American politics today presents something of a paradox. Levels of ideological polarisation have reached a height not seen since the eve of the Civil War, seemingly overriding all other considerations. Yet personality still matters as much as ever in presidential races. The reason has to do with the strange phenomenon we call charisma. To understand its power, it helps to look closely at how it operates, and also to consider the current political fortunes of two distinctly uncharismatic American politicians: Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis.
The word charisma is ubiquitous today. Marketers use it to sell everything from shampoo to perfume to olive oil. But it arrived relatively recently into common usage. Back in the Fifties, my father, then a journalist at Fortune magazine in New York, used it in a profile of the labour leader John L. Lewis. His editor sent a draft back to him with the word circled, and the comment: “What the hell does this mean?”
My father had taken the word from the great German social theorist Max Weber, who, in the early 20th century, adapted it to describe a form of disruptive authority based on an intense, emotional connection between leaders and followers (its original, much older meaning was theological: a gift of divine grace). For decades afterwards, charisma remained a technical concept in the social sciences. But in the Fifties, writers such as my father found it useful in analysing an American political scene increasingly dominated by television and other mass media. John F. Kennedy seemed to embody the quality better than anyone, and ever since his election in 1960, journalists have routinely counted charisma as a key component of presidential politics.
In their usage, charisma is a purely personal quality: you either have it, or you don’t. Weber, however, offered a more subtle and persuasive interpretation. As he pointed out, it is not enough for leaders to have unusual talents and a magnetic personality. The followers need to perceive them as doing so. Charisma, in other words, lies at least partly in the eye of the beholder. In extreme cases, such as in totalitarian societies, charisma can effectively be manufactured. Thanks to pervasive, unrelenting propaganda that presented the secretive mass murderer Joseph Stalin as a heroic superman, a large proportion of the Soviet population saw him as intensely charismatic. Many North Koreans today probably feel the same about Kim Jong Un.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading " author="John Masko"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/07/washington-dc-is-a-failed-city/[/su_unherd_related]
Recent American history also illustrates Weber’s point. Most American liberals saw Barack Obama as intensely charismatic. He exuded energy and hope, and was a brilliant, incantatory speaker. But his magnetic appeal was entirely lost on most Republicans, who dismissed him as a phoney huckster, and mocked his reputation among liberals by calling him their messiah. Donald Trump, by contrast, both horrified and disgusted most liberals, but has appeared as a quintessential American hero to his supporters, and almost God-like to the most fervent of them. To the Republican base, he remains the very embodiment of charisma.
Still, in free societies without Stalinist-level propaganda, charisma can’t simply be manufactured, and personal qualities remain crucial. Kennedy wouldn’t have been perceived as charismatic without his youthful vigour, his easy, sexy manner, his brilliant smile, and his ability to give an enthralling speech. Obama has genuinely extraordinary oratorical powers. And Trump, whatever one thinks of him, is an enormously talented entertainer, and has an uncanny ability to sense and express his supporters’ most visceral feelings. He has a neural connection to the Republican id.
Charisma hasn’t always been this partisan. In fact, as I argued in a recent book, it has often played an important, positive, unifying role in democratic societies. Charismatic leaders have inspired trust even among their political opponents, thereby helping to bring fractured nations together. By the power of their oratory, they have broken through political logjams and brought about needed action. They have put warm flesh on the bones of abstract constitutional principle. At the start of the democratic age, figures such as George Washington in the United States, Toussaint Louverture in Haiti and Simón Bolívar in South American all exemplified these uses of charisma, even if the fervour they inspired in their followers also tempted the last two towards dictatorship. In the United States, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy, while each the target of fierce criticism, also exerted a charismatic appeal that went well beyond their own political camp, as illustrated by the nation-wide outbursts of grief that followed their deaths.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading " author="David Samuels"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/07/the-puritan-spirit-of-americas-civil-war/[/su_unherd_related]
But for charisma to have these positive, unifying effects, ordinary people need to at least be open to the possibility of seeing figures from the other camp as charismatic. The record of the Obama and Trump presidencies suggest that America is now far too divided for this recognition to take place. And as a result, charisma has lost much of its positive role in the United States. No matter how brilliant the personal qualities, they only work on followers already ideologically disposed towards the candidate in question.
