A theory of presidential elections

Steven Warshawsky writes:

Here is an idea about presidential politics that, while simplistic, I believe has merit: The winning candidate tends to be the person perceived by voters as having the most virility. What do I mean by “virility” in this context? Not merely sexual power and attractiveness, but physical strength (and height), moral courage, reliability, “backbone”—someone whom voters perceive as the kind of person who works hard, supports his family, and is prepared to fight to protect his home from invaders and enemies. In other words, the candidate whom voters would most want as their father, husband, boss, and/or comrade-in-arms. Obviously, this theory only makes sense in the modern era of popular democracy and mass communications, and refers to subconscious influences on voters’ behavior. This theory also is relativistic in nature, that is, the issue is not where candidates fall on some absolute scale of virility, but how they compare to each other. While crude and subjective, I think this theory provides a useful perspective in assessing whether particular candidates are viable presidential material.

I think the theory helps explain the results of essentially every presidential election in the past three decades. (I don’t think it can explain primary results.) In each case, you can make a reasonable argument that the winning candidate displayed more virility than the losing candidate. Perhaps this is just retrospective rationalization, but I don’t think so. It’s much harder, I think, to argue persuasively that the losing candidate in these elections was the more “virile” of the two.

GW Bush clearly displayed more virility than Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. In 2000, most of the “leading indicators” pointed to a comfortable Gore victory. Didn’t happen. Perhaps the nadir of Gore’s “virility” was when feminist author Naomi Wolf advised him on how to be an “alpha male”—which confirmed that Gore wasn’t one. If Gore had displayed more virility than Bush, he would have won that election outright. On the other hand, Bill Clinton displayed more virility (albeit of an adolescent variety) than GHW Bush, Ross Perot, and Bob Dole in 1992 and 1996. In contrast to Clinton, Mike Dukakis was widely perceived as a wimpish intellectual, who lost the 1988 election when he stated during one of the debates (as I recall) that he would not support the death penalty, even for a man who raped and murdered his own wife. Ridiculous question, yes, but the answer demonstrated something important about Dukakis that the voters did not like. Reagan, of course, displayed much more virility than Carter and Mondale in 1980 and 1984. Carter-Ford in 1976 and Nixon-McGovern in 1972 are closer calls, but ultimately I think the winning candidate was the more virile of the two. And so on.

What are the implications for the theory in 2008?

First, the only viable Republican candidates are Giuliani and Romney. McCain is too old and, to put it bluntly, physically impaired. Thompson, despite having a younger wife (which I don’t think is a plus in his case), also comes across as too old and tired. Neither McCain nor Thompson display the strength and energy and confidence that Reagan exuded in 1980. Huckabee may be an increasingly popular choice for certain voters, but his public persona is much too nice of the “aw shucks” variety to be perceived by most voters as a virile leader. He’s not.

On the Democratic side, Edwards does not stand a chance. There apparently isn’t an ounce of virility in that man’s body. How wonderful it would be for Republicans if he were the nominee! Obama definitely displays more virility than Edwards, but he is handicapped by being too young and without any prior leadership experience. I’m not sure how his race factors into this analysis. After all, I think Colin Powell would have made a formidable presidential candidate. Powell exudes enormous virility of the type I’m talking about here. Obama, in my estimate, exudes some but not much. It does not help Obama that his wife comes across as a bit of a modern feminist shrew.

Then there is Hillary Clinton. Obviously, until 2008 there has never been a viable woman candidate for the White House. How does the virility theory apply to her, if at all? I’m not sure. But I believe she is in a very difficult position. I think she will turn off many voters if she comes across as too “virile”—i.e., masculine—but also will turn off many voters if she comes across as too feminine—which obviously is not her problem. I think the basic question is: Is Hillary someone whom most voters would want as a mother, wife, boss, and/or comrade-in-arms? Clearly, an emphatic no!

Once the patina of feminist icon and progressive politics is stripped away from Hillary, she is an extremely unattractive person. For this reason, among others, I believe—contrary to most “leading indicators” and most political prognosticators—that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, either Giuliani or Romney will defeat her in the general election. Hillary Clinton is not the right woman to become the first female president of the United States. Republicans should breathe a sigh of relief that at a time when their main candidates are flawed and uncompelling, the Democrats’ candidates are even worse.

