The Real Reasons Why John Kerry Lost
Written by Anthony Stahelski
Thursday, December 02, 2004
In the post-mortem analysis of the 2004 presidential election pundits have concluded that George W. Bush won and John Kerry lost because Republicans are perceived as strong on moral values and fighting terrorism, and Democrats are perceived as weak.
This conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but it ignores the 50-year history of televised presidential elections. There have been 14 presidential elections since 1952, the beginning of the television age. In 13 of those 14 elections the candidate perceived to be emotionally ''warmer'' (more caring and empathetic) and ''closer'' (more similar) to the common people has beaten the emotionally colder and less similar candidate, regardless of party affiliation. The only exception was in 1968, when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey, who was saddled with defending a very unpopular war.
Eight of the 13 elections were won by Republican candidates, and 5 were won by Democrats. Apparently Republicans are somewhat more successful in fielding candidates who are perceived to have the empathetic ''common touch,'' despite being the presumed party of the rich elite. Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush II are the best examples of these candidates.
Democrats seem to have fewer candidates with the common touch, despite being the presumed party of common folks. In fact, Democrats frequently field candidates who are perceived to be out of touch intellectual elitists, such as Stevenson, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. When Democrats counter their elitist tendencies and field candidates who have the ability to connect with common people, such as Carter in 1976 and Clinton, they win. When Republicans field candidates who lack the common touch, such as the 1960 version of Nixon, Ford, Bush I in 1992, or Dole, they lose.
It can be concluded that Americans want a president who at least seems to be one of them. They want a president who understands and cares about their problems and actually participates in activities that they enjoy. Most Americans are not intellectuals, and therefore they are suspicious of highly educated, articulate individuals. These individuals, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as uncaring elitists and as out of touch with common people.
There is a relation between ''common touch'' presidential candidates and the moral-values issue that analysts concluded was the deciding factor in this election. Polls consistently show that most Americans have one of two basic beliefs: They believe in God, or, they have a simple patriotic belief in the goodness of America. Many Americans have both of these beliefs. Therefore, part of a candidate's appeal to the common person is the sincere profession of religious beliefs in a patriotic context, and the moral behavior that corresponds to those beliefs.
This perhaps explains why intellectuals fair so poorly as presidential candidates. Most American intellectuals are trained in academic environments where secular humanism is the dominant philosophical orientation. Secular humanism focuses on humans and human progress. Many humanistically oriented intellectuals think that theological and nationalistic concerns (religion and patriotism) impede global human progress.
Consequently many intellectuals find beliefs in religion and patriotism naïve, antiquated, contemptible, and potentially dangerous. They also assume that those who do believe in God and country are stupid, ignorant, and in need of guidance from their intellectual betters. Most intellectuals either cannot or will not hide their disdain for common people. Since most common people are much smarter than intellectuals give them credit for, they can easily tell when an intellectually-oriented candidate is being disdainful of their core beliefs in religion and patriotism. Therefore candidates who are perceived to be secular humanist intellectuals are at a distinct electoral disadvantage compared to those candidates who are not so perceived.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently dominated by activists and financial contributors who think that intellectuals make good presidents. Consequently potential Democratic candidates who have the common touch and are perceived as non-intellectuals are eliminated in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton was the perfect Democratic candidate because he had the intellectual credentials to appeal to the activists that dominate the primaries and he had the common touch to be successful in the general election. However, candidates who have both sets of attributes are rare. If the Democratic Party wants to elect more presidents, Democrats may have to give up their love affair with intellectuals.
About the Writer: Anthony Stahelski is director of the Organization Development Program at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Washington. Anthony receives e-mail at stahelsa@cwu.edu. |
