by Sam Stein
The Dartmouth (Dartmouth College)
U-Wire
It was 1994, and I was sitting in the second tier of my high school's auditorium.
I remember it distinctly because the whole event was so comical. In front of me were the three candidates running for eighth grade class president, each candidate unique in their own regard. The final candidate to make his presidential speech that day was Haydon Mixsell.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
His speech is what clinched the presidency. Haydon stood on the podium for about 25 seconds, stiffened with stage fright, unable to articulate the most basic of words.
Finally, with embarrassment setting in, Haydon made a valiant attempt to salvage his fleeing opportunity. With the eloquence and profundity of President Bush himself, Haydon pleaded with his classmates to elect him because:
"I am, like, the coolest of the candidates, and like, if you elect me we will do some cool things."
Haydon received around 80 to 85 percent of the vote that day. He was the coolest of candidates, and it didn't matter that the other two were more qualified and would have attacked the importance of being class president with vigor and enthusiasm. Haydon was charismatic and popular and those were the qualifications that got you elected then. Little is seemingly different in terms of nationwide electoral politics. Anyone who observed the electoral process from a subjective and realistic viewpoint can see that we still are trying to overcome politics "popularity syndrome."
Max Weber, the famous German political scientist, listed three attributes that make for a successful ruler: a traditional form of leading, a rational and legal distinction of leadership and finally a charismatic form of leadership.
Campaigns of the modern television and mass-advertisement era have become all about name recognition and character destruction. Both sides are guilty of taking the politics out of campaigning. In its place, the parties have inserted smear campaigns, personal attacks and doled out millions of dollars for commercials and literature.
The new angle of the campaign "smear ad" is, ironically, to attack your opponent for running smear ads. In the same idiotic regard, one candidate will run advertisements revealing controversial issues of their opposition's political history. They then ask the question: "What are you hiding from?"
Meanwhile the ads offer no insight at all into the political stance of that candidate, which begs the question: "What are you revealing?"
Politics are still essentially popularity contests. Elections inherently favor the incumbent: people who spend millions upon millions of dollars have a disproportionate advantage of winning and character defamation takes precedence over elaboration of legislation. This trend is present in news coverage, campaign strategies, even in the moderation of political viewpoints.
Political individualism is extinct.
