Column:

Obama and Reagan: more alike than not

By Charles Austin

Published April 8, 2008

Ask anyone why they back a particular candidate in this election and I can almost guarantee they’ll tell you something about how they agree on policy issues or that their candidate of choice has more political fortitude than the others.

There’s a chance this may be true, that their opinions are legitimately based on these things, but they probably aren’t. As much as we may hate to admit it for the sake of our own intellectual self-esteem, most of us don’t make decisions based purely on relevant political issues. We base a great deal of what we think of candidates on politically arbitrary characteristics such as personality and eloquence. This isn’t because it’s easier (though it is) and it isn’t because we’re just used to it (though we are). It’s simply because it’s human nature to gravitate toward likable individuals.

Stephen Colbert illustrated this point brilliantly in his interview with John Legend a few weeks ago. Stephen asked Legend why he backed Barack Obama, and all he could muster were vague statements about vague policies I’m sure could have been said of Hillary Clinton and been 100 percent true.

When I think about why I back Obama at this point, none of the reasons have anything to do with true policymaking decisions. The only differences in policy between Obama and Clinton that I can call to mind right now are almost insignificant, and in some cases I think Clinton’s policies might even be better.

But Barack Obama has consistently proved himself to be coherent, well spoken and rational. The fact that he seemed to be the only politician or pundit not in an uproar over his choosing not to wear an American flag lapel pin is reason enough to consider him a more levelheaded candidate the entire opposition. For all intents and purposes, I think his stance on wearing lapel pins has affected my opinion of him far greater than the ways in which his policies differ from Clinton’s.

Obama appeals to young people because of what he’s supposed to represent, not because of what he does politically or how his policies differ. As far as I can discern, his policies will not affect young people much differently from Clinton’s. Speaking in purely political terms, there’s absolutely no reason young people should like Obama over Clinton or, say, Chris Dodd.

The relevant difference is that he’s charismatic and intolerant of overt bullshit and pandering. What Hillary Clinton (and literally every Republican candidate) fails to realize at this point is that young people have wizened up to contrived interactions and phony displays of sympathy.

When Clinton embraces her youthful daughter before a suspiciously youthful crowd in overdramatic post-primary victory speeches, today’s cynical youth aren’t stupid enough to perceive this as some kind of genuinely spontaneous occurrence. We perceive it as a highly deliberate and pre-meditated attempt at creating an image. And when you obviously try to create an image, you polarize people’s views against you because they think you are being deceitful. And you probably are.

Politics have been about image for at least 30 years (if not since the dawn of democratic elections), and the politics of the 21st century still are, but if candidates want to win voters they need to be less theatrical and more straightforward.

Republicans spent an obscene amount of time in debates this past year comparing themselves to Ronald Reagan. If any candidate in this election is like Ronald Reagan, at least in terms of personality and social appeal, it’s Barack Obama. He’s charismatic, optimistic, and if he’s faking it then he’s doing a damn good job.