The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Candidates
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Thursday, September 4 2003, 11:03AM
Yesterday I wrote about the lack of substance in media coverage of presidential elections. What I didn't write about was the public's own lack of interest in presidential elections. Maybe the media are shallow and superficial because we are shallow and superficial.
Reagan's 1984 Legacy
I watched the 1984 election in shock and horror. The public was clearly not pleased by Ronald Reagan's early performance in office. His approval rating had dropped to 35 percent the year before. The national debt was climbing, and Reagan had to reverse course and raise taxes a year after he pushed through the largest tax cut in memory.
I remember a 1984 poll I saw on the evening news that really confused me. On virtually every issue from the environment to the economy, the public agreed with the Democrats over Reagan. But when asked who they would vote for in the election, the public still said Reagan. How could that be?
Most of us don't follow politics very closely. We do follow images. We are more likely to believe our eyes than to believe our ears. Reagan's people knew the cliché that "a picture is worth a thousand words." And they knew the only three things that get covered in elections are mistakes, attacks and pictures.
That's why the Reagan White House was not upset when CBS journalist Lesley Stahl did a hard hitting piece criticizing Ronald Reagan for his photo-op presidency. Stahl expected White House officials to castigate her but instead they were delighted by the story.
Why? Even as she challenged the president, her piece showed images of Reagan smiling and looking presidential. The Reaganauts knew the pictures trumped the words. The public didn't pay attention to the words, even Reagan's words. That's why he was able to raise taxes six times in eight years and maintain that he was opposed to tax increases. That's why he could deny that his government sold arms to Iran even as it became clear that it had. And that's why he did photo ops for social programs even as he cut funding for the same programs. Reagan was slick.
From 1984 to 2004
Like it or not, American politics has long been superficial. I'm not sure if the people, the government or the media are more to blame, but we all share responsibility. After decades of perfecting soundbite politics, Americans come to expect and rely upon these superficial tidbits of "infotainment" to help make their voting decisions.
We don't have time to review position papers, watch speeches, or read the newspapers carefully enough to know when the candidates are lying. So instead we rely on impressions fed to us by the candidates and the media.
In the next few months, these are the impressions you can expect to see of the major candidates. Call it the "politically incorrect guide to the candidates." Forget the issues for a moment, this is what we'll be thinking in the back of our heads.
Carol Moseley Braun. Carol Moseley Braun is a black woman. Never seen that image before as president. In fact, we've rarely ever seen it anywhere in the highest levels in power. Except for Condoleeza Rice and Oprah Winfrey, people aren't used to seeing black women in power.
George Bush. First we thought he was a dumb liar. Next we thought he was a crook. After September 11, we thought he was okay. Now after two tax cuts, a huge deficit and a failed war, we realize he's a dumb, crooked liar who will say or do anything to get elected, start a war, or hold onto power.
Howard Dean. At 5 feet 8 inches tall, Howard Dean is short. I know it seems like a trivial issue, but it's really important for Americans. We like our presidents tall. I'm told the taller presidential candidate has won every presidential election except for two instances. I'm not sure if that's true, but only 5 of the 43 American presidents have been significantly less than average height
John Edwards. On the surface, John Edwards is not bad looking. Some would even say he's good looking. He's what pundits call "telegenic" (meaning he's not so hideously ugly that he makes you want to change the channel). But Edwards looks too bland for my tastes. When I see him, I see just another young white guy from the South. When you look at Edwards, you will think he's not ready for prime time.
Dick Gephardt. Dick Gephardt has no eyebrows. Okay, he has eyebrows but you can't see them because they're blonde. What else can you say about the man? Oh, he's been around the block too. He ran for president in 1988, and now it's 2004. He's yesterday.
Bob Graham. Bob Graham is a good looking old guy. But that's the problem. He looks good for his age. That's just a reminder that he's not young. At 66, he's already gone through heart surgery once this year. Do we really want an old president with a heart condition? Sounds like a great candidate for vice president.
John Kerry. John Kerry looks boring. How many wrinkles can you possibly have on such a young face with a full head of hair? His face looks like it's literally being worn down by his wrinkles. But everyone says he should be the frontrunner, so we'll keep looking at him with hopes that he can inspire us.
Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich looks like a kid. Remember the annoying guy who always raised his hand in class? That's Dennis Kucinich. At least, that's what he looks like. He never really had a chance to win.
