Gut Instincts
Ronald Cass has an interesting analysis up over at Real Clear Politics that looks at that oddly unquantifiable gut instinct about character that people have about politicians. Many politicians - especially among Democrats - just do not understand this oddity.
Elections are not just about platforms but character. Republicans were shocked by Harry Truman's election as President, certain that the Missouri ward politician had neither the intellect nor the expertise needed for the presidency. The public, however, wasn't looking for someone polished or intellectual. They responded to Truman's no-nonsense style, his sense of personal responsibility, and his instinctive grasp of the essence of his charge. Harry Truman didn't duck hard decisions and didn't shy from asserting the power of his office or his nation.
Likewise, Democrats were - and remain - perplexed over Ronald Reagan's popularity. They underestimated Reagan's intelligence and misunderstood key aspects of what he stood for. But most of all, they missed that he was popular as much for who he was as for what he did. Reagan radiated optimism, faith in America, and conviction that he could spread a gospel of liberty and freedom through a combination of good humor and military might. Americans trusted him and his vision, even when they might not have chosen all of his policies.
Voters still want to know if a candidate shares their views and values, if he seems like "one of us," and if he - or she - is likely to respond to a crisis in a way that gives us comfort in his or her leadership. Those are more matters of gut instinct than analysis. In today's scripted and staged political world, it's especially difficult for voters to get a fix on the character issues they care about. When a misguided comment or look can de-rail a candidacy, it's no surprise that an entire profession now exists to coif, dress, coach, and produce the candidates' appearances, as well as to tell us afterward what we saw and heard and what to make of it.
But sometimes, you can still see a glimpse of who the candidates really are.
From there, Cass goes on to discuss Sandy Berger's elevation by Hillary Clinton as part of her national security team. This despite (or maybe because of?) the fact that Sandy Berger is a convicted felon who stole and destroyed classified documents from the National Archives. (We also point out that Berger is a verb). Sandy Berger is a thief, a liar and a disbarred lawyer (he surrendered his law license rather than face an inquiry). He is also hand-picked by Hillary Clinton as a close and trusted adviser. Cass has a bit to say about that:
Hillary has had to renounce associates before. She's had numerous fund-raising scandals involving criminal wrong-doing by people she should have known to be criminals, Norman Hsu being the most recent and notorious. But in all of those instances, she has had the plausible excuse that she didn't know what they had done wrong.
In Sandy Berger's case, there is no excuse. Hillary's inclusion of Sandy Berger in her circle of advisers demonstrates that, notwithstanding her law license, she really doesn't care about the law. She doesn't care whether someone violates the law if they're on her team, if the violation in some way helps the Clintons. Hillary's indifference to criminal wrong-doing suggests that she sees herself as above the law, breezily ignoring law when it's an impediment to something she wants……
……Picking Sandy Berger tells us something important about Hillary's character. We should listen now - while it can do some good.
Indeed it does. There is a certain amount of tin-eared contempt of the electorate in Hillary's choice of members of her inner circle. And nobody will be more surprised than Hillary Clinton if that odd little gut instinct of the American electorate kicks in.
By bird dog, Thursday, 18 October , 2007 @ 10:07 am
I hope I am not paranoid to imagine that Mr. Berger was caught doing a little favor for the Clintons, and that this is payback time.
By Gaius, Thursday, 18 October , 2007 @ 10:24 am
I think you’re spot on.