The rise of virulently partisan radio and television, of social media, and of internet algorithms have all exacerbated the problem enormously. Thanks to my own browsing history, literally every time I open a new tab, Microsoft shows me a news story about the awfulness of Trump. A conservative cousin gets the same horror stories, but about Joe Biden. The same forces make it all the easier for ordinary people across the world to feel a charismatic bond with populist politicians like Trump, or Narendra Modi, or Viktor Orbán, who appeal directly to the emotions. By contrast, technocrats like Emmanuel Macron, who last week sternly scolded French families for not raising their children with sufficient “authority”, are all the easier to mock as elite and out of touch.
All this brings us to the current presidential campaign, and the figures of Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis. Biden, whatever one thinks of him, has been a significant president with some important achievements to his name. He succeeded in passing a massive infrastructure bill and an “Inflation Reduction Act” which will allocate unprecedented sums to fight climate change. He strengthened the Western alliance in the face of Russian aggression and cannily resolved the debt ceiling crisis. During his administration, unemployment has hit a 50-year low, and inflation is returning to normal levels after the pandemic.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading " author="Robert D. Kaplan"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/06/will-america-share-romes-fate/[/su_unherd_related]
But Biden gets very little credit for these achievements, even from people who voted for him. Barely 40% of the American population approves of his record as president, while more than 54% disapprove. To be sure, conservative Republicans loathe him, seeing him as corrupt and disruptive. But their opposition alone cannot explain these dire numbers. A better clue comes from a recent column by Pamela Paul of The New York Times, who lamented the prospect of a Trump-Biden rematch in 2024. Surely, she moaned, we can do better than these two visibly declining old men. She first damned Biden with weak praise, allowing that he has restored norms and “been decent”, but then went on to damn him, full stop: “That old age is showing. Never an incantatory speaker or a sparkling wit, Biden seems to have altogether thrown in the oratorical towel.” In other words, she ignored Biden’s actual record as president, and focused on his charisma, or rather his lack of it.
Lack it he does. On video, Joe Biden unquestionably cuts a poor figure. He looks his age. He moves haltingly. His speech stumbles, stammers and wanders. It is all too easy to portray him as senile. Yet the same conservative critics who call him a senile puppet will often, in the very next breath, denounce him as a criminal mastermind. Both can’t be true, and in fact Biden’s record as president very much belies the charges of senility. As president, he has made no memorable speeches, to say nothing of incantatory ones. Instead, he has effectively applied skills he perfected in his long career in the Senate: glad-handing, making deals and crafting coalitions behind the scenes. But in the eyes of journalists like Paul, these skills, and what Biden accomplished with them, matter less than his glaring lack of charisma.
On the other side of the political abyss, DeSantis’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination illustrates equally well the way Americans continue to over-emphasise charisma. Nine months ago, after winning re-election as governor of Florida by nearly 20%, DeSantis looked poised to replace Trump as the Republican Party’s darling. He was “Trump without the chaos”, “Trump without the baggage”, “Trump without the nonsense”. At 44, he had vigour, obvious intelligence and a record of challenging and provoking liberals at every turn. In February, a conservative columnist anointed him the Republican Kennedy. Whatever one thought of his actual policies (I, for one, thought him a menace), he seemed an obvious frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
[su_events_insert]
Unfortunately, he also turned out to be “Trump without the charisma”. As the campaign began, it became painfully obvious that he lacked Trump’s easy rapport with crowds, his neural connection to them. In public, indeed, DeSantis appears incapable of relaxing. His voice vibrates with tension. He has no visible sense of humour. Charisma, as Weber emphasised, requires the ability to establish an emotional connection with followers, and DeSantis seems, at crucial moments, either to shrink away from them, or to laugh maniacally in an awkward attempt to bond. It should not be surprising, then, that DeSantis currently lags Trump by more than 30% in most polls, and just this week has cut more than a third of his campaign staff. Barring an unexpected turn of events, he might well end up withdrawing from the race before a single primary vote is cast.