LA replies:

I enjoyed reading Mr, Warshawsky’s theory, and I agree with its main drift, though I never thought of putting it specifically in terms of virility before. Like Mr. Warshawsky, I don’t look to opinion polls and politics to decide who I think will win, but to the candidates’ personal qualities. My own marker is, “Who looks the most presidential? Which candidate can I see in my mind’s eye as being president?” Virility will tend to be a component of that presidential quality, but is not necessarily the main component, and I wouldn’t want reduce that quality to virility per se.

Virility is connected with force and energy. In 2000, Gore had the most energy any presidential candidate has ever had, he was like a shark, he looked like Michael Corleone on steroids. (By the way, I strongly disagree with the view that Gore is boring or effeminate; I think this is an example of a conventional idea becoming fixed in the collective mind, and then people just keep repeating it mechanically and stop looking at what is in front of their eyes.) Gore was taller and better looking than Bush, he had more energy than Bush, he was obviously smarter than Bush, he was more confident than Bush and exuded a sense of chosenness. As for Bush, while he had risen to the moment in vanquishing McCain in South Caroline, he went into a kind of passive nowhere state for about a month after the GOP convention in late August. Everyone began to feel that Gore was favored, and I shared that view. Then in their first tv debate, Gore was this aggressive shark, and Bush was this bumbling and inarticulate figure. Yet I began to feel in the course of that debate that Bush would win. It wasn’t virility, it was that Bush, for all his relative lack of brains and energy, seemed like a regular guy while Gore seemed like some unreal energizer bunny. Now you could call Bush’s unassuming regular-guy quality “virility,” but I don’t think that’s the right word. So the decisive factor was not virility in and of itself, but some overall quality of being a plausible, normal human being.

Then take the decisive moment in the 1988 race, Dukakis’s response to Bernard Shaw’s outrageously disrespectful question whether Dukakis would still oppose the death penalty if wife were raped and murdered. I’ll never forget it. I was watching that debate in a motel room outside Toronto and the moment I saw Dukakis’s robotic clueless answer I knew with a thrill that he had lost the election. Then Shaw asked Bush a tough question (though not as much of a zinger as the question he had asked Dukakis), and Bush in an affable, joshing mode said, “Bernie, Bernie.” Bush came across like a regular guy with a sense of humor; Dukakis like a robotic technocrat. Did that make Bush more “virile”? “Virility” does not seem quite the right word here, though it’s in the neighborhood.

Then of course in 1992 Bush, who had shown lots of energy and desire to win in ‘88, was laid back and indifferent (even glancing at his watch with an effete gesture during one of the debates), and he lost. I wouldn’t call Clinton “virile” in the 1992 race, but Mr. W. nicely qualifies the description and it works: “Clinton displayed more virility (albeit of an adolescent variety)”…

That said, Mr. W’s account of the presidential races since 1972 seems correct to me.

- end of initial entry -

Charles T. writes:

Mr. Warshawsky has a valid argument.

The candidates are asking us to trust them with the leadership of the country. Their physical appearance and demeanor is as important as their words; especially in the television age. Even though most of us would protest that it is the positions of the candidates that are essentially important to us, if we are honest, we must also admit that we consider physical presence as much as the ability of the candidate to articulate their policies.

After seeing brief TV spots for Mr. Thompson yesterday and today, I remarked to my family that Thompson looks physically tired. It is common knowledge that he has had health problems in past years. Several years ago Thompson could have made a decent President. However, for this day and age, he does not look like someone who has the physical energy that is essential in leading the country in time of war.

Especially in time of war we want (need?) confident, physically imposing candidates who are capable of meeting challenges that threaten our survival.

Mark P. writes:

To add to the “virility” theory: Virility must seem natural, not manufactured. Gore’s virility was made. It was not something within him that just comes from him. It was the virility of a movie actor with way too many people propping him up.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 27, 2007 06:13 PM | Send