Friday, December 02, 2011

Will American Voters Elect an Unbearably Pompous President?

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan

For the end of a long week (and semester), maybe a bit of armchair analysis of the presidential horse race will soothe the soul.

In a pre-primary season of endless surprises, one of the most unexpected changes in fortune is the resurgence of Newt Gingrich's chances to win the Republican nomination. All but written off early in the summer, with many Republicans trashing him after his entire staff quit on him, Gingrich has recently become at least the non-Romney du jour, now leading the field in many polls. One temptation is to view this as simply another spin of the wheel, with Gingrich's rise to be followed in a few weeks by another spectacular fall, leaving the field by default to Mitt Romney and the next non-Romney. Given the time frame, however, it is quite possible that Gingrich's otherwise-inevitable fall will not come soon enough for him to lose the Iowa caucuses. If he wins there, then the entire game changes, and he could actually win the nomination. This would, of course, closely follow the John McCain story from 2007-08, in which McCain was written off the summer before the primaries, only to re-emerge in January 2008 and quickly take the prize.

It is, therefore, at least possible to imagine a path by which Gingrich wins the Republican presidential nomination. What would that mean for the general election? It was amusing today to see a front-page article in The New York Times about the Republican presidential candidates, carrying the sub-title: "In unsettled race, no 'perfect candidate.' " Not perfect? Is that not the understatement of the year? The Republicans' central problem -- and President Obama's greatest hope -- is that the GOP nominees are all so unappealing that the party could actually fail to unseat the most vulnerable incumbent in memory.

We are, after all, talking about a non-incumbent party that starts with a solid 40-45% of the vote in any election, and at least 200 electoral votes locked up. If the economy's recovery is still weak and erratic next year, one would think that the out-party candidate would win handily, especially given the fierce hatred of the incumbent by activists in the GOP. Yet the same internal logic that cost the Republicans at least three Senate seats in the 2010 landslide -- and that, therefore, cost them a 50/50 split in the Senate, if not actual control of the upper chamber -- could have them nominating the presidential-level analogue to Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle.

The question raised by the title of my post, however, applies specifically to Gingrich's most obvious electability problem. Gingrich continues to enjoy an undeserved reputation as a "really smart guy," as two of my (rather liberal) colleagues grimly agreed over a recent lunch. In 2009, I wrote two blog posts (here and here) questioning how that reputation came into being, and marveling at its staying power in the face of clear evidence that he -- to put it mildly -- really is not a font of innovative ideas. As Maureen Dowd said of Gingrich earlier this year: "He prides himself, after all, on being a man of ideas. It is rarely mentioned that the ideas are mostly chuckleheaded." Yet the reputation sticks.

However, Gingrich's electability problem, in the through-the-looking-glass illogic of American politics, is not that the Idea Guy has no new or useful ideas. It is that he clearly believes the hype, presenting himself as the smartest guy he knows, with clear contempt for everyone and everything around him. In a world of bloated egos and delusional self-images, it is difficult to think of anyone as pompous and self-aggrandizing as Gingrich. He leaves the impression that he thinks we should not just vote for him, but beg him to be President and apologize to him for not having unanimously elected him by acclaim years ago.

Professor Dorf and I had a conversation once about the perceived reputations of the two parties' candidates in recent presidential elections, running through the elections since 1960 to compare who was the more "likable" or "regular guy" candidate. There seemed to be a pretty strong pattern in which the likable/regular guy candidate never lost. Clearly, these images are difficult to measure, but it is at least instructive to think about the broad outlines of this question. In some elections, there is no apparent winner of the likability/regular guy sweepstakes. 1964, 1968, and 1972 seem to fit that pattern, with Nixon's unlikability in the latter two being outweighed by his opponents' lack of "common touch." In 1988, both candidates were elite and not particular likable (or unlikable), but at least Bush I went out of his way to demonize Dukakis as part of the "Harvard boutique," while pretending to be a big fan of pork rinds. In 2008, Obama was not a regular guy, but his opponent's relentless anger and inability to connect with middle-class voters (including his poor handling of the question about how many homes he owned) made it possible for Obama at least to be perceived as the people's choice.

In the ensuing years, of course, Republicans have relentlessly pushed the idea that Obama is an egghead, an Ivy League elitist, a ditherer who is too professorial to lead, and the usual run of anti-intellectual attacks. The state of the economy makes the electorate at large more willing than they might otherwise be to buy into that story. Certainly, Obama is no longer the fresh new face onto which people can project what they wish to see.

Nominating Gingrich would, at a minimum, severely complicate that line of attack. This is a candidate, after all, who shows no sign of being willing to adjust his personality to become more likable or less pompous. Although he might be able to go through the motions of judging pie-eating contests at county fairs, he fairly drips of condescension wherever he goes. Even the most angry voters might find it a stretch to say, "I'm voting for Newt because Obama's a pointy-headed intellectual. I want a guy who's not always thinking so much."

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is apparently (according to this story) giving up on the idea of humanizing their candidate, opting instead to "build a better Romney-bot," in one of the funnier lines of the season. We thus have the two current front-runners who seek to take Obama's job giving up on what has been one of the most notable assets of modern politics. No Reagans or W's here. If Republicans are to win, they will have to hope that their eventual nominee's notable shortage of humanity (or even the appearance of the ability to feel empathy) can be overcome by some combination of other factors.

