it's good to hope. All maturity is not contained in Macbeth and King Lear; there's wisdom in The Tempest, too.
Rozasharn @24: Yeah, she has tons of experience in triangulating and voting for stuff that her constituency doesn't want (Iraq) in order to pander to talking points from the media... that was very useful in the last 16 years: it energized the base, brought new people to the polls, and won elections...</grin>
I think that Obama is getting reduced to charisma-only-fluffy-candidate partly because his supporters keep going on about his charisma at the expense of talking about his substantial accomplishments. I'd love to have an Obama supporter sit me down and talk about his U Chicago career, his legislative work, etc. But I keep getting more talk about his charisma! And it doesn't seem to work on me! When I watch him speak on video, my reaction ranges from baffled incomprehension of all the fuss to actual gut-level aversion. It is, in fact, similar to my reaction to people who preach religion at me - I see a kind of magical thinking that I just don't get, and which actively repels me when pushed too hard. Too many Obama supporters come across as missionaries, and I don't like missionaries. I've found more information that inclines me to support Obama at Geek the Vote than I've gotten from all the Obama supporters I've talked to put together. And that's pretty aggravating, since I'd like to have more enthusiasm. I sort of resent having to do extra research to compensate for the way Obama supporters keep turning me off!
I'm certainly in the category of people who are suspicious of charisma - getting mobs of people worked up and enthusiastic is the sort of thing that can cut two ways. When I was weighing my vote last week, I thought hard about whether I was overreacting on that basis, and on the generally bad vibes I get from the Obama supporters and - sorry - from posts like this one that seem to suggest that wanting to hear about something more than his charisma means that I think that there isn't anything more. From where I stand, you've got it backwards. The more Obama supporters go on about his charisma and how it makes them want to join the movement, pick up the torch, etc., the more it looks like they are reacting purely on the basis of that charisma because that's what they keep talking about!
My own distrust of charisma is that it's a quality often associated with evangelists, con-men, and other sorts of used car salesmen. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel the same way.
Thus having staked out the cynical position, I'll do a 180 and say that one of the things I liked about Bill Clinton was that when the man gave a speech, I felt like he was talking about things that were important to him and to me, and that when he met with other heads of state I felt that he represented us to be an educated, intelligent, and caring people*. Speaking of savanah primates, however, the incumbent Chimp-in-Chief, makes me think of all the Dilbert-style CEOs I've had to deal with in a career in Dilbert-land.
Obama doesn't really put me off; on the contrary, it may be time to mix a bit more articulateness, grace and passion in with our politics.
* Despite all the evidence that many Americans dislike and distrust all three of those characteristics.
Charisma is seen as a quality intrinsic to the person; it hasn’t any connection with their skills or their smarts...
But this is precisely what charisma means, or at least originally meant: a gift from the gods, or from the Holy Spirit. It is not something you get from hard work or study.
Now in the part of the real world without quite so obvious intervention by gods, there's obviously a mix. I'd classify Linus Torvalds as charismatic, because he essentially went to the Dreamtime and returned with Linux. Obviously there was work and study there. He's not a personally charismatic person in the more everyday use of that term, but he's charismatic in the sense that he did something transformative and miraculous, and that's the basis of his leadership of the Linux community.
But here's the rub: Max Weber posits three forms of legitimacy: charismatic (the personal achievements of the leader), hereditary (descended from someone with charisma), and bureaucratic (chosen by a system of law). Whether people are consciously applying Weber's analysis to Obama or not I don't know (well, yes, actually I do), but I think this is the root of instinctive distrust of charisma that a segment of the population has. Charisma is, by its nature, in opposition to the rule of law. The George W. Bush presidency is a case study of the cult of personality eclipsing the rule of law as the dominant argument for a leader's legitimacy.
I know I'm tired -- and fearful, and angry, and resentful -- of this reascendancy of Stone Age politics, and I'll look with some skepticism at a candidate whose followers insist that the intrinsic claim to legitimacy of a candidate is that candidate's personal charisma.
"Leadership" is not charisma, nor is oratory or rhetoric. It's a separate thing, Obama's got it, and we are right and reasonable to be cautious in the face of it, as we ought to be cautious in the face of any gift from the gods.
My distrust of Obama has nothing to do with gameplaying. Among other things, I don't play, don't like it, am no good at it, and so and so on forth.
I distrust Obama because his charisma seems to incite people to adoration and fanaticism, not idealism and critical thought. I - like many Europeans who have heeded the tales told to us by our parents - am always on the lookout for demagogues. Obama mobilizes my ideological antibodies.
Oh - and since we're at it: my kind of people, which I can only describe as "European left", have had serious crushes on Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and going far back enough, Lenin. We have learned the hard way to be suspicious of people who uplift you.
This doesn't mean being a cynic. (And what is it with this demonization of Pre-Socratic philosophies anyway?)
Anyway, since I don't have to take a decision in this, I can safely mumble in my corner. Time will tell. In the meanwhile I would much rather not be told that I am unwise because I don't get all excited about Obama.
ETA: What Alex Cohen said, better than me.
Maybe it is a sorry kind of wisdom. But a kind of wisdom it is. "A cynical man, with much to be cynical about."