Is it possible, in our current moment, to imagine a figure whose charismatic appeal might help unite the country instead of further dividing it? It is not implausible that our political divisions will get even worse, leading to government paralysis, violence, and a crisis severe enough to shake Americans out of their ideological certainties. In that case, they might well flock to a charismatic figure promising to restore unity. But would that figure respect democratic, constitutional norms? The historical record is not encouraging. In one of the most prominent cases, the bitter partisan divisions of the French Revolution opened the door for Napoleon Bonaparte, who ruled as a dictator while sacrificing millions to his wars.
But meanwhile, in the short term, the most likely upshot of America’s continuing obsession with charisma is that it will help Donald Trump back into power 15 months from now. That alone is an excellent argument for not putting too much emphasis on it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeCharisma is that lightning in a bottle, that cannot be captured or tamed. How does one develop it? By being oneself, the very best version. Trump is being Trump. Obama was Obama. I have a feeling that DeSantis is trying to be Trump, but he fails the rule of charisma by so doing. He needs to be Ron DeSantis, and no one else. He’s better than good enough, just like that. For that matter, each of us should strive to be ourselves, the very best version of. No one else can do it better! 🙂
He’s not being remotely like Donald Trump and he is very definitely his own man, as those of us with the good fortune to live in Florida can attest.
These silly claims of a “lack of charisma” are media inventions because they can’t find fault with his superb management skills and record of success. We need a president who is serious, intelligent, affective, and has our best interests a his first priority, not a song and dance man.
The author of this piece is clearly a card-carrying progressive. Pay him no mind.
Way to go there, Mr. Tunnel Vision, I mean “Good View”
Definitely the case . See his article about the riots in France which could have been any progressive’s take on the riots in the US. And yet he is a professor of French history at Princeton ??
Unherd is seemingly trying to overcompensate for the previous lack of this sort of take on current affairs .
Way to go there, Mr. Tunnel Vision, I mean “Good View”
Definitely the case . See his article about the riots in France which could have been any progressive’s take on the riots in the US. And yet he is a professor of French history at Princeton ??
Unherd is seemingly trying to overcompensate for the previous lack of this sort of take on current affairs .
He’s not being remotely like Donald Trump and he is very definitely his own man, as those of us with the good fortune to live in Florida can attest.
These silly claims of a “lack of charisma” are media inventions because they can’t find fault with his superb management skills and record of success. We need a president who is serious, intelligent, affective, and has our best interests a his first priority, not a song and dance man.
The author of this piece is clearly a card-carrying progressive. Pay him no mind.
Charisma is that lightning in a bottle, that cannot be captured or tamed. How does one develop it? By being oneself, the very best version. Trump is being Trump. Obama was Obama. I have a feeling that DeSantis is trying to be Trump, but he fails the rule of charisma by so doing. He needs to be Ron DeSantis, and no one else. He’s better than good enough, just like that. For that matter, each of us should strive to be ourselves, the very best version of. No one else can do it better! 🙂
I was of the same opinion (DeSantis is a bit of a charisma-vacuum …a fun-sponge, if you will) but I saw him on Megyn Kelly’s podcast last week and I must say, he was a lot, lot more likeable in that longer format.
Megyn made comments to the effect that he should be doing a lot more of these long form interviews, as he is actually knowledgeable and coherent on a range of topics and the public aren’t really seeing that right now. I’d have to agree, based on how much better he came off in the MK interview vs how he’s come across in his lacklustre campaign so far.