Joe Lieberman. As for Joe Lieberman, do I have to state the obvious? No matter how much the media tries to downplay the significance of this issue, Joe Lieberman is Jewish. In a country where the people seem comfortable with a Christian judge erecting a Ten Commandments statue in a state court house, it's hard to believe they'll react as positively to a devout Jew.
Al Sharpton. Rev. Al Sharpton is a black man with processed hair. No matter what he says, everybody will be thinking one thing. He's a black man with processed hair.
Where does that leave us? Forced to make a decision. We still have 15 months to figure it out.
Comments conceal
mr
September 4 2003, 12:14PM
As a fast food nation, we tend to go by instinct and our senses when overwhelmed with information. We don't have the time to investigate and sort it out. People will look at the pictures in a newspaper rather than read the story. Image is very important, not just in elections, but in everyday life. Ask the overwieght but very qualified lady who keeps getting overlooked for promotions while the in shape air head is pulled up the corporate ladder. Why does this happen, because people will trust what they see and make assumptions around that. I think Kerry was crying yesterday fater hearing the tragic plight of a unemployed mother... BIG NO NO! They will trot pictures of teary Kerry out everytime they want to discredit him.
Kola Boof
September 4 2003, 3:06PM
Keith this is just too hilarious! Processed hair and short guys who look good--well--for their age. You forgot to mention that Bush stinks. Smells like cheese.
I'm voting for Howard Dean as of this moment.
I personally could never support Al Sharpton. He went to Sudan, was shown around by the token "black" members of the Arab Muslim government, given DONATIONS (ala Farrakhan--who is "Arab" when he's in North Africa, mind you) and then returned to the U.S. to decree that there is NO slavery in Sudan--he didn't see it.
Maybe he should have visited and stayed with the Black Africans of the South instead of the Arabs! Traitor!
kj
September 4 2003, 4:24PM
The sad truth is we are a superficial people. No one wants to be ugly. I know personally I will vote for either Howard Dean or AL Sharpton. I don't know if either one can one win, but I'll take a chance.
Frank Eggers
September 4 2003, 6:29PM
Keith, I would have to agree with you, at least in principal, if not in all the details. But what you wrote is nothing new.
I remember back in 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon. According to the political analysts, it was because Kennedy looked better on TV – he had a better make-up artist. While Nixon had a pale and haggard look, Kennedy looked sun-tanned and healthy. One political analyst stated that the American people could hardly be blamed for voting for a good looking man instead of a haggard looking man. How’s that for superficiality? This has no bearing over whether the better man won but rather is to point out that many people were influenced by invalid and superficial factors.
The reason that Reagan was so popular was that he projected a warm grandfatherly image. It was his image that made him the “Teflon” president. It may well be that future historians will regard him as a disaster.
Although Reagan was popular in the U.S., he was not popular abroad. Overseas people tended to evaluate him on the basis of his positions and actions rather than on his carefully projected image. Why, I don’t know. It may have been that they read about his actions rather than seeing his image and listening to him directly, which would have made his image less able to influence them. Or, perhaps people overseas just have more sense.
But enough of this. It is fine to recognise the problem, but what should we do about it?
Could the problem be with the school system? Are students being taught to think rationally and analyse?
When I was in junior high school (in Manitowoc, WI), we were taught propaganda techniques so that we would be able to recognise them and avoid being influenced by them. Our text book even included studies to show how people could be influenced. One of the examples included pictures of women who were evaluated on the basis of how attractive they were. When subjects were asked to rank the women, the order of ranking was different depending on what names were under their photos. For example, when a woman had the name Rachel Finkelstein associated with her, she was ranked lower than with the name Sally Smith associated with her.
We were also given syllogisms. When the statements in the syllogisms were totally abstract, people were able to choose valid conclusions. However, when the statements had emotional content, people often failed to choose valid conclusions.
I think that the instruction we received in school has helped me to avoid being influenced by superficial and irrelevent criteria. Perhaps such a course should be required in all school systems.