I wonder what we'd be saying about our Democratic candidates if Al Gore were in the race. Considering to RoboGore jokes of yore, nobody would be talking about his charisma. Still, I'd have rallied around his banner, and I'd have worked on his campaign, not out of fanaticism, but because he'd have shown leadership and intelligence. As for the two candidates that we do have, they're smart. And any messianic illusions that they might harbor would quickly be shattered by their followers. We Democrats are quick at doing that.
I don't think that most cynicism is wise at all, actually. I think most cynicism is a false generalization from bad luck, poor judgment, and inadequate information leading one (or people one is watching) into bad outcomes. But it's very much like a lifeguard who sees people drown from time to time and concludes that swimming pools should be banned, rather than that people need both training and supervision. Cynicism is all about refusing to concede there's anything beyond the bitter judgment of the moment. As I said above, The Tempest is as mature a work as King Lear.
Part of the problem I have with most of the cynics I've known well enough to really talk about this stuff with is that they have a very, very hard time ever admitting "I was a fool. I got taken in and shouldn't have" and then learning from that. Anna above touches on the icons of the European left in past decades, and I can name American ones to match. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to be inspired, it just means that you have to keep on asking questions also. Emma Goldman, for instance, saw right through Lenin and kept on with a leftism that wasn't beholden to him. It can happen. Furthermore, people can learn from their mistakes if they're willing to admit tot hem. But most cynics I've known well have been very proud people.
There are multiple reasons I go on the wordy way I do, with the caveats and the reiterations of personal limits and all, and one of them is to keep me from that kind of pride. Or rather, I should say, from returning to it, because the cynic I know best of all is the one I used to be. I got to watch a dear friend die in unnecessary pain partly because the cynic's pride kept them from pursuing a treatment that helped me and would have helped them, because it would have meant agreeing that the wrong sort of person (in this case, an incense-burning, Tibetan bell-ring naturopathic fruitbat) actually did have something important to offer us. I don't have the luxury of pride at that cost, and even when the cost is smaller, I think cynicism exacts far greater a toll than it ever, ever, ever returns to the huge majority of those who travel with it.
I can't say I know much about Obama's policies, how he stands on any major issue (other than he'd get all the troops out of Iraq quickly; doubtful), etc. The MSM isn't covering his platform very well, but is that because of their laziness or because he hasn't articulated it very much?
I'm prepared to vote for whoever's the Democratic candidate, but I can't say I'm an Obama supporter either.
Avram, #20: the messianic tendency in US politics--and if you look back at my post, you'll see what that's what I'm writing about--is hardly news; I'm not the first person to write about it. The image of the enlightened ruler who restores the true law is a popular one in these times, and it's a stone's throw from that to the literal meaning of messiah. It's also pretty plain that that impulse is very much active at this time. We talk about W. Bush and the Republicans as bad rulers and hope for a restoration of our laws, and an end to war; the religious right wants a ruler righteous by their lights. And Obama--whose given name, ironically, literally means "blessed", "barack" is a cognate of of "baruch"--is tapping into this impulse. Playing to that impulse is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it's what all the scoundrels do in the USA, so it makes me cautious. (This also applies to Anna's comment #30.) And, yes, I think we'd be healthier if we recognized that the impulse to seek out the sacred through politics is one doomed to failure, but I'm not expecting that insight to become widespread any time soon; if Jesus commented on it, I think we'll be hearing from it for a while yet.
Whyfor "over the top", then?
As to Bill Clinton's charisma; I think if it was really on Reagan's level, he'd have been another Teflon president like Reagan. Or perhaps not; perhaps it just wasn't the time for a charismatic leader.
John L, #35: "The MSM isn't covering his platform very well, but is that because of their laziness or because he hasn't articulated it very much?"
It's because of active hostility to discussion of the issues on the part of many media personnel, and because it's harder to win the Presidency if you are pinned down to particular positions on the issues. In our media environment, charisma is very important, because it's most of what the gatekeepers let through.
Bruce Baugh, #35: "I personally am more inclined to say that Herbert got carried away by a vision of the cosmos into a really loathsome quaqmire of eugenics, ubermen, and the glorification of totalitarianism, all justified by, gosh, necessity. But that's me."
Herbert was explicitly critical of the totalitarianism. I think he got caught up in it anyway. Like many sf writers of his generation he was dealing with philosophically complex material and he got overwhelmed by it--hardly a new thing. At the same time, the writers of that generation were plotting out the course we are now navigating. Could we even be having this discussion without writers like Herbert?
Imagine if America had a king! (I know, I know, but let's just imagine.) The king would fulfill the "figurehead" role, do ceremonial work, represent the nation, etc.
And the Prime Minister of America would do all the usual administrative work of the President except the figurehead part. He would be an elected official, wholly secular -- nothing more, nothing less.
It works for European nations. Why can't it work for America? (Quick answer: Because America never had a nobility. Quick retort: America does have its own nobility.)
John L, Randolph's right about media culpability. You can see some neat examples of stuff Obama's been up to in this link-rich post from Hilzoy, though.
Randolph, I'm afraid I don't see Herbert's relevance here. We've got a collusion of philosophical rationales for totalitarianism, particularly the Straussian, and naked business interests run amok, and the cures don't seem to me to have much connection with anything I recall reading in sf beyond advocates for basic decency like Dick and Bester. The nitty-gritty of responding to such things draws on constitutional law, effective mass organization, and a whole bunch of other stuff. I also admit to being tired and in a bit of pain (if you want the background, see recent posts with "status" in their name at my LiveJournal, but for goodness sake, no obligation is intended or implied :). So I'm sure I'm missing a lot, and the only question is whether I'm missing anything relevant right here and now. If so, correct me, por favor.
