Over and over again, we hear the term “charisma,” or its adjectival form “charismatic,” thrown about left and right. In today’s world, with politics holding such an important role in our lives and the 2012 Presidential Elections coming up in just one year, a firm understanding of the term becomes increasingly important. Charisma is defined by the Encarta English Dictionary as either “personal magnetism,” i.e. “the ability to inspire enthusiasm, interest, or affection in others by means of personal charm or influence,” or a “divine gift,” i.e. “a gift or power believed to be divinely bestowed.” For the purposes of this essay, we will focus on the former definition, specifically in relation to the charisma that politicians often have or lack. True charisma entails the ability to rally a significant group of people to support a charismatic speaker not only by appealing to their sensibilities and desires, but by doing so in a manner that manipulates the audience into thinking the speaker will do all the hard work and solve many more problems than often is possible. A current contender for the Republican Presidential Nomination and our current president serve as ideal illustrations. Charisma is not only a genuine attribute, but also a manipulative method with which a speaker can convince his audience without respect to the logic or validity of his arguments.
This term originally comes from the Greek χαρισμα, which translates to “favor that is freely given.” To some extent, charisma does mean that support is given without much ground. Herman Cain speaks so strongly about his intent for change that his missteps are largely ignored, without respect to their severity. Recently, three reports of sexual misconduct have surfaced. In the first two instances, Cain did not fight his accusers, but quietly reached cash settlements with them instead. Such actions provide ample reason to suspect the allegations are true, for if he were innocent, would he not have attempted to deny the charges? Still, popular support of Mr. Cain remains strong, and he leads the polls. This reminds us of the original Greek word; favor of him can certainly be seen then as being freely given.
Mr. Cain has made other errors as well: he gravely insulted an entire country in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network early in October. When asked if he was ready for the “‘gotcha’ questions that are coming from the media and others on foreign policy? Like, who’s the president of Uzbekistan?” Cain replied that he was indeed “ready…and they’re already starting to come.” He continued by saying, “when they ask me who is the president of ‘Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan,’ I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know? And then I’m going to say, how’s that going to create one job?” Because of his ability to appeal to certain Republican sensibilities (e.g. the creation of jobs), his slur against a population of over 27 million people is forgiven. Mr. Cain not only speaks passionately, but his speech appeals to his audience, and he manipulates them into thinking he has everything under control. In reality, this approach to foreign policy would be devastating to an administration, for not only would the offended country despise him, but also most of the rest of the world for an insolent statement such as that. But this does not affect his popularity, for Herman Cain has real charisma.
All too often we define charisma by the degree of vigor that an orator has. If this orator sounds enthusiastic and passionate about his topic, at the very least we are inclined to believe his fervor, if not agree with him to some extent, whether or not we would normally find his beliefs valid. Herman Cain delivers speeches with enormous enthusiasm. Despite being a Democrat, I recognize his extreme charisma. But seeing charisma as just passionate speech is too narrow a view. Barack Obama provides the perfect case study to elucidate this point. Obama delivered his famous “Yes, We Can” speech with enormous energy and true charisma. He manipulated the public into having great hope for his presidency, but entering into the final year of this term he has yet to accomplish much of what he set out to do. No one should have expected anything else, for despite how passionate, despite how willing, despite how intelligent Obama may be, while he is in office so is a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Our constitution prohibits a president from acting in most instances without the House’s consent, and as such, even the most promising of candidates can do nothing when he lacks support within the government. Obama was able to convince the public that he could do everything they wanted, whatever the reality of the situation was, and he won with a significant margin of victory against his opponent John McCain—52.9 percent to 45.7 percent. In this respect, Obama is the same as Cain: he, too, has true charisma.
In the coming year, as candidates’ respective popularities rise and fall, the astute observer should consider each politician’s charisma. Is this person saying these things to appease us? Or is she actually able to accomplish the goals she tells us she will? We must be critical of charisma if we are to select the best choice for our country. Perhaps in years to come charisma will become a less important factor in deciding elections, and we will base our decisions more on facts than on fervor. For now, the critical citizen must remember that charisma is based not only in enthusiasm, but also in manipulation. We must be conscious of how much a candidate’s emotions and ours are affecting our decisions and how much sincerity exists within a candidate’s statements. As a young adult who will vote in the 2016 Presidential Elections, I need to always hold these thoughts in the back of my head when making my own decisions, when watching political speeches, and also when seeing examples of non-political charisma, which often operates very similarly. To have a critical mind, I must have charisma in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment