Opinions | Columnists
The case for charisma
It is more than just having a way with words and an attractive face.
- By Warren Bennis and Andy Zelleke, The Christian Science Monitor
- Published: 00:30 February 29, 2008
Among this season's presidential candidates, Barack Obama has clearly had the edge when it comes to that magical quality known as charisma. Pundits of every political stripe have commented on Obama's "rock-star quality". After meeting him, even the most jaded political reporters have been known to report that he is something rare and special, the heir to such charismatic predecessors as John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
In each generation, a few public figures come along who have a personal magnetism that makes strangers care deeply about them. Call it star power, call it charisma, this infrequent gift is akin to the power that great actors have.
When charismatic politicians such as Obama speak, they are able to turn a room full of strangers into a community rich in shared meaning, just as a great actor creates such a community within a theatre. Whether such rock-star politicians talk about change or healthcare policy, they articulate a vision that those in the audience quickly make their own.
Charismatic leaders and their followers are interdependent; they feed and energise each other. The transformational leader gives the audience hope and makes it believe that, together, they can create a better future. Winston Churchill was a charismatic leader in this sense, as was Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
Acting ability is an aspect of leadership in every arena, from the playground to the board room. But it is absolutely essential in national politics, where the only contact the average voter has with the candidate or office holder is almost always filtered through the media. Professional training isn't necessary, but only those who can act can succeed on television or the other visual media.
In the first televised presidential debate, in 1960, the camera loved JFK's ease as much as it hated Richard Nixon's flop sweat and stage fright. In the current campaign, the camera's favourite is clearly Obama.
Choosing a president has never been a more serious matter, and some will question whether a candidate's personal charisma really matters. Isn't charisma something relatively trivial, akin to, say, a nice head of hair and a bit of charm?
No. We firmly believe that the charismatic leader's unique capacity to inspire should not be undervalued. Before they pick America's 44th president in November, voters should give great weight to what a candidate with charisma would bring to the table.
Dangerous demagogues
But doesn't history caution against putting faith in a charismatic leader? True, some of history's worst villains - Adolf Hitler, of course, springs to mind - have been dangerous demagogues with a stranglehold on their public's fears and aspirations, which they have abused for their own wicked, self-aggrandising schemes.
A far more mundane disappointment in charismatic individuals is that they sometimes reveal themselves to have been smooth-tongued empty suits without the capacity to deliver results. Not evil, simply not especially good, in practice, at getting things done - "all hat, no cattle," as President Bush might put it. This is the centre of gravity of the charge that Hillary Clinton has made about Obama.
In Obama, we see unusually strong character and good temperament - thus negligible risk of demagoguery. But yes, even voters who find him spellbinding are well advised to satisfy themselves about his (and any candidate's) character.
A charismatic leader could break through the prevailing orthodoxy that the nation is permanently divided into red and blue states and condemned to bitter partisanship, and build a broader sense of community, with a compelling new vision.
He or she could persuade the alienated to set aside their cynicism, engage with public life, and sacrifice for their country. Such a president could do what JFK did a generation ago and galvanise young people to serve their country and themselves by confronting such seemingly intractable problems as failing schools, poverty, disease, and climate change. Looking abroad, such a leader could restore the high standing the United States once had in the world, not because of its wealth but because of its moral stature.
The election of a charismatic president might help counter images of America as invader and occupier and replenish the country's woefully depleted stock of "soft power."
Warren Bennis is distinguished professor of management at the University of Southern California and coauthor, most recently, of "Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls." Andy Zelleke is lecturer in public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and co-director of its Centre for Public Leadership.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Jobs vital to global recovery
Higher unemployment reduces purchasing power and revenues
-
Afghan people hold key to civil society
Besides stamping out corruption, the Karzai government must evolve new frameworks
-
Europe opts for the quiet life
The new leader of the European Council got his job because he's a technocratic choice