A.R. Yngve #39: The political system of the United States evolved out of the relationship between the colonial governors (appointed by the crown or the colonial proprietor) and the elected assemblies (voted by the landowners of the colonies), which transmogrified into the system in the US (and most other American republics) today as a result of the struggle for independence in the 18th century. In Europe, parliamentary democracy emerged from the conflicts among landed nobilities, urban bourgeoisies, and monarchies between the 13th and 19th centuries.
If you want to create a parliamentary democracy in the US, a few centuries of feudal monarchy would seem to be indispensable to the process. It does seem as if G.W. Bush wants to create such a thing.
Terry, #22: "And using a word reminiscent of the man's name... invidious much?"
It's not reminiscent of the man's name; it is the man's name, or at least another form of it. I believe it's a common given name in the culture of Obama's father, much as English virtue names are common among the pious.
"I don't know that a gnostic text, about how only the elite, and those who have a different spark of the Divine, can truly know what is going on, is the best way to make one's point about charismatic leaders."
The quote I cited, at least, is critical of charismatic leaders, and a warning about being an uncritical follower. Among the very few sayings of Jesus that have come down to us there are some critical of charismatic leaders, even in the canonical gospels; that one seemed to me telling.
I just went to Obama's website, skipped the registration part, and clicked on the "Issues" tab. There are a lot of policy/record statements there, and PDF position papers to download.
Seems like a good place to start if you're concerned about his alleged lack of substance.
Bruce, #40: "I'm afraid I don't see Herbert's relevance here."
My sympathies on your health--what can I say beyond that?
It surprises me, really, that I have upset so many people; to me it seems I am pointing out the fairly obvious.
The quote was about the power of the religious impulse in politics, which is one of the major themes of Dune; the co-incidence of Obama's name seemed to me to give it extra resonance. I become very scared when "religion and the state ride the same cart". Another major theme of Dune is the way in which history and geography shape culture, which also seems to me very much relevant. All those things you talk about--I agree that we need them. But as a culture we are looking for the messiah instead.
#28:
My own distrust of charisma is that it's a quality often associated with evangelists, con-men, and other sorts of used car salesmen. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel the same way.
I don't suspect that Obama has other flaws because he has charisma and the character points have to come from somewhere; real life is obviously a pure dice-based system where some people roll 18s on multiple stats and balance be hanged. (Complain to the GM, if you believe in one.)
I suspect that he has other flaws because he's human; but charisma makes his other flaws more dangerous, because it draws people to follow him into whatever mistakes he may make. That's what charisma *is* - the ability to get someone to follow you before thinking it through, and regardless of the actual quality of your arguments. (Which is why it's so darn useful to con men and evangelists.)
Sober consideration isn't better because it's emotionless; it's better because it has a lower error rate. And those errors matter.
Charisma can work for good. But it can also be very dangerous; I don't think caution is inappropriate.
#25:
In healthy people it's good to feel enthusiasm, and if the problem is that we end up sometimes trusting the unworthy, that just means that judgment hasn't gone out of fashion.
Again, I'm not saying that Obama is *unusually* softheaded or reckless. He may even be smarter and/or wiser than most. But he does have some faults, and his charisma can blind others to those faults and lead them to follow his enthusiasm even when it is ill-considered, as it sometimes will be.
P.S. Talking about his faults and potential faults is not inconsistent with supporting him as the best of the reasonably available choices - which I do. I'm just not inclined to rest on his laurels, so to speak.
On Obama's substance, there's also this, from hilzoy at Obisian Wings:
But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.
Also, on the topic of charisma as an artifact: that was certainly the case with Bill Clinton --- his debut on the national political stage was the nominating speech for Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic Convention, which went so far into Wonk Overload that it's been called the most boring in convention history. He got better, but I think it's safe to assume it took some effort.
(BTW, I'm at best a lukewarm Obama supporter, in part because his (substantive) policies on some domestic issues, particularly health care, are really pissing me off --- both on rhetoric and on substance. But he does get points for actually showing up yesterday to vote against telecom immunity; Hillary, regrettably, couldn't be bothered...)
For the latter, let's examine the wildly successful two terms of the Dukakis Administration. Oh, wait.
Well said. On a different note, I don't mind pointing out Dukakis' 2+ 1 terms as MA governor weren't bad. Not only that, I still see him --regular guy--on the green line on his way in to teach classes. He never hesitates to greet or chat.
In contrast, anyone know what dark bar Bill Weld is hanging out in these days...
:)
Re: charisma
Pierre Trudeau was considered a charismatic candidate when he first ran for Prime Minister of Canada.
The gloss wore off, but he still governed for 15 years; even being voted out of office, and back in.
I had a friend who commented on his ability to address the nation on some controversy, and (as she said) make you feel like an idiot for holding to your opinion, and force you to see the wisdom of his.
Delurking here to say that, as a moderately enthusiastic Obama supporter, I see both sides of this.
On the one hand, it feels wonderful to hear him speak (or read his book) and actually feel like there is a politician out there that I would be proud to have represent me, and can lead this country into a better place. And his charisma is part of the reason that I think that some of the "transformational" part of his candidacy isn't just rhetoric; I think he could help change the nature of politics in this country (at least somewhat) because that's what he's already doing. (Though that's not the main reason I support him; my initial introduction to him was via Hilzoy (linked above), and by reading his book).