It will be interesting to see if his campaign architects can figure out why the public liked him in the first place (competence and command of brief; willingness to get into dog fights with the press), and start putting those two things back up front and centre with a much wider range of media appearances. I agree with MK that he should be going on all the long form podcasts and shows that will have him, and he should be going on CNN and other hostile media and having arguments with them on their turf (as Vivek did, very well).
Interesting insight. Seems like the strategy RFK is pursuing on the other side.
Agreed, the MK interview was quite good, and his point within it that it’s still early is well-taken, there’s still time to grow his poll numbers. I happen to admire his laid-back approach to the question of charisma.
Interesting insight. Seems like the strategy RFK is pursuing on the other side.
Agreed, the MK interview was quite good, and his point within it that it’s still early is well-taken, there’s still time to grow his poll numbers. I happen to admire his laid-back approach to the question of charisma.
I was of the same opinion (DeSantis is a bit of a charisma-vacuum …a fun-sponge, if you will) but I saw him on Megyn Kelly’s podcast last week and I must say, he was a lot, lot more likeable in that longer format.
Megyn made comments to the effect that he should be doing a lot more of these long form interviews, as he is actually knowledgeable and coherent on a range of topics and the public aren’t really seeing that right now. I’d have to agree, based on how much better he came off in the MK interview vs how he’s come across in his lacklustre campaign so far.
It will be interesting to see if his campaign architects can figure out why the public liked him in the first place (competence and command of brief; willingness to get into dog fights with the press), and start putting those two things back up front and centre with a much wider range of media appearances. I agree with MK that he should be going on all the long form podcasts and shows that will have him, and he should be going on CNN and other hostile media and having arguments with them on their turf (as Vivek did, very well).
Charismatic leaders in a polarised society; what a topic! To transition peacefully from the polarised state to a more unified state (surely something we can all agree on), might not be achieved by a big, attractive personality, but just happen through social forces silently working within. How long can a country survive in a constant state of mutual hatred but still function efficiently? Perhaps we will just have to endure a little chaos, until even the crazies on both sides are forced against their most deeply held stupidities, into something resembling a society working to everyone’s mutual benefit. Pragmatism over ideology!
Sensible post, but the schism in the US makes this unachievable. Various Trumpers want to secede from the US union, not have a more unified state. And too many on both sides get off on mutual hatred. Simple people prefer charisma over policies and prefer the adrenalin of feelings over the perceived tedium of pragmatism.
Is it any wonder why some people would want to secede when half the country is being vilified as “deplorables” or accused of being domestic terrorists by the one who promised to bring back civility and unity? The bumper stickers that read, “not my President” were printed after the founder of the internet, Al Gore (D) lost a few elections ago.
The other half are being vilified as some commie death squad in favor of pedophilia and genital mutilation surgery for children. Are the Jan. 6th Rioters–whatever your opinion of their wild, deliberate act–half the country? Are the most extreme trans-rights online cancel-crowd the other half?
I’m certainly well to the middle of both extreme wings, and so are a strong majority of all American voters…and should remain so as we don’t let younger teenagers or felons still incarcerated/on probation have the vote too.
The other half are being vilified as some commie death squad in favor of pedophilia and genital mutilation surgery for children. Are the Jan. 6th Rioters–whatever your opinion of their wild, deliberate act–half the country? Are the most extreme trans-rights online cancel-crowd the other half?
I’m certainly well to the middle of both extreme wings, and so are a strong majority of all American voters…and should remain so as we don’t let younger teenagers or felons still incarcerated/on probation have the vote too.
Is it any wonder why some people would want to secede when half the country is being vilified as “deplorables” or accused of being domestic terrorists by the one who promised to bring back civility and unity? The bumper stickers that read, “not my President” were printed after the founder of the internet, Al Gore (D) lost a few elections ago.
Thanks for your sensible post. I would only stipulate that pragmatism should be tempered with understanding & generosity of spirit, of the mutual sort you emphasize.