It may be that improved education would cause voters to make better choices and thereby improve the quality of life for all of us.
alicia banks
September 5 2003, 11:46AM
great column keith
i think apathy has become alienation...
many voters have simply decided that choosing lesser evils is truly no choice at all...
increasingly, many felons are simply unable to vote
bush stole an election and permanently killed voting spirits like my own
as my rasta friends say:
"we will play no politricks in a wicked shitsym"
thank u keith...for staying interested and interesting in the politrickal haze...
it depresses me into dejection,
peace
ab
chris-leo
September 5 2003, 1:12PM
if i recall my media history, something even more specific was learned from the kennedy/nixon debate. yes. kennedy was the more telegenic winner, and he won by a bit more than 150,000 (stolen?) votes, but, adding to keith's original point, is the fact that the vast majority of those polled after the debate thought that kennedy won - that is if they saw it on television. those who listened to the very same debate on the radio overwhelmingly thought that nixon had won. i don't hold much hope that this time the american people will suddenly smarten up, as we seem to get dumber and more apathetic by the year - unless of course someone turns the election into a reality show, like american idol; then EVERYONE will pay attention, as long as it's got a good time slot. don't laugh yet. i'm sure it's on the way.
-chris-leo
Q
September 5 2003, 7:13PM
Bush is confusing, misunderstood. Upon first introduction he does seem quite the stupid country bama type. And all his croonies seem to run a muck and do whatever the hell they please. Interestingly enough they're some pretty damn smart people. However, their internal power struggles [which some suggest is imagery] propel the, as Gephardt repeatedly put it, "miserable failure" of an incompotent administration. See, I'm not so sure Bush is dumb but I am positive he bit off more than his "big" Texas ass could chew. Peter's Principle has an obvious theoretical application to this administration, they all are in positions where they can no longer effectively do their jobs and it will only get worst in the year they have left in office. As is usual with "Corporations" that are fucking up, high level individuals detract from office before the real shit hits the fan. Believe me it is yet to come. Moreover, since when does it make sense to have a Veteran Army General run the State Department and his Diplomatic equivalent head over to the Pentagon and tell the Military Professionals how to do their jobs.
Bush as Misunderstood
~Bring em' on [responding to attacks on U.S. Soldiers in Iraq] Dumbass, there are guys over there younger than me [23 y/o] dying nearly daily, when do you plan to visit the region, Chenny can hideout here?
~Poindexter's Economic Stimulation Package: Terrorism Futures was about the best thing the administration has come up with in regards to the faltering economy. At least we can count on continued growth in this particular area given the administrations foreign policy.
~Birds of a Feather: Bush's closest allies in Operation Iraqi Freedom are, according to their nationals, dumbass crooked liars. Wow! Refering to Prime Ministers Blair [British] and Berlusconi [Italian] who interestingly enough share the same first initial as Bush in the trio's surnames. I wonder if that's what cemented the bond.
P.S. KB do a follow up to your image piece on the Dems and tell people what you really think they're about. Ponder this folks: shouldn't Lieberman really be running against Bush in the Republican Primaries? Out
Q
ronn
September 7 2003, 9:53PM
I've heard/read/passed over this sentiment so many times. By now, it's old hat.
You're overlooking the stealing of the 2000 election -- way before the Florida fiasco! Ask all those wrongfully disqualified Black voters. They saw W for what he was and came out in strong numbers to keep him out of the White House. Al Gore lost because he allowed Bush to sneak up on him in a close race. He should have followed Bill's example. Give the public a nice image to look at. He was as vacuous as Reagan. Maybe more so given all the roadblocks that should have ended any chance of him becoming president.
My vote next year? Howard Dean without hesitation. I love Rev. Al, but he can't and won't win. Of all the candidates, he is the most committed to progressive issues and has a proven track record. And to the best of my knowledge, Rev. Al did decry slavery in the Sudan. He also talked about the far worse condition in neighboring Mauratania. People keep sleepin' on him because of the processed hair. But like Chris Rock said (paraphrasing here): When shit happens, I'm calling on Al!
Don in NYC
September 8 2003, 1:35PM
I would have to agree with you on this one Keith. Unfortunately, American culture typically favors "Image over Substance" especially when it comes to the elections. Maybe people are too tired, overwhelmed, or just plain confused about who to vote for.
I inlcluded a link from the Tavis Smiley show which contains a link to an interview with Joseph Lieberman. If you go to the site, you can thumb through the interviews (use the "previous/next show") he does with all the other democratic nominees (he even did some republicans too). Tavis doesn't beat around the bush, and gets straight to the issues on the minds of many African-Americans. Although these were done in January of this year, they are a great way to get familiar with the candidates.
And after listening to the interviews, Howard Dean is my choice for the democratic candidate. Forward thinking on civil unions for gays in Vermont and unwavering support for affirmative action says a lot...I don't care how tall he is....get the man a soap box...they got camera tricks (I saw Lord of the Rings)
Take Care to all
Don