Another Problem With "Personality"

Ann Hulbert notes some new research on power and empathy (more here) and remarks:

Volunteers who were made to feel like top dogs, in contrast to those who were primed to recall situations of powerlessness, very quickly lost the capacity to see things from other people's perspectives. [...] Here may be another reason that the same candidates who are so exquisitely attuned to the views of others while they're desperately chasing votes become more blinkered once they're in office-and a reason that toughness can eclipse sensitivity in the front-runner in the race, regardless of gender. [...] The result, as the researchers observe, is a paradox: The very quality that often draws us to support leaders-their ability to see beyond themselves-is all too likely to fade once we've anointed them.

The paradox, though, goes away if you stop trying to find politicians who appear personally sympathetic to the plight of people in need and start trying to find politicians who are politically committed to a policy agenda that will help needy people. I have no idea whether or not there's a gap between the degree to which poverty makes John Edwards sad and the degree to which it makes Fred Thompson sad. The gap between Edwards' policy agenda and Thompson's, by contrast, is both clear and large.

Similarly, Mike Huckabee gives all indication of being a dramatically more caring human being than his GOP antagonists. He talks about the plight of the working class and seems to believe it. His record in office, though, shows a history of policies that are only very slightly heterodox. On the campaign trail, he's outlined two significant heterodox positions. One, on immigration, is something I'm pretty close to his policy views, but where his policy views are also those of the business community. His other big heterodox idea, a national retail sales tax, is stupid and incredibly regressive. And that's what you need to know.

The fact that the relevant sort of personality traits are malleable is another interesting indicator along these lines. Obtaining high political office is precisely the sort of thing that's likely to "change people" in various ways. Someone's degree of personal empathy just isn't a very good guide to anything about how they would govern.

Comments

At most, the policies are accoutraments to the person running. If they are on the right they wear a certain kind of polciy uniform: low taxes, family, judges, military. On the left they wear another: poor people, diplomacy, global warming, social programs. You have to wear these uniforms just like you have to wear a dark suit and solid clor tie, or roll up the sleeves of your white shirt while shaking hands with the masses, or the voters won't see you as a politician.

Posted by cw | November 27, 2007 11:30 AM

Well, it's marginally better than the "I'd like to have a beer with him" standard, which gave us the current situation.

Posted by SP | November 27, 2007 11:42 AM

Like to have a beer with him? He's an alcoholic. Your chance of having a beer with him was the same as going horseback riding with him. His public persona had nothing do with his actual personality, which was available to anyone who wanted to know it: lazy, incurious, cowardly, impatient, cruel, and self-centered. What more about him did anyone need to know, than 'please don't kill me'?

I believe that the personalities of the candidate and his or her top advisors are more important than the issues. You want quick-witted, brave, curious, patient, hardworking, empathetic, big-hearted, emotionally stable people. Specific policy prescriptions are secondary.

Posted by bloix | November 27, 2007 11:57 AM

His public persona had nothing do with his actual personality, which was available to anyone who wanted to know it: lazy, incurious, cowardly, impatient, cruel, and self-centered. What more about him did anyone need to know, than 'please don't kill me'?

Meanwhile, in virtually every comment thread involving Huckabee, someone has to point out how he seems to be a genuinely nice guy for a change. What more about him does anyone need to know, other than "Wayne Dumond," and the way Huckabee has borne false witness about the circumstances? Plus ça change...

Posted by mds | November 27, 2007 12:09 PM

Keep spouting the same old criticisims. Until someone can actually come up with something NEW and TRUE to nail him with, Huckabee will continue to surge.

These criticisms did not keep him from office twice as governor..and they already start to feel old now. The more often they are said...the more often he laughs them off with FACTS to justify his decisions, the more powerless they become to change the situation.

Mike Huckabee has pretty much a 100 percent retention of support once folks get pass the garbage to the man and the message, and his grassroot support are fighting most of the ground battle for him and winning more converts to his cause, if the polls reflect accurately.

For better or worse, the reality is, the average non politicised American wants that "I can have a beer with him feeling" with someone who will hold their future in their hands.. (Witness the rise of Edwards last cycle)

If you don't like Huckabee's policies, then drum up someone with his temperament and the policies you do like. You probably can't..because the policies that reinforce the elites, will NEVER go over warm and fuzzy with the masses.

If there is even a 50 percent chance that he'll deliver what he promises, folks will support him over the plastic elitists or radical elements that are the remaining choice.

Posted by Rensen | November 27, 2007 1:11 PM

Huckabee's policies seem to me to be pretty much just 95% of the standard republican policy set. Neither party has any really radical new policies that they are going to talk about. Of course they all probably have covert policies that they want to impliment. Some examples from the current admin turned out to be getting rid of SS, invading Iraq, carving out new powers for the presidency. I don't know what the dem covert policies might be becasue they are still covert. The point is, candidates want to appeal to the largest number of people possible (in the general at least) and so their policies are going to be pretty tame and or vauge.

I always say that I would vote for the right republican, but that has never happened. In the end I just vote democratic. I know, in some vauge way, that their philosophy is closer to mine. The rest is a crap shoot.

Posted by cw | November 27, 2007 2:05 PM

Oh, great, so now the locust swarm of Ron Paul drooling ignoramuses is going to be replaced with the locust swarm of Huckabee drooling ignoramuses? Shit, Mr. Yglesias, better just destroy your hard drives now. Take your cue from Huck's treatment of government computers on his way out of office.

Posted by mds | November 27, 2007 2:30 PM

"You want quick-witted, brave, curious, patient, hardworking, empathetic, big-hearted, emotionally stable people."

Good luck finding a politician with any of those characteristics.

You want somebody with those characteristics, vote for Angelina Jolie, Jodie Foster or Andrea Corr.

(Well, "emotionally stable" might be an issue for any of those, but otherwise...)

The reality is that what the public wants is an alpha male - and alpha males rarely have any of those qualities, with the possible exception of "brave" (as long as they're "leading the mob", anyway.)

The reality is that you don't know ANY politician's (or celebrity's) personality unless you've spent time with them in an off-the-record setting or at least read sufficient interviews with them and their close acquaintances that their off-the-record attitudes and opinions can be deciphered.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 27, 2007 5:53 PM

Excellent point, mds. I will return to exclusive discussion of Guiliani and Romney. Sorry for the disruption.

Posted by gjoe | November 30, 2007 5:29 PM