Sensible post, but the schism in the US makes this unachievable. Various Trumpers want to secede from the US union, not have a more unified state. And too many on both sides get off on mutual hatred. Simple people prefer charisma over policies and prefer the adrenalin of feelings over the perceived tedium of pragmatism.
Thanks for your sensible post. I would only stipulate that pragmatism should be tempered with understanding & generosity of spirit, of the mutual sort you emphasize.
Charismatic leaders in a polarised society; what a topic! To transition peacefully from the polarised state to a more unified state (surely something we can all agree on), might not be achieved by a big, attractive personality, but just happen through social forces silently working within. How long can a country survive in a constant state of mutual hatred but still function efficiently? Perhaps we will just have to endure a little chaos, until even the crazies on both sides are forced against their most deeply held stupidities, into something resembling a society working to everyone’s mutual benefit. Pragmatism over ideology!
It’s not an obsession with charisma. It’s relief and enthusiasm at finally having a Republican leader (flaws and all) who is willing to go full-bore in the absolutely crucial struggle against opponents who are willing to use censorship (formal and informal) and government power in their drive to normalize men in drag interacting with children, schools sabotaging the authority of parents, a “news” media that has gone far, far beyond ordinary bias into the realm of flat-out dishonest agitprop, and radical environmental panic leading to a catastrophic shutdown of prosperous western modernity. Cultural conservatives rightly understand that this is probably their last chance to save the country as it has always existed before the great silence of mandatory compliance descends.
It’s not an obsession with charisma. It’s relief and enthusiasm at finally having a Republican leader (flaws and all) who is willing to go full-bore in the absolutely crucial struggle against opponents who are willing to use censorship (formal and informal) and government power in their drive to normalize men in drag interacting with children, schools sabotaging the authority of parents, a “news” media that has gone far, far beyond ordinary bias into the realm of flat-out dishonest agitprop, and radical environmental panic leading to a catastrophic shutdown of prosperous western modernity. Cultural conservatives rightly understand that this is probably their last chance to save the country as it has always existed before the great silence of mandatory compliance descends.
RDS is Florida, not held in high esteem across the USA. Boris, Blair, Trump and Farage have charisma, like them or not. The Biden supporterati have no time for charisma, they prefer to work via commissar and propaganda. Who in our Labour world would back Starmer if charisma was an issue?
Not sure if you coined it but “supporterati” is quite good. The much farther-left Bernie Sanders has a version of charisma that he displayed while vying for the nomination, but his was more sustained intensity and shouting, without the Trumpy humor that many find funny in DJT (I occasionally do). I’d say Trump, Obama, Clinton, and Reagan are the presidents during my lifetime (since 1971) that had noteworthy charisma. And in lesser measure GWB, who squeaked it out vs. Al Gore the monotone wooden man.
Not sure if you coined it but “supporterati” is quite good. The much farther-left Bernie Sanders has a version of charisma that he displayed while vying for the nomination, but his was more sustained intensity and shouting, without the Trumpy humor that many find funny in DJT (I occasionally do). I’d say Trump, Obama, Clinton, and Reagan are the presidents during my lifetime (since 1971) that had noteworthy charisma. And in lesser measure GWB, who squeaked it out vs. Al Gore the monotone wooden man.
RDS is Florida, not held in high esteem across the USA. Boris, Blair, Trump and Farage have charisma, like them or not. The Biden supporterati have no time for charisma, they prefer to work via commissar and propaganda. Who in our Labour world would back Starmer if charisma was an issue?
The notion that Biden is “doing a good job as President” betrays a willful ignorance of his cognitive capacity. Biden is scarcely able to finish a sentence unassisted, let alone run the most powerful administration in the world. Anyone who gets their news outside the Democrat news bubble fully understands what is going on here. The Biden administration is run by a hard left cabal which deliberately operates from the shadows. They like it that they can blame horrible optics on good ol’ Joe Biden’s senior moments.