But -- and it's a big but -- I distrust my own reactions when I recognize that they are, in part, emotionally-motivated, and I think that can be dangerous for very similar reasons to the ones that others have cautioned about in this thread. Charisma can be just as powerful of a tool for evil as it can be for good, absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. Plus, I know that no single candidate or movement can fix all that's wrong with the world today (and the fact that he's not saying it will doesn't stop many people from hoping); I distrust my own emotions because I know they will set me up for disappointment if I'm not careful.
Still... I think, on balance, it's a risk worth taking. As a society, we'll never get the benefits of having an MLK or a Ghandi if we reflexively dismiss all charisma as automatically dangerous. The key -- and it's difficult -- is to keep straddling the balance: support charismatic people who share your values, while at the same time keeping a really really close eye on them. Hard to do, but that's what democracy is about, I guess. :)
(As an aside, I have to say I really enjoy the Making Light community -- I don't contribute much because so often all I have to say is, basically, "me too!", but y'all are fascinating).
I gave up my political cynicism for Obama. (and I totally don't mean that to sound as creepy sexual, back seat of a mini van on prom night as it does but there you have it).
It does me no good, or anyone any good, to to assume Obama is just a slick jackass just putting on a show for the rubes in the corn field. Neither does it mean we should all just be Obama zombies either but Patrick covered that area admirably last week.
Embracing the possibility of a potential future leader that doesn't suck is a good thing. I'm a little dizzy, actually.
I do not mind charisma. Charisma helps you get things across. I mind that "He's Charismatic!" is seen as a top-flight reason to elect.
I believe Charisma, like military power, should be used in service of something greater than itself. Certainly, his charisma combined with the bully pulpit will allow Obama to spread his ideals, which would be great, but I just prefer the idea of Hillary's slightly lesser Charisma (has anyone saying she's a bore or uncharismatic ever actually watched her speak?) coupled to the bully pulpit in service of her slightly less vibrant versions of the same ideals and a deep interest in the workings of policy.
Randolph Fitz@16: A great many people have put their hopes onto Obama; they would give him their standard, and follow him to the promised land.
And those people are dumber than sand and deserve to be disillusioned, just like all those in the "George W is Our Messiah" crowd. Anyone expecting politicians to save the world on behalf of their abstract desire for relevance and power are missing the point of representative democracy. We aren't electing Sun Kings, just hoping to find a guy who can do his job competently.
#7 ::: Evelyn Browne:
If you don't mind, do you have any idea why you feel that way? I've got a similar reaction, and it's from being Jewish.
#25 and #34 ::: Bruce Baugh: That's really interesting about a relationship between depression and mistrust of charisma. I tend to detest charisma when I feel it, and one of the underlying thought is "I have very little energy, and here's this person trying to take it for their own purposes". Another piece of it is a general hatred of anyone trying to take my mind over.
Fortunately for Obama, I don't feel his charisma. Instead, he impressed me at the 2004 Democratic convention by being the only person (I think-- I may have missed a speech or two) to talk about civil liberties. Since then, he's been opposed to torture, and generally Not Awful.
Could you expand on what you see in King Lear vs. The Tempest? I don't see King Lear as especially cynical. If you have a lot of power and do something really stupid, it can blow up into an irretrievable disaster.
On the other hand, the major characters are a fool (and I don't mean the official fool), monsters, and victims, so it might count as cynical. I should reread it to see if there were generally cynical statements-- I was thinking I should reread it anyway, to see if there's a plausible case that Lear's parenting style had anything to do with how his daughters turned out. (If Cordelia never got angry with him, I think she had problems of her own.)
If you don't mind, what was the healing technique?
#39 ::: A.R.Yngve: IIRC, Heinlein talks Double Star about the importance of splitting ceremonial and practical leadership between two people.
I try to keep a little perspective in these confusing times by reminding myself that a leader* who sucked less would be a major improvement just now.
But I agree with Bruce Baugh @ 34 that cynicism is itself highly unsatisfactory since it so often represents an uncritical rejection of the new or the different that's just as unthinking and just as dangerous as the uncritical acceptance of the cult of personality.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan @ 30 asks (And what is it with this demonization of Pre-Socratic philosophies anyway?).
That's just the same forces we're talking about here playing out in the politics of philosophy**. Plato liked his own PR well enough to try to embroider it a little by using Socrates as his ventriloquist's dummy in Plato's writings. So even though much of what we think of other thinkers is in comparison to Socrates (the term "pre-Socratic" implies that strongly, no?), much of the writing attributed to Socrates we have only from Plato. I haven't researched the subject, but I wonder just how much proof we have that Socrates said any of what Plato attributed to him. And it sure seems that a large part of what any philosopher says has to do with downplaying or badmouthing the sayings of his, her, or its competitors. You should read how Dennet and Searle go at it, for instance.
* "One who leads" as opposed to "one who rules"
** An ever so much more popular topic than the philosophy of politics, but much less useful to thinking your way out of historical deadends as we are doing now.
