Читать книгу American Presidential Elections in a Comparative Perspective - Группа авторов - Страница 12

American elections allow the public to form an impression of those who may soon occupy the White House. An election is a time to evaluate candidates and discern the character of the person who might direct the destiny of the United States and affect the fortune of other countries. As Fred I. Greenstein put it, “the power of modern American presidents manifests itself in its purest form in the global arena, where their actions as commander in chief can determine the fate of human race.”²⁵ For many American citizens as well as for many in other countries, personal characteristics including honesty, decency, integrity, and reliability form the basic moral qualities any president should possess. They are considered prerequisites for good leadership. Scholars have found that for American voters, the candidates’ personal virtues are more important than their policy proposals. Lynn Vavreck argues that this was the case in 2016: coverage of the 2016 election focused more on the candidates’ personalities than on policy and ideas. In her analysis of campaign ads and news articles, the “criterion of fitness for office dominated the Clinton campaign’s messaging and made up a good share of the Trump messaging as well, and the news media covered it.”²⁶ Vavreck’s analysis point to not only how important personality is for Americans—and other people around the world—but also the sensationalism that dominates American media.

What is the main trait that Americans look for in a presidential contender? Paul J. Quirk argues that voters pay the most attention to two sets of qualities. First, they look for “interpersonal warmth, accessibility or likeability.” Second, they search for “personal morality—including virtues such as truthfulness, faithfulness, honesty, empathy and generosity.” In Quirk’s view, voters are concerned about presidential candidates’ personal attributes—and what are often called “character issues.”²⁷ Peggy Noonan, President Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter, once declared “the president’s character is everything. A president does not have to be brilliant; Harry Truman was not brilliant, and he helped to save Western Europe from Stalin. He does not have to be cleaver; you can hire clever…. But you can’t buy courage and decency; you can’t rent a strong moral sense.”²⁸

Presidential character has long been an important concern for political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists. James David Barber, in his classic book presidential character, argues that presidential personality is a central component and predictor of presidential behavior.²⁹ This is not the place to debate the virtues and shortcomings of Barber’s work.³⁰ Suffice to say that his and subsequent studies alert us of the relevance of considering the candidate’s character in decisions to cast a vote. Is this or that candidate qualified to be the president of the United States? Does he or she have the mental stability to properly conduct American affairs? Could the candidate’s personality candidate affect the conduct of American foreign and domestic affairs? Is the candidate a good fit for the office? These questions are not only in the minds of scholars, but also in the thoughts of the American citizens and people around the world.

In 2015 and 2016, Americans as well as observers from other countries were concerned about the knowledge, character and emotional fitness of the presidential contenders. They scrutinized the moral integrity of the aspirants, finding many areas for concern and only sporadic reassurance. They were bombarded almost every week with scandal, gossip, vulgarity, and dishonesty. One journalist called Hillary Clinton “rude dishonest, short-tempered and a pathological liar.”³¹ The New York Times described Donald Trump as person of “dangerous impulse and a cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics,” who conducted a campaign marked by “burst[s] of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism …”³² This was a contest not of attributes and policies but of scandals. Trump took first prize. He was caught on the now famous Access Hollywood video speaking in vulgar terms about women and declaring, “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”³³ Long before the revelation of the Access Hollywood video, an editorial in the Toronto Star declared that Trump “is not good news for anyone who cares about decency in American public life.”³⁴

Several contributors to this volume note how, in their respective countries, people were interested in the personality of the presidential contenders. They were shocked by the personality and character of the 2016 aspirants to the White House, but at the same time were entertained by the constant scandals. Some equated the contenders’ character or lack thereof with the moral decline of the United States. Seo and colleagues argue that the “drama of American presidential elections” has always “fascinated voters in [South] Korea.” Zhang Guoxi maintains that Chinese people were following the elections because of the drama presented by two “unconventional candidates and their never-ending scandals.” Many Chinese, he reports, considered the 2016 election more “intriguing, stirring, and even horrifying” than House of Cards. Luis Maira’s chapter describes former Chilean president Ricardo Lagos’s reaction to Trump’s election: “We never thought that anyone who spoke such barbarities [as Trump] could have the nomination of an American political party.” François Vergniolle de Chantal asserts that the controversial personality of Donald Trump provoked serious criticism of the United States in France. He describes the ways that Trump was ridiculed in a variety of media outlets and popular culture. Finally, Clive Webb sustains that for all of “its global significance, the election is also a political circus like no other and the British media offers audiences and readers the closest they can get to a front row seat.” He quotes Boris Johnson, former British foreign secretary, who averred that Trump’s “quite stupefying ignorance” rendered him “unfit for the office.” This was a position that Johnson was forced to qualify after the election.

For decades, American elections have often seemed to be as much about contenders as about politics and policies. In 2016, the candidates proved once again that sensationalism and outrageous statements attract voters. People around the world watch US presidential campaigns with curiosity and a sense of morbidity. Scandals, accusations, vulgar language, lies, insults, aggressions, sexual innuendos, unsubstantiated statements, ignorance, and intolerance became the lingua franca of the election. People offend each other, threaten each other, denigrate each other, and the media happily report it all. The 2016 presidential contest was, undoubtedly, the Jerry Springer show of American politics.