What Do We Want, or Not in a President? November 2008
Presidential elections offer an opportunity for an individual to possibly achieve greatness. Before that happens, elected candidates must run the gauntlet of voters during primaries and then in a general election. We, the electorate, decide who will govern and create history or who will simply remain a footnote. Essentially, we choose which candidate will have the opportunity to be great. Does history offer any insight into how we vote and why? The simple answer is “yes” and some of the research might surprise you.
Although we believe that we listen to candidates, weigh their policy positions and then make a rational choice; that rarely happens. Rather, our choice ends up being anchored in our innate sense of who we like, along with other unconscious biases.
Intelligence. We think we elect the most intelligent people to office, but that’s not necessarily true. Historically, the most intelligent candidates have had the most difficult time at the polling place. Traditionally, this has been ascribed to the idea that they speak “above” the majority of the electorate. The two most intelligent presidents, Thomas Jefferson (#1) and John F. Kennedy (#2) barely made it to the presidency. When compared, there’s a direct correlation between historical success (even greatness) and high IQ. The least intelligent presidents went down in history as the biggest failures.
Explanatory Style. The way a candidate explains the world, political events, and the future contributes to how the electorate sees him or her. Pessimistic explanatory styles, talking about fear, difficult times, or saying things will be more difficult is disliked by the electorate. Examining historical speeches by presidential candidates reveals that the electorate almost always favors the more optimistic explanatory style. Both John Kerry and Al Gore were more pessimistic in their speeches than George Bush. Researchers speculate that favoritism toward a more optimistic explanatory style stems from the belief that candidates who are more optimistic will accomplish more while in office.
Height. Yes, height is a factor in presidential politics. We tend to elect the taller of two individuals most of the time. Recent research indicates this is a sociological reality consistent with historical necessity. Historically, when the tribe was threatened, the biggest man was chosen to lead because it was assumed his physical prowess would be an advantage. In presidential elections, it seems we are still following that logic. Still, in the previous two elections George W. Bush prevailed against taller opponents, but researchers are quick to point out that other factors were in his favor.
Race. Though a multicultural society, the United States has a history of electing white, Protestant, wealthy men to the presidency—an image of the presidency we embrace. Any challenge to that image creates conflict to our mental model or concept of what a president should “look like.” Though we might object and state that we would vote for a person no matter their race; that has yet to happen.
Attributional Style. Perhaps the most important factor in voting is whether we view the candidate as similar to us. We don’t necessarily connect with external similarities, but those internal characteristics that we attribute to the candidate and also see in ourselves. For example, if I feel that John McCain and I share the characteristic of being a maverick, or Barack Obama and I share the characteristic of hopefulness, my vote will be based on that characteristic. The characteristic might not even be true, but if I attribute it to a candidate, that candidate will get my vote. Even more frightening is that once I’ve connected with a candidate on attributional style I am blinded to everything they say, even if I might disagree with them.
On Tuesday, we will place a man in the presidency and provide him an opportunity to do great things. Greatness is often measured by a person’s place in history and what they do with the opportunity. Yet, our votes will be based much more on how we feel and what we intuit about the candidates than anything they have said or done. Knowing this should give us pause. Who we are placing in the path of history? What will he will do with his presidency? Rarely do many of us have the opportunity to directly influence historical greatness, but our vote is definitely one of those times.
(Research note: Most of this research can be found in Greatness: Who Makes History and Why by Dean Keith Simonton or you can log on to www.googlescholar.com and type in “presidential election Simonton.”)
The Greatness ProjectTM is researched and written by:
Scott Asalone & Jan Sparrow
Copyright © ASGMC, Inc. 2008