The Difference Between Being Qualified and Being a Good Candidate
Politics is the ultimate merit-based competition. We expect candidates to talk about the issues and have positions on substantive concerns. We’re contemptuous of distractions and nonsense controversy. We tell ourselves that the best candidates are the most qualified.
We are deluding ourselves.
Being qualified is actually a completely separate quality from being a good candidate.
The most recent presidential election is a perfect example of this.
Hillary Clinton, love her or hate her, was qualified. She had policy experience from when she was First Lady and even more from holding the position of Secretary of State under President Obama. She’s been in the public sphere most of her adult life and can hold a discourse on just about any major issue.
She is also a terrible candidate.
She was unlikable and couldn’t energize crowds. She didn’t generate nearly the same amount of energy as her primary opponent, Senator Sanders, or her general opponent, Donald Trump. Her talking style was dry and not compelling. Plus, she carried with her the baggage of previous elections and a polarizing persona.
Bernie Sanders’s qualifications were questionable. He has served as a senator for many years, but had little practical experience beyond that. His lack of foreign policy experience, in particular, was glaring in many of the debates.
He was a good candidate.
He was very likable and drew huge crowds to rallies when he was the long-shot candidate basically rounding out the field. He was compelling and had a charisma that built an incredible base of support in the complete absence of any party buy-in. His near-win in the primary was a testament to how good of a candidate he was. The widespread belief that the party was actively undermining him and thus robbed him of a primary win is additional evidence of his strong base.
Donald Trump was entirely unqualified. He had never held any public office or participated in any activity even remotely resembling governance. He touted his business credentials, but he had declared bankruptcy several times, been investigated for fraud, and had a laundry list of personal complaints against him.
He was also a good candidate.
He had experience from TV of how to energize people and tell them what they wanted to hear to get ratings. He connected with people and convinced them that he could deliver what they wanted. He was able to see beneath the surface to hidden urges and brought them to the surface to create a base comprised of zealots who will ignore anything in their support.
What makes a good candidate?
A good candidate is someone who has a good chance of winning an election. This can come from several qualities. Being qualified professionally (having a good resume) is only one of them. Often, it is the least important.
We want our candidates to be likable. President George W Bush’s win over John Kerry, arguably the more qualified candidate, is another example. Voters cited his open and friendly manner in why they voted for him. They felt that Bush, someone who grew up fabulously rich, was just like them and understood them. Kerry, by contrast, was described as “wooden” and “detached.”
We want our candidates to be someone we could hang out with, get a drink with, talk to casually. Or at least appear to be that kind of person.
That illusion, that a candidate is an ordinary person just like us, is so crucial that hopefuls for elected office use all sorts of tricks to create it. From rolled-up shirtsleeves to word choice, consultants make a lot of money to give us the false image of a regular joe. All so we’ll vote for their boss.
We tell ourselves that we want qualified candidates, but we don’t vote for them in the face of someone who pulls at our emotional strings.
Unless a candidate is the total package, they have an uphill battle against anyone who can put on the right face.
It’s a sad fact, but it’s true. Democracy is ultimately a popularity contest and nobody likes the smartest kid in the class.
Unless that kid is also charismatic.