So, will American voters elect an unbearably pompous President? There are surely more than enough negatives against Obama, along with non-substantive advantages for the Republicans in terms of controlling the voting processes in swing states (as well as fund-raising advantages, and so on), to imagine that Gingrich could win. Extreme pomposity is not obviously disqualifying in 2012. Still, if I were on Obama's re-election team, I would find much to cheer about in the reappearance of Newt Gingrich. On the other hand, as citizens who might nonetheless have to endure four or eight years of a Gingrich presidency, perhaps his pomposity is the least of our concerns.


Michael C. Dorf said...

From Andy Borowitz @

"Newt Gingrich is the intellectual of the Republican field the way Moe was the intellectual of the Stooges."

That said, I certainly agree that what makes Gingrich "likeability-challenged" (as Jon Stewart put it) is not that his ideas are mostly crazy (although they are), but his inability even to feign modesty. In some ways, a Gingrich presidency is scarier to contemplate than would be the presidency of some totally unqualified candidate like (the soon-to-be-ex-candidate) Herman Cain, because there's at least a chance that an unqualified President would listen to sober advice.

Paul Scott said...

Well, we currently have an unqualified President, so I am not sure that matters much.

With that said, I actually think Gingrich is the Republican's best chance. The Mormon is much bigger than than I think most are crediting it. Most of what is thought of as the Republican base actually probably (incorrectly) believes that Mormons are not Christian. At a minimum, they think Mormons are weird. Gingrich is, most likely, a non-believer, but he is officially a Cristian proper and I think that means more to the base that people are giving credit.

Gingrich, all jokes about his "true intellect" aside, has a PhD and has himself written a number of books. As someone without a PhD who is often giving expert testimony counter to experts with a PhD I know all too well that those letters are no guarantee of being right or even being particularly smart, but I find it difficult to accept that he is some complete idiot the way most liberals like to talk.

From a credentials standpoint, his political and intellectual resume is far superior to that of Obama's. I think that is his strength. Obama will be a sitting President that remains less qualified for the job than his rival.

Debates, as well, will not be like the Obama McCain debates, because both candidates will come off as intellectuals. Gingrich may be seen as pompous but does that really distinguish him from Obama?

As a final note, though it is all perception and not reality, Gingrich's first "big move" - the CWA - was seen as a success by his base. Obama has been nothing but a partially mitigated (and the SCOTUS may well remove that small bit of mitigation) disaster for his base.

To me, Ginrich has been the only serious threat I nave seen in the Republican offerings. I think writing him off as a pompous boob is a mistake of almost the same magnitude as assuming Kennedy would obviously be replaced by a Democrat.

Neil H. Buchanan said...

I'm not saying Gingrich is a pompous boob. I'm saying he's not the "idea man" of punditry myth, which is a long way from being an idiot. He's just not notably smart. But that his electoral challenge has nothing to do with his undeserved reputation. In other words, his standing as an intellectual is not what seems most obviously to be what could harm him at the polls. It is that he is a condescending jerk. Obama comes off as intellectual, but I've never seen him look like he hates or disrespects people who disagree with him.

Paul Scott said...

"...clutching their guns and bibles..."

A statement I certainly agreed with, but I think it also displays that Obama and Gingrich are not so far apart on the condescending element. There is more to it than that one slip too. I promise you that among my conservative (e.g. libertarian) friends, Obama comes across as condescending too. I generally think they are right on that issue.

The entire premise of the Republican party is that some smart, very rich people have convinced a mass of not so smart and poor people to vote against their own interests in support of God and in support of an idea that they too could make it big as long as the government stays out of the way. The second part of that happens in America just often enough to keep that dream alive and allow that pipeline of reasoning to persist.

That reasoning, however, almost requires a pompous, fact-ignoring, conduit. I understand what you are saying about Gingrich, I just think you may be overstating its significance and understating those same qualities in Obama.

Runescape Gold said...

There are so numerous tales happened using the previous three years, Blizzard whatsoever instances take advantage of his specific energy killing tens of a massive variety of world of warcraft account and Millions of wow gold have been completely eliminated, really from our place of view,the advancement backdrop of world of warcraft and Blizzard is complete of blood vessels and tears of wow gold farmers, they entered into this World Of Warcraft Gold organization with desire and passion, but the majority of them sooner or afterwards leave apart with fears and tears.

Anonymous said...

The whole idea with the Republican party is always that some wise, very rich everyone has confident scores of not so smart and also the indegent inBuy Cheap RS Gold order to vote against their unique passions for The almighty along with assist of your indisputable fact that they also may make it providing government entities remains taken care of. World Of Warcraft Gold BuyThe second part of you do in the us only frequently ample to keep that will desire living and invite in which pipeline involving reasoning to continue.

Unknown said...

From a credentials standpoint, his political and intellectual resume is far superior to that of Obama's. I think that is his strength. Obama will be a sitting President that remains less qualified for the job than his rival.Buy Windows 7 Key
Windows 7 professional product Key
Windows 7 ultimate activation Key

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.