It’s a simple fact of human psychology that people see leadership in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with integrity, good judgment and basic decency. History is littered with characters who possessed none of those virtues yet were elevated to positions of power and influence because … well because … they create a special tingle in their audience.
As much as Democrats want to jockey for position by going Deeper Into the Weeds Than Thou over sub-sections of Obamacare, the lamentable but indisputably true fact of almost every kind of existence, especially politics, is that you have to make the people see and feel something special in you. Voters, no matter how wonky and nerdy and policy-driven, want you to project back on them an image of “alpha” … whether male or female.
As the years go by I’m more and more convinced that brain chemistry and brain structure is one of the most credible explanations for the tribal division between liberals and conservatives the world over. There’s nothing racial or ethnic about it. But there is an evolutionary aspect, I truly believe.
That said, liberals, (which does not describe every Democratic voter), do react very differently to the “strong man” concept of leadership than conservatives. In my humble opinion we lefties do inject our choice of leaders with a disproportionate factor of wonky bona fides than typical conservatives. How exactly does he/she plan to get us to universal health care? How “criminal” should it be to enter the U.S. illegally?
But it is the rare, wonky liberal who doesn’t still react, instinctively, like a man-ape on the African savannah, to the feel of a “leader.” I give you, Barack Obama, as opposed to Hillary Clinton.
Obama had it all. Everything about him projected that rare but essential quality of, “I got this.” Call it “The Cool Factor”. Call it “charisma”. He had and has it. Hillary didn’t. She projected “competent management”, which is great if you’re going to run Buffalo Wild Wings, but not enough if you’re trying to stir positive-to-rapturous emotions in 130 million potential voters.
Which brings us to a key dilemma in our current environment. While there is no question whatsoever that 42% of the public feels a once-in-a-hundred-years alpha male leader quality pulsing off Donald Trump, there’s no one yet among the Democrats emitting a similar quality to possible Democratic voters.
It goes without saying the specific qualities attracting conservatives to Trump and liberals to … whoever … are dramatically, qualitatively different. Therein lies your deep tribal divide.
But one component is, again without question IMHO, the factor of confidence, which is fundamental to establishing dominance. Confidence instills the same in those seeking to be led well. It imbues a calm that allows our still primitive emotions to relax so our brains can sort out the various options to problem-solving. And it soothes us.
Specifically, this is another problem with Joe Biden. There’s a “vigor” factor involved in “confidence” and humans’ choice of leaders. Very little about Joe projects vigor or, “I got this.”
It’s also the quality still missing from my pet fascination, Pete Buttigieg.
(Very) smart. Thoughtful. Expressive of good judgment. A calm and imperturbable demeanor. Yes. All that is there and eminently valuable. But “alpha male”? Mmmmm, not yet. In the parlance of show biz, Mayor Pete needs to make himself “bigger.” But liberals can’t do bigger like Trump does bigger. Strutting around like an absurd, obese Mussolini courts immediate, richly deserved mockery. The liberal alpha also has to express authenticity to acquire the ineffable magic of “alpha.” That’s tougher. You’re not allowed to fake it.
As for the women, Kamala Harris may have it. But like Buttegieg, it ain’t there yet. Unfortunately for Minnesota, that “alpha magic” is something Amy Klobuchar lacks entirely. With her, we’re back to selling “competent management.” And there’s no inspiration that comes with that.
We tend to forget that the “alpha-ness” of Barack Obama wasn’t fully formed until he began winning. After that point we saw and heard much more of him. Winning, which is to say actually demonstrating dominance, is a critical feedback loop firing human neurons. “He has done it!”, we think, and swoon. “He will always do it!”
This week’s Democratic debates certainly didn’t do anything to establish anyone’s “alpha-ness”. But let’s thin the herd and spend more than 30 seconds per topic with these people. A couple of them may have the instinct to convey, “I got this.”
(P.S. I’m a big fan of Ezra Klein’s podcast. Via his Vox network. Here are links to two recent shows.
One with Pete Buttegieg, which includes a very interesting conversation about structural reform, all the real world obstacles to it, but the need for it to be framed and regularly reaffirmed for voters.
And another with U of Delaware prof and author Danna Young. Klein is clearly struggling with the “biological” explanation for tribalism, but here again he and his guest pull right up to the line trying to explain it. )
Brian, excellent work again, I love it. But question… Do you have a typo in your opening sentence? Seems like the subject is missing.
“It’s a simple fact of human psychology that PEOPLE want… ??
Oops! Thx.
PS yes love the new mug shot
My theory is that we’ll someday identify a genetic marker predisposing a person towards authoritarianism. It will also indicate which of us are most comfortable knowing the rules, knowing what’s expected of them and where they stand in the social order.
And, by extension, the marker may help explain why Trump is undeniably popular with 30-40 percent of America, but repels 50-60 percent of us. He’s offering the promise of everything some of us are genetically predisposed to want and doing it in a loud, unmistakable voice.
As a possible corollary. it seems to me that some people seem transfixed by overtly alpha leaders and others are not. I think “overtly” is important. Obama was an alpha leader but displayed it in more subtle ways that resonate for me but which infuriate others who saw him as arrogant and aloof.
Here are a couple links to a (very) wonky podcast I listen to while expanding my carbon footprint back and forth from northern Wisconsin.
Brain Science with Ginger Campbell. (Main site.)
Principals of Brain evolution.
Creativity (the left brain/ right brain balance.)
Two things.