ISTM that we're all (all USians, and lot of people who are worried about what US might do to them) going through that early phase of buyer's remorse in which we start to think we're the victims of bait-and-switch sales tactics. There were all these politicians who talked a great game of change and repair, and who still seem to have meant it, people like Dobbs and Edwards. But none of them got through the sieve to the endgame, and what we have now are people whose motives and values we mistrust or downright despise. So we bemoan having to fork over so much political capital to someone so dubious and wish one of the others had made it through. Though the spotlight we're putting on the hopefuls would probably show as many gravy stains on the ones who dropped out, just different kinds of stains.
Obama's charisma was part of what attracted me to him, and got me to *dig deeper* into what he was saying, and what his policies are. And I doubt I'm the only one, because his reaching the 'educated, intellectual' demographic more than Clinton is. (must dig up cite...) And that's not the type of crowd to get all starry-eyed, and stay that way.
My reaction to Clinton, I fully admit, is the antithesis of charisma. She bores me to tears. She's so cookie-cutter politician, that it feels like what she says could be recited by darn near anyone in DC, and sound the same. And my feeling is that were she to be elected, sure she would run the country just fine, but it would be the same old.
We need that charisma, because people are massively apathetic. If nothing else, he's sparking people to make a decision, and it isn't just a voting for the lesser of two evils decision.
John @ #47:
I think Weld's still hanging out in New York somewhere, after getting nowhere in the last gubernatorial campaign there.
It's like Obama is Captain Carrot and Clinton is Commander Vimes. Obviously you need both, but unfortunately Clinton, not entirely through her own fault, has electability issues. I do think it's shameful, speaking as a backwards Bangladeshi woman who has lived under 2 female heads of state, that in the 2ist-century US there's so much misogyny aimed towards Clinton - would Pelosi have faced such hostility?
Bruces @ 34 and 54: I think you both have an awfully cynical view of cynicism. G'day.
Eleri @56: And that's not the type of crowd to get all starry-eyed, and stay that way.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. It seems to me that the "educated, intellectual" (and generally more well-off) crowd are precisely the ones who can afford to get all starry-eyed.
I say this as an Obama supporter who fancies herself relatively clear-eyed, but is nonetheless strongly affected by his rhetoric. I think it's important that he's inspiring. I think it's important *who* he's inspiring -- i.e., the advocates for peace, civil liberties, and social justice who have been handed their asses so many times over the last 7 (or 27) years. On the other hand, I worry a bit about who he's not inspiring, as well -- lower-income, less-educated, and older Americans, and Latinos have largely been Clinton voters. I hope that that's simply a matter of Clinton being a known quantity, and that Obama can bring these groups into his coalition, represent their concerns, and inspire them should he become the nominee.
#53 Nancy: If you don't mind, do you have any idea why you feel that way? I've got a similar reaction, and it's from being Jewish.
I think my reaction springs from similar experiences to yours; I grew up the village atheist in a very small Midwestern town.
#27 Susan: When I watch him speak on video, my reaction ranges from baffled incomprehension of all the fuss to actual gut-level aversion. It is, in fact, similar to my reaction to people who preach religion at me - I see a kind of magical thinking that I just don't get, and which actively repels me when pushed too hard.
Yes. That.
I don't know how to argue against magical thinking; there doesn't seem to be a way to do it except to be magical oneself-- to have charisma. I feel more comfortable with cynical allies who hold cynical positions, whether I agree with them or not, because I trust my ability to argue my case with them. Magical thinkers unnerve me even when I agree with them, because I have no charisma of my own, no way to get at the roots of their beliefs, and no recourse if those beliefs change into something dangerous to me.
Ana Feruglio Dal Dan #30:And what is it with this demonization of Pre-Socratic philosophies anyway?
I'm with you on this one. I see Cynicism as a virtue. Its bastard child "cynicism" has less appeal, but that position has more to do with lazy reasoning than with a philosophical stance.
Just one quibble, though. The Cynics came after Socrates. In fact, the first Cynic, Antisthenes, was allegedly a pupil of Socrates.
I'm out to restore the good name of Cynics everywhere. Woof.
I devoutly hope that my phrasing in #60 didn't give the impression that I don't think of Latinos as Americans. This is not the case at all. My sentence structure just got away from me.
One issue with charisma that seems worth noting is its tendency to overshadow any other competing capabilities and talents--particularly in political contests. Intelligence, capability, competence, common sense, responsibility--these (and so many others) are all crucial things for a leader to have...but when charisma is in the room, these quieter characteristics get ignored. That's what charisma is. That's what it does.
I'm as sucked in by the charismatic as anyone. Hell, I have my job, in part, because I can muster a certain amount of it myself (when I'm not hugely pregnant and even more hugely crabby). But I'm suspicious of it as well...because I know it makes me miss important things while I'm blinded by sparkle, and I know that I've found it a useful tool to make other people miss stuff when necessary.
None of this is to say that I think there's no substance beneath Obama's charisma. I think there's plenty. It's just to say that, as a general rule for voting, dating, hiring, or whatever, when faced with such strong stuff it's probably not a bad idea to put on sunglasses and make sure that we know what else is there.
I'm having a hard time separating the "charisma is untrustworthy" points from "you must never vote for a politician that you like".
What is charisma? I'm assured that Reagan had it. I didn't like Reagan, though I was still just an unruly teenager at the end of his term. I feel no attraction when I hear is speeches today.
I'm told that George W. Bush has charisma, and that he's the kind of man that you can have a beer with. I can't listen to him speak three words without wanting to dump a glass of beer on his head, and I've had that visceral reaction since the first time I saw him on television.
