The It Factor

During a presidential election year, it is more important than ever to consider which factors influence how individuals vote. One critical trait, often overlooked, plays a significant role in the election: charisma. Defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a gift or power of leadership or authority. Hence, the capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiasm,” it is difficult to identify the exact characteristics which comprise charisma. Two elements often noted, however, are the degree to which voters relate to a candidate and the extent to which a candidate inspires passion and excitement in voters.

Many Americans feel that the president’s most important role is to influence policy. This begs the question: do presidents most effectively shape policy through a deep wealth of knowledge or through a strong sense of charisma? Furthermore, in the eyes of many, the president’s most critical job is to unite the people of the United States. For this, charisma is paramount. Americans want to vote for a president with whom they connect and who inspires a sense of bright optimism for the future. Often critics denote this inclination as ignorance, asserting that voters have a responsibility to research the policies of each candidate and vote based solely on hard facts and tangible evidence of presidential experience. This, however, is not the only way to cast a meaningful and informed vote. Ultimately each voter’s view of the presidential office and its purpose determines the right decision for him or her.

This concept of the more charismatic candidate winning the election is by no means a new one but is sometimes overlooked, as charisma often influences voters subconsciously. This can be seen in voters’ tendency towards the most relatable candidate. This is a natural response because most Americans view the president as their representative, and thus feel best represented by an individual of similar background. For example, an impoverished individual feels that a candidate who has experienced poverty is more likely to take actions that benefit him than a candidate who had a wealthy upbringing. Despite claims of superficiality, charisma can be a perfectly legitimate factor in casting a vote for president. In fact, increased awareness of the significance of charisma will help voters make a more authentic and informed decision about the two candidates in this year’s presidential election. Once charisma is accepted as a legitimate factor, voters can consciously evaluate each candidate based on his or her personality and relatability.

Charisma has played a critical role in the 2012 election. Barack Obama is often cited as one of the most charismatic presidents in recent history, but what is it about Obama that inspires such passion in voters, and can Mitt Romney compete in this sphere? For Obama it is a combination of his relatable background, personable nature, and amiable reputation as a family man. As a product of a poor upbringing and his story of truly self-made success, many Americans relate to Obama. Furthermore, he has successfully “opened” up his life to the American people by sharing selected stories from his youth with the nation. He is even the author of a personal memoir. Romney, by contrast, was raised in a wealthy family and has spent his life as a corporate executive. For the majority of Americans, this lifestyle is not particularly familiar. The image the public conjures up is also primarily a product of that candidate’s campaign. All who know Romney personally, for example, argue that he is equally dedicated to work and family, yet this has been conveyed much less successfully to voters. A serious attempt at humanization was made by the Romney campaign in his recent speech at the Republican National Convention as he shared stories about his parents as well as his faith. Could this new approach lead to an increase in the polls for Romney? Should it? These answers are yet to be seen.