The truth is that Democrats desperately want to run against Trump, the one man who can be disqualified in the minds of all independent voters, and their media allies will do anything to crush any Republican alternative. “No charisma” is just another example of mud-slinging to achieve that end.
The notion that Biden is “doing a good job as President” betrays a willful ignorance of his cognitive capacity. Biden is scarcely able to finish a sentence unassisted, let alone run the most powerful administration in the world. Anyone who gets their news outside the Democrat news bubble fully understands what is going on here. The Biden administration is run by a hard left cabal which deliberately operates from the shadows. They like it that they can blame horrible optics on good ol’ Joe Biden’s senior moments.
The truth is that Democrats desperately want to run against Trump, the one man who can be disqualified in the minds of all independent voters, and their media allies will do anything to crush any Republican alternative. “No charisma” is just another example of mud-slinging to achieve that end.
“Biden, whatever one thinks of him, has been a significant president with some important achievements to his name. He succeeded in passing a massive infrastructure bill and an “Inflation Reduction Act” which will allocate unprecedented sums to fight climate change.”
Pffft! Anyone who could write these two sentences has nothing whatsoever of interest to say…
There is too much of this plodding, blandly orthodox dim-wittedness coming out of Unherd lately. I might as well turn on the BBC or read the grauniad. *shivers*
“Biden, whatever one thinks of him, has been a significant president with some important achievements to his name. He succeeded in passing a massive infrastructure bill and an “Inflation Reduction Act” which will allocate unprecedented sums to fight climate change.”
Pffft! Anyone who could write these two sentences has nothing whatsoever of interest to say…
There is too much of this plodding, blandly orthodox dim-wittedness coming out of Unherd lately. I might as well turn on the BBC or read the grauniad. *shivers*
Excuse me, but this is condescending nonsense. Yes, Trump was illegally and unfairly targeted by sinister Leftists in the government. Yes he did some good in office. But that doesn’t make him a decent person like DeSantis. If Trump runs, he will lose because so many Republicans are so disgusted with his relentless narcissism. Whatever support he had after his disgraceful performance on Jan. 6 leaked away from he lost the Senate.
Excuse me, but this is condescending nonsense. Yes, Trump was illegally and unfairly targeted by sinister Leftists in the government. Yes he did some good in office. But that doesn’t make him a decent person like DeSantis. If Trump runs, he will lose because so many Republicans are so disgusted with his relentless narcissism. Whatever support he had after his disgraceful performance on Jan. 6 leaked away from he lost the Senate.
i really thought desantis was going to be The Man. Then, someone let him off the lead, and, he’s broken that possibility.
what strange turn it’s been since he led florida out of covid.
i really thought desantis was going to be The Man. Then, someone let him off the lead, and, he’s broken that possibility.
what strange turn it’s been since he led florida out of covid.
DeSantis is not charismatic. I know a journalist in Tampa who has been an astute observer of Florida politics for decades. He said DeSantis was the worse campaigner he’d seen in his career; DeSantis’ opponent in the last election, Charlie Crist, he regarded as one of the best campaigners in Florida politics; however, DeSantis won by twenty points. If DeSantis flails now I’d suggest the reasons are that dearth of charisma; the ability of Trump to suck all the oxygen out of the room via his ‘charisma’; lack of experience running a national campaign; and the fact that the Dems and the media regard DeSantis the way German u-boats regarded allied shipping during the war.
DeSantis is not charismatic. I know a journalist in Tampa who has been an astute observer of Florida politics for decades. He said DeSantis was the worse campaigner he’d seen in his career; DeSantis’ opponent in the last election, Charlie Crist, he regarded as one of the best campaigners in Florida politics; however, DeSantis won by twenty points. If DeSantis flails now I’d suggest the reasons are that dearth of charisma; the ability of Trump to suck all the oxygen out of the room via his ‘charisma’; lack of experience running a national campaign; and the fact that the Dems and the media regard DeSantis the way German u-boats regarded allied shipping during the war.
Disagree.