By
Lora J. Mackel
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Last week's democratic convention was designed to highlight the political life and strengths of Al Gore. In 24 years of public service, Gore has amassed an impressive record in the House, Senate and as a vice president. But despite his record, pundits and voters alike have yet to get excited about his campaign. His rival, George W. Bush, has enjoyed the upper hand in opinion polls, but utterly lacks Gore's kind of record. In light of this, we again have to ask: is American politics about serious issues or entertainment?
Clinton's reign has forever changed America's perception of the presidency. Both his supporters and critics have been impressed with his confidence and political stamina. Under eight years of leadership, we have enjoyed tremendous prosperity. Because of the country's unprecedented fiscal progress, we have come to tolerate, and even enjoy, the scandal surrounding the man in the Oval Office. As long as things hum along, Americans seem to prefer a president who is accessible, charming and whose life is as entertaining as any reality-based programming. This is the only reason a man like W. is doing so much better than Gore in this election. Indeed, W. seems to have many Clintonian attributes. Both exude youthfulness and likeablity, and have that same "slick" quality that gives each a teflon coat. In the eyes of his followers, W. can do no wrong, and he is nearly impossible for his detractors to deconstruct.
While Bush drifted through the 70s without a purpose, Gore was being elected to the House and making major contributions to major national issues like health care, commerce and the environment. As Bush worked for his own interests and those of his father, Gore was stepping out of his father's shadow and into the Senate. Despite his relatively young age, Gore has proven himself ready for the office of president. And yet, he still flounders. For all Gore's gravitas and his great record, it is the non-cerebral Bush who has the favor of the people. But why? Doesn't the nation's most important office require more of a man than a great personality?
The answer lies, unfortunately, in our image obsessed culture. Some constituents look for in politicians what they look for in stars: an amiable manner, charm and wit. Bush has these qualities, while Gore's so-called "wooden nature" has been lampooned by every second-rate comic in this country. In politics, perception, and not personal record, is what counts to voters.
But can a case be made of the need for charisma in a leader? In the past, America has elected serious statesmen and johny-come-latelies alike. Both types have had their successes and failures in the White House. Famous examples of both types can be found in many ex-presidents. President Jackson was famous and popular for his common touch, but was so grave he would never make it in today's politics. Jimmy Carter was instantly likable, but it did little to insulate his political career. Richard Nixon was undeniably one of the 20th century's most serious political personalities, but his intensity was upsetting to many. The presidency has been both cruel and kind to the serious and charming alike.
History has no clear answer to the charisma question. Studying this race cannot help but make one wonder if the end of the last century did not mark a permanent shift in American politics. The new era was pioneered by the "great communicator" and an actor with few political qualifications but an enormous public presence. It seems that young William Clinton looked to this man and learned a great many political lessons about the art of seeming familiar and accessible to the public. For it was this quality that made Clinton the successful president he is today.
Higher-ups in the Republican party have finally gotten wise to this new iteration. Though their party is full of serious statesmen, they have brought forth the likable and image-friendly George W. And this is why, in many ways, Gore is too old-fashioned for this race. He does not have the glossy image or easy candor for sound bytes, nor does the public identify with him. Politics is no longer a debate over issues, but now is a fight over accessibility and image.
