the warren harding error error (more on blink)
22 December 2005, 6:49 pmIn Blink, Gladwell devotes a chapter to exploring what he calls the “Warren Harding error.” He contends that the primary reason for Harding’s political success was that the man looked presidential.
Gladwell doesn’t apply this line of reasoning to politicians of the current era (although later he does quote Paul Ekman — who, with Wallace Friesen, assembled the “Facial Action Coding System — claiming that in 1992 he saw Clinton’s tendency for marital indiscretions literally written on his face.)
Whatever I thought of his policies or the abilities he brought to the job, I think I have to concede that Ronald Reagan looked presidential (at least some of the time). He was certainly always too much the gunslinger for my taste. But he could be dignified without entirely losing the humanizing mischevious twinkle in his eyes. If he’d been an actor cast in the role of the president, I think I could have bought it.
The real mystery is the election — twice, yet — of George Walker Bush. The presidential debates of 2004 crystallized this for me. John Kerry with his imposing height and resonant voice, looked and sounded presidential. His opponent looked like a used-car salesman by comparison: shifty-eyed, almost sneering, his voice often distinctly petulant if not actually whining.
And yet he won. Where are you now, oh Warren Harding error? Come back. We need you.
In other news, I took a few of the Implicit Association Tests Gladwell describes in the same chapter (it’s essentially the “be careful about judging books by their covers” segment of the book). Gladwell (and Greenwald, Banaji and Nosek, who developed the tool) claim that the test design is effective even when you know you’re being tested (unlike many sociological tests)..
I’m not convinced. I took a test designed to identify an “implicit association” (e.g., an ingrained unconscious bias, more or less) for males/sciences and females/liberal arts. I was prompted by the survey I took beforeahnd to think fleetingly of famous scientists like Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie, and famous creative types like Julio Cortàazar and Pablo Picasso. My biggest problem was that every time I was shown the words “history” and “philosophy” I had to consciously think “soft science? or liberal art?” But taking the test to the best of my ability still produced outlying data.
Then I took a test to identify implicit associations between ethnic groups and positive and negative concepts. When I was told I was supposed to associate images of caucasian men with negative concepts and images of black men with positive concepts, I muttered “black, good; white, evil” under my breath. No sweat.
I think, fairly straightforwardly, that what Americans look for in a President has changed. In other words, just as outmoded styles of clothing once looked incredibly fashionable, the old-school “dignity and intelligence” model of presidentialness has yielded to something else. What is it? I don’t know: much talk about “who people would rather have a beer with” - which I suppose is a soft version of “values”: who seems to be the kind of guy you’d like, or something. But I still don’t get it, since Bush has seemed smarmy, clueless, and petulant ever since I’ve seen him, and I don’t think that’s only because I despise his politics. (Give me time, and I could probably think of a right-wing swine that at least looks reasonably intelligent…)
Goldwater? McCain? I disagree with those men on any number of points, but I don’t think they’re stupid.
I think you’re on to something here, 2fs. In fact, in the past few days, I’ve convinced myself that there’s been a large-scale swing in the public consciousness over the past several decades from prizing intelligence to mistrusting it. Maybe The Bomb is to blame.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think it’s cyclical. The schism between plain-talking country folk vs. city slickers in American presidential politics is at least as old as Andrew Jackson.
Oh, totally. Lately I’ve been reading about the Reconstruction (which my U.S. History classes totally glossed over; I had no idea how bad it was) and we watched a documentary set in the Nixon years. Both reinforce my sense that, however badly divided the country is now, it’s weathered much worse.
Also, I think that late 20th/21st century technology makes it much easier for the plain talking country folk to make their preferences known in ways that shape society and policy. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, either — if democracy is just for the privileged, then it’s not democracy.
I voted for George W. Bush–twice yet–and chose him over Gore & Kerry for reasons more important to me than appearance. I listen to the candidates and base my voting decison on the candidates’ records, opinions, promises and character.
Remember that the popular vote was split fairly evenly in both of those elections. About as many people in each election saw Gore & Kerry as the preferred candidate over Bush. I hope that they based their decisions on something more concrete than appearance.
Sen. Barack Obama is clearly being groomed for a presidential run, and it is easy to see how his actions and interviews are carefully crafted to make him seem “presidential.” He follows the mold of Bush, Kerry and every other top political candidate–rarely do they sway from the formula that they perceive will win them votes.
Tom, I accept the fact that intelligent, reasonable, and informed people make different decisions than I do, and I’m not implying that everybody who votes differently from me does so on the basis of superficial criteria. But some of the people who vote (for any party/candidate) do so for superficial reasons. I wish it weren’t so, but it’s not realistic to pretend otherwise.
Tom, I’m in a knot. On the one hand I’m convinced that your vote for George Bush was based on factors that run deeper than appearance because, as 2fs writes, he looks so incredibly “smarmy, clueless, and petulant.” But, on the other hand, bad as he looks, what deeper point could possibly attract you? His health care policy? His plan for the economics of our country? The thousands who died as a result of his misguided and manipulative war in Iraq? His incomprehensible policy in regard to the Israeli occupation? His bad looks are the best of him. People don’t want a president who is smarter than them and seeing as a good chunk of Americans can’t identify Iraq on a map they are pleased with a president who confuses Switzerland with Sweden.