When I hear Obama speak, I feel inspired. Is that because he has charisma that does an end run around my critical thinking abilities? I'd like to think that it's because I like what he has to say.
Is there some disconnect between what he says and what he does that I'm unaware of? Because when I look at his record (as described in that post of Hilzoy's, for example), I don't see it.
I'd like to have a president that I like. It'd make a nice change from...well, my entire adult life up to now.
Randolph, @44: Oh! Der! Yes, in that light, Herbert's very relevant! Thank you. I told you I was missing something - I was right. :)
Nancy, @53: It was an herb and mineral supplement regimen intended to strengthen the immune system overall rather than targeting specific ailments. I'm now kind of out of touch with a lot of alternative medicine, but at the time this was part of the trend to focus on promoting health so that the body could then cure itself. It has its weaknesses, of course - some diseases just do respond better to targeted treatment. But it also does a lot of good. It's just that so many of its advocates were such darned fruitbats.
JDC, @59: It's true, I'm very jaded and cynical about cynicism.
Actually, what caused me to be so suspicious of Obama's charisma wasn't that it might be a tradeoff for other characteristics. It was the demagogue potential; anybody who can attract that much support because people *like* him could do a great deal of damage if he was so inclined. It's one of those history lessons I'm not convinced America has learned.
I did, eventually, end up voting for him anyway. But I had to take a long, hard look at him, his policies, and how sensible people reacted to him to get over my worry. And I'm still not entirely comfortable with it.
62: IIRC (it's been a long time) the Cynics were so called because their scoffing laughter at the pretensions of others was said to resemble the barking of dogs.
If they arose today, they would doubtless be known as the LOLards.
I've known one charismatic national leader -- Michael Manley -- personally. Obama strikes me as being rather like him. Good-looking, eloquent, biracial, committed to the poor, policy wonk, ambitious, smart, well-educated, heart in the right place. Of course, that's my subjective judgment at a distance.
#61 ::: Evelyn Browne: Your experiences were probably quite different from mine. I've personally experienced hardly any anti-Semiitism. I think my fear level was picked up viscerally. It really does take generations for some things to fade.
Being cynical about cynicism: I think of myself as a second-order curmudgeon. The world isn't *that* bad, it mostly hasn't gotten worse, and the first-order curmudgeons are getting it wrong.
Jen Roth@60
There were signs in last night's primaries that Obama was perhaps starting to break through in demographic groups that he'd been losing in previous primaries. Too soon to know whether that's a pattern or not.
One key point about this year's Democratic campaign is that the reason that (so far) we have a virtual draw is that there are TWO very strong candidates running. In most years either Clinton or Obama would have easily blown past the opposition. It's just that they have to run against each other...
(Contrast that to McCain who basically backed into the GOP nomination.)
Randolph: What bothered me about the baraka note is that you didn't need it to make your point.
I don't see people using candidates names like that when those names hearken to Christian ideas of divine attributes (Michael, Daniel, etc.).
As to the comment that we have few texts of Jesus sayings... well no, we have a lot of attributed sayings, and no way to verify any of them.
Since that quotation was from the Gospel of Thomas, the best way to try reading it isn't to put it into the ways we see Jesus now, but the ways in which the writer wanted people to see him, and his message.
And the gnostics are really complex (probably best not lumped, but hard; given the lack of solid texts from them, the strangeness of the polemics against them, and the complex diversity of their beliefs, it's hard to not grab the points of consonnance and put them into a big bin. Kind of like saying, "protestants") but they did believe that only some could truly comprehend, and I still think that's not the best subtext.
Nancy #70: So, then, it seems that the right strategy is to be an nth order cynic, but the difficult question is whether n should be odd or even....
Seriously, there's something I think maybe is getting lost in this discussion (or maybe I'm missing something, tired and a bit sick as I am). Sometimes, you can recognize some flaw in your reasoning or perceptions, and just fix it. Like if I used to trust some guy, and then he screwed me over, I can just know not to trust him anymore and be done with it.
But there are also biases or errors that you can't easily fix. Like, I know I will pay more attention to the same words coming from an attractive woman than from a man, or I know I will put too much weight on the risk of rare bad things (as opposed to mundane bad things) happening. For those biases, you often can't *fix* them, but you can sometimes try to correct for them. I think the response of a lot of folks to Obama's enormous charisma is of this type. You know you're being affected, and so you try to correct for it by being a bit more skeptical, questioning your reactions, etc.
The thing is, this is a very sensible thing to do. If you know you're susceptible to a certain kind of hard-to-fix bias, you're better off trying to correct for it than ignoring it. I think the trick here is to try to avoid overcorrecting, while still not handing your mind over to a politician who appears to be smart and competent and good, but who may end up using his great speaking skills and inspiring manner to lead us off a cliff.
It's not sensible to say "I will assume the worst about this person because he's so charismatic," but neither is it sensible to stop thinking about whether that charisma is leading you to make bad decisions.
Shouldn't we be only as suspicious of charisma as we are of revulsion, or of any other visceral reaction (including boredom-to-tears)?
I suppose, come to that, shouldn't we also be suspicious of revulsion, boredom-to-tears, etc.? It must be harder to act in spite of those feelings than in spite of euphoric ones, no?
Gah. Previewed and everything. Please read, "as suspicious of enthusiastic responses to charisma as we are of revulsion" etc., as the parallel structure in my head didn't make it into the original #74.
I don't think Obama wants my vote. It's like he's gone out of his way during this campaign to make sure I don't vote for him.
And I certainly can't vote for someone who says of himself:
“At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”
That's just guaranteed to make me say "No, I won't."
So count me in as cynical.
Since it looks like he's on the way to winning, I hope I'm wrong about him.
It works for European nations. Why can't it work for America? (Quick answer: Because America never had a nobility. Quick retort: America does have its own nobility.)
Yes but do you really want Princess Paris to be representing anything having to do with the US?
Damien Neil #65: "Is there some disconnect between what he says and what he does that I'm unaware of? Because when I look at his record (as described in that post of Hilzoy's, for example), I don't see it."
Exactly so. That's part of why the whole thing is setting off bells in my head, and reminding me of people telling me "We would have listened to your valid points about sexism if only you women hadn't gotten so gosh-darned emotional about it." (Caring about something was seen as an automatic disqualification of being capable of logic about it, let alone being capable of effective action in response. Emotion was icky girl cooties. And this tactic was deployed whether or not the points were valid! The aversion to emotion was deemed strong enough to trump even a logical argument.)
A bit from the Hilzoy post you linked to actually shed a little more light on why I, personally, respond favorably to the way Obama does politics -- and I hope other people will please note that by "doing politics" here I am talking about how he works with other elected officials to achieve important, real, badly-needed results on things like protecting suspects from being beaten to extract an acceptable confession. The quote:
It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."
There. That combination of intellect and demeanor, and that combination of listening plus participating in regular human social activities? You know who that reminds me of? Paul Wellstone, that's who. I remember his opponents trying to paint him as this head-in-the-sky, ivory tower, idealistic impractical charismatic lefty. Those of us who knew a little more about him would sometimes go into giggles about that. Dude, he was a wrestling coach. Impractical, ethereal, floaty-headed lot, Minnesota wrestling coaches. Yeah, right.
Fox #74: I think we should be, if we are convinced it is irrational. Consider someone who, perhaps because of his upbringing, simply has a visceral negative reaction to blacks. Presumably he should be pretty suspcious about his initial bad feelings about his newly-introduced black coworker.
Note that this doesn't fix the bias, it's not as good as making an unbiased assessment of whether this new coworker is bad news or not. It's just trying to externally correct for what he knows is a biased set of starting assumptions. This seems just as sensible as trying to externally correct for the impact of a very charismatic leader.
mayakda @ 76:
ewwwwww!
elise @ 78:
The first paragraph still comes across as insulting the people you are (presumably) hoping to convince.
Patrick, I agree with the post, but when and where did Elise write the things you quoted? In a mail or IM to you?
Bruce Cohen at 61 asks
how much proof we have that Socrates said any of what Plato attributed to him.
Scholarly opinions vary on this. Some people - like Charles Kahn at UPenn - think that the answer is 'not very much'. Others like Gregory Vlastos, think the early dialogues do represent Socrates views.
One thing that can be quite interesting is to compare what Xenophon says about Socrates trial with wht Plato says about it.
I just have a feeling that the election won't be decided by voters who examine, analyse, and reflect upon policies & plans. I think it will be decided by voters who are moved.
Steve C, isn't that pretty much always the case? It's why I like to see people moved for good reasons rather than bad.
mayakda @ 76: I took that comment as a bit of self-mockery. Of course, it won't make me vote for him either, but that's just because I'm Canadian, damn it. (And the only time I ever got to vote for Trudeau was in the one election he lost, so I'm obviously bad luck for highly successful and charismatic wonks.)
Mayakada: And I certainly can't vote for someone who says of himself:
“At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you’ll say, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”
This didn't look right to me, so I did a little digging. It was part of his stump speech, and it's missing the vital context of the preceding sentence:
"So I am going to try to be so persuasive in the 20 minutes or so that I speak that by the time this is over, a light will shine down from somewhere..."
It seems clear that this language about lights from heaven and epiphanies is just humorous exaggeration. A paragraph later he asks for a show of hands from undecided voters, and tells them "We have you now in our sights. We are coming after you, and coming after you hard." No one would assume that he literally had guns trained on the audience, so why do they think he's literal about having a supernatural epiphany?
The rest of the speech is more toned-down, about how he hopes to "make a persuasive case" and ends with the fairly humble note: "But you know what? If you're not voting for me, vote for somebody."
It seems to me that the reason people emphasize Barack's charisma is because it's one of the few points that really distinguishes him from Sen. Clinton. They're both smart, competent, organized, and have good policy positions. If you start with the premise that they're both pretty good (as have most discussion I've heard), then of course Obama supporters are going to emphasize his charisma, just as Clinton supporters emphasize her experience.
I think one reason I persist in supporting Clinton is that I feel we need both a Hillary Clinton presidency and a Barack Obama presidency. I think that if Hillary's elected, Obama will try again in 2016 (or 2012, but I hope not). I think if Obama's elected, Hillary won't try again, or if she does, won't get much traction.
In other words, I think this is our only shot at getting Hillary in the Oval Office, but not our only shot at getting Barack there.
Sajia, #58: Yes, Pelosi would have faced just as much hostility. If you were watching the 2006 elections, you saw some of it when it became clear that she was going to become Speaker of the House -- and that was just a taste of what she'd have gotten had she entered this campaign.