One, we have to be careful to not over-read the results of 2016. Clinton won the popular vote comfortably, so it can’t be that she didn’t appeal to enough voters. We could debate how voter suppression, apathy, and maybe even subtle Russian influence allowed Trump to eke out an Electoral College win. But the suggestion that it was because people didn’t see a credible leader in Clinton seems off the mark to me.
Two, I’m surprised you don’t see some of the alphaness you’re looking for in Elizabeth Warren. She’s as smart as Mayor Pete (and, as you say, that’s VERY smart) and just as nimble on her feet. When she says she’s angry and not going to take it anymore, she’s believable. And when she says she’s ready for a fight with Trump you can take it to the bank. She can go deep into the weeds on policy, but has soaring rhetoric chops, too. I think Harris is a calculating candidate who has miscalculated her approach by trying to wreck Biden and in the process bringing them both down. Warren has yet to take the stage with either Harris or Biden, but when she does I think people are going to feel the alpha.
It wasn’t so much that people didn’t see Clinton as “credible”. It was more that she failed to “excite” and “inspire” enough. The (likely biological/atavistic) issue with her and any woman in the race could also be that she’s female and that kind of “alpha magic” hasn’t yet translated to a woman, other than Oprah and Beyonce. warren’s got plenty of fight in her, and the intellectual bona fides. But I’m not yet feeling the “I got this” factor, i.e. the cool and confidence that she’s the one. But we’ve got a LONG ways to go. More worrisome for me is the sound of anything remotely positive emanating from your keyboard toward Ms. Clinton. What happened to her anti-Christ cred?
Oh, for sure I’ve never been a Clinton fan. My point is that she lost on a technicality…the Electoral College…and not because more people preferred Trump. They didn’t. But a handful of people in the right places declined to vote and that was that.
Well, as long as our guy/gal can lock down the pastoral exurbs … .
BTW the linked interview with Buttigieg is interesting for many reasons, among them talk of dealing with the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, the gamed-out Senate voting structure, etc. etc.
I love Mayor Pete. But he’s got zero backing from African Americans, and I’m not interested in a symbolic but losing candidate. On the other hand, he’d be a compelling Number Two, and even after 8 years as VP he’d still be a young candidate for president. So his upside is huge. But I think he can only join with a woman or minority at the top. The logical ticket would be Harris-Buttigieg, but I’m wary of Harris, who seems to have few genuine convictions.
The Dems are in the unhappy position of having many, many candidates…and none who look likely at this point to beat Trump. If Insley or Bennett were to catch fire things could get more interesting, but I’m not holding my breath.
One more thought: If it’s too close for comfort for Trump as the election looms, watch for him to dump Pence. It would be the ultimate Trumpian move.
Dumping Pence would hurt him, if only a little, with evangelicals.So who would you imagine him turning to, a woman? A black Republican?
Noel, there’s certainly no reason to believe Trump has any loyalty to Pence. The guy is a complete non-entity to most voters, a vacant sycophant, at best. But this election is going to be so much about Trump that it’s hard to see why even he would think swapping out Pence for some other cyborg evangelist would make two votes of difference. But he might consider the blonde babe from “Fox & Friends.” Or is she the next Director of National intelligence?
Evangelicals have sold their souls for Trump…as long as he’s appointing judges they’re all-in. Swapping out Pence for, say, a woman, would be a show business move, something that comes naturally to Trump.
First, I do think that “alpha-ness” is something that emerges. An office or rank, for instance, will bestow that quality on the holder (to a degree).
Second, Brian, I think you are right about the inherent tribal nature of our political system. I think that Jonathan Haidt describes this well in his book “The righteous Mind”.
I think that he also explains the GOP attraction to alpha caricatures, like Trump. He sees that attraction as an inborn gut feeling, and that seems to explain a lot to me.
Yes, it will be a huge advantage to have a candidate who commands sufficient gravitas to make Trump look like a buffoon. I am not certain I see such a candidate right now…..
There’s quite a bit of science-y stuff on the internet about over-developed/under-developed amygdala, right-brain v. left brain dominance. The point Klein and his guest get to is that in general the balance between the two ranges of “tribes” (i.e brain structure) actually serve a species-wide purpose. For example, we do need a group of people with a much higher-than normal instinct for authority to staff up … the miltary, poli8ce forces and large bureaucratic structures. Those people follow orders without question. Everyone can’t be an authority-resenting bastard like, well, like me.
So where do I fall on the spectrum? I’m perfectly happy to let someone lead as long as 1) I agree with the general direction we’re going (I don’t insist on perfection or ideological purity but I want to be comfortable that we’re working toward a worthwhile goal and; 2) that the person or people leading are competent and qualified.
Give me those two elements and I’m a happy drone, content to follow the crowd.
Absent either of those two factors I’m an unhappy camper aka me during the George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter administrations).
Absent both and I’m in the frothing-mouth, spittle-chinned outrage zone that used to be defined by the George W. Bush administration until the universe saw fit to give me Trump. Nowadays, I feel like I’m one or two executive orders or South Lawn comments away from a visit by the Secret Service.
I see you on the early-adapter/gourmet end of the spectrum, which is normally not violent. But we no longer live in normal times.
Another astute piece, Brian. After two rounds of debate, I’m not seeing anyone who gets me revved up. Booker ought to — he’s got a lot going for him — but he doesn’t. Nor does Pete, who’s impressive but not charismatic. And while Warren does have a strong and fiery personality, along with smarts aplenty, she is, for me, only slightly less grating than Bernie. Maybe her warmer side will emerge when the herd is thinned. Maybe someone else will emerge. Maybe we need to chop all 20 up and make a Frankenstein-ian candidate from all the best parts.