Generally: I think I'm seeing a bit of a false dichotomy here between "follower" and "cynic". Isn't there a middle ground to be had, wherein one recognizes and appreciates the charisma without being swept away by it beyond the exercise of judgment? Call it "skepticism" or "critical thinking", perhaps.
I am not, myself, a person who is fond of the argument from strong emotion, and my instinctive reaction to high-level charisma in action is to back away out of its effective radius long enough to think about what's going on.
That being said, some of the commentary in this thread disturbs me, in a way that is at least related, I think, to the way it disturbs Elise.
We should be distrustful of charisma, it is being said, because of its potential for ill if directed wrongly. The same could be said about the negative potential of wrongly-directed intellect, but if someone in this forum were to seriously propose that we should, on that account, distrust intellect and intellectuals, that person would, I have no doubt, be branded a yahoo and consigned to oblivion. (It is possible, I suppose, that no one in this forum believes that a person of intellect would ever turn their mind to evil ends; but my own perhaps naive belief in the power of intelligence insists that this is not so.)
Further -- the tenor of a number of comments seems to be that it is not necessarily for ourselves that we should be concerned (for we are persons of intellect and discernment, and can see through charisma's delusions), but for the great mass of undiscerning voters who just aren't equipped to know better, and who presumably are poised to follow whichever candidate shines like the brighter lightbulb.
Which is downright insulting, not to mention counter-productive, since the great mass of undiscerning voters are not, oddly enough, undiscerning enough to fail to notice when another portion of the electorate thinks that they're stupid.
Isn't there a middle ground to be had, wherein one recognizes and appreciates the charisma without being swept away by it beyond the exercise of judgment? Call it "skepticism" or "critical thinking", perhaps.
Yes, there is. We should apply it to our distrust of charisma, as well as to charisma.
It's interesting to notte, BTW, that both McCain and Huckabee have their fair share of charisma, but that it's not giving either of them that much of an advantage. I don't think it's just charisma the Barack Obama has going for him; it think it's a deep desire for something positive, and that many people aren't seeing it anywhere else in that level of politics just now.
Yeah, perish forbid people should be moved by an emotional connection to their ideals. Best to leave that sort of thing to the right wing, so we can continue to lose in austere intellectual purity, forever and amen.
Look, I know eating oatmeal is good for me. I'm just as happy eating it with brown sugar and some cinnamon, or with maple syrup, or perhaps tucked into a cookie with some raisins, as I am unsalted, unsweetened, and unadulterated. I am not the only one. People like to feel a little joy, a little optimism, a little hope. It's true that they need to check and be sure that the feel-good bits have something more behind them, and that they like what the substance is, rather than just sticking a Twinkie in their pieholes*, but ignoring the desire for joy and hope and optimism is folly when trying to win over an electorate as varied as that of the US. Living in a world where the only factor in the choices we make is sober rationality and good sense seems to me to give us addresses somewhere near the intersection of Bleak Avenue and Hairshirt Street, which is no more of an attractive neighborhood than I Consume Without Thought Therefore I Am Acres.
*This desire brought us both FDR and Ronald Reagan, in the last century. By itself, it's not reliable, I agree, but telling people to ignore it altogether is going to get you bupkis.
The above brought to you by the Cakes and Ale PAC.
Debra: I'd been thinking of comparing it to the argument that we should distrust good prose, but intellect serves, too. :)
Bruce:
Actually, experience suggests to me that one should be careful about trusting touching speeches when they come from a professional actor and touching prose when it comes from someone who makes a living at fiction. It's not that either can't be sincere, it's that they're so good at what they do that the sincerity is indistinguishable from the b.s.
...one should be careful about trusting touching speeches when they come from a professional actor...
Not sure if you are referring to their on- or off-stage acting. Okay, that sounds mean, but I had years of working with professional actors and it was my experience that some of them have a little trouble turning off their skills.
Still, I know a few who are some of the most emotionally trustworthy people I've ever met. I guess they're the ones who know instinctively that acting belongs on-stage and, er, something else, belongs off-stage.
And I know a lot of non-actors who do quite a bit of acting off-stage. It's all kind of creepy, but in an odd way this makes me trust the pros who know how to turn it off a great deal more than I trust the amateur off-stage actors who don't.
"...one should be careful about trusting touching speeches when they come from a professional actor and touching prose when it comes from someone who makes a living at fiction. It's not that either can't be sincere, it's that they're so good at what they do that the sincerity is indistinguishable from the b.s."
If speeches were all we had to go by, that statement would lead me to despair. Fortunately there are records of other activities to put things like charisma in context.
It had been a slow day. So slow, the bookies were giving short odds on the slugs in the wet streets versus rush hour traffic. I was just filing my whiskey bottle under "Unfinished Business" and trying to decide whether to take a nap or head down to the track to see if the mudders were faster than the slugs, when she walked into my office.
Her character sheet wasn't even a little balanced. She'd obviously rolled 18 for charisma and gotten a hefty bequest from her goddess besides. And her constitution? Let's just say she's was able-bodied, and leave it at that. The outfit she was wearing made it clear her alignment was in no way neutral. I guess she'd seen that kind of stare before; she got an exasperated look on her face and said, "Sir Shamus, I'm not to blame for my charisma; the dice just rolled that way."
Comments on False economies and either-ors: