Essay: Personality politics

Weeks out from the 2017 General Election the Labour Party was staring down the barrel of its most devastating defeat to date. The July 22-27 One News Colmar Brunton polls showed Labour at an all-time low of 24% in the party vote, whilst simultaneously, Labour Leader, Andrew Little was sitting at 6% in the preferred Prime Minister vote. First, let us distinguish the cause of these poor results.
Some may argue that these dire results were due to a mixture of a strong government for the previous 9 years under National. The economy that National had driven had been steady with the 2017 Budget detailing increasing surpluses, a reduction in net debt and projected figures showing that the following 5 years would deliver an increase of 3.1% in real GDP Growth. Furthermore, National were making accommodations for social issues such as mental health and child welfare, whilst continuing with their Families Incomes Packages. Importantly, National also planned to implement tax cuts on 1 April 2018 that would give the average-earning Kiwi $15 more to spend every week. These actions would have all created significant political capital for National and would have meant swing Labour-National voters may have been likely to back the then-current government for their fourth consecutive term.
Others may suggest that poor policy and unbegun campaigning on Labour’s behalf was behind Labour’s shortcomings. Many viewed Labour’s policies as heavy on tax, which would hurt industries such as agriculture in New Zealand. This was reflected in the next few months when National released a “let’s tax this” negative campaign, which reinforced Labour’s focus on government intervention in the way of taxes. This may have turned off voters who were socially progressive but economically conservative. It is also important to note that Labour had not yet had its campaign launch meaning that public information surrounding Labour’s plans and promises in 2017 was not fully shared with New Zealand voters at this point. This is particularly relevant to a party in opposition as the public has not had the previous three years, as they would for a party in government, to get a substantial gauge as to the direction of the party’s policy.
On a more analytical note some analysts would concede that Labour was not in real terms in the position that the 24% figure may suggest due to the Green Party, who they would likely form a coalition with, having a high party vote percentage of 15%. Perhaps, some left-wing voters were simply switching allegiance on the same side of the spectrum with the hope that a Labour-led government would still be the outcome of the election.
Nevertheless, I think that the events of the next seven weeks in New Zealand politics showed that the crucial element to Labour’s low polling was the persona of their leader and how likeable the New Zealand public found them.
On 1 August 2017 Andrew Little, fearing a humiliating defeat in the upcoming election, stepped down as Labour leader and shortly after his resignation a vibrant, young and charismatic Jacinda Ardern became the captain of what was a sinking ship. Crucially at this point the country was seven weeks out from the election, which represents how risky and desperate a move this resignation was.
Kiwi’s seemed to instantly warm to Jacinda’s personality and felt as though she was clearly a far superior fit to the job of PM than Andrew Little. Within the following days of Jacinda taking the reins there were $500,000 of donations to Labour and a volunteer cohort of 3,500 New Zealanders joined the Labour party to support and further its cause.
Whether it was because of Jacinda’s positive attitude, her exuberant smile or the fact that she was young and relatable to many Kiwi’s, Jacinda from Morrinsville encapsulated a nation. The effect known as “Jacindamania” swept New Zealand and this was reflected in the polls where the One News Colmar Brunton poll (12-16 August) showed a 13% increase in Labour’s party support moving to 37% in the space of two weeks.
Jacinda represented a personality that New Zealand was yet to see in politics. The idea of her being an independent young woman attempting to make change for the better in a system that has historically been under represented with women gained traction with the media and many voters began to rethink their pre-conceived ideas about who they were going to vote for.
Notably, during the final seven weeks of Labour’s campaign New Zealander’s saw very little change other than a change in Labour leadership. Sure, Labour changed their slogan to “Let’s do this”, Labour tweaked its tax policy after National continued to apply political pressure and the Metiria Turei scandal continued to play out ultimately resulting in her resignation and a sharp drop in support for the Greens, but the core of the political stage stayed the same.
On election day Labour gained 36.9% of the total vote, which ultimately was sufficient to allow them to form a coalition government with the Greens and New Zealand First, despite the sinking ship with Little at the helm just seven weeks before the general election. It is therefore probable that a significant number of people who made up that 12.9% that switched to become Labour voters after a change in Labour leadership voted purely on the personality of the leaders of the major political parties and in particular that of Jacinda Ardern. This is personality politics.
Tangibly personality politics generally looks like politicians trying to make themselves look more relatable or appealing to the everyday voter, through avenues detached from their policy , in the hope that this voter will warm to them and tick the relevant box in the election. This point about forgotten policy is at the heart of what personality politics is as whilst it has been common for voters to use mainly the policies or party manifestos that a politician ascribes to in order to decide whom to vote for, in the world of personality politics such ideas play a far less significant or even non-existent role. One of the main roles of a politician is to enact policy and political ideas, whilst in power, which is seen in New Zealand chiefly through our parliament passing bills and making them Acts of Parliament but also through the Budget, the establishment of investigations and working groups, and the relationships formed between the public and private sector to name a few ways in which policy and political ideology is put in place. However, the implication with personality politics is that the voter forgets about all or most of this and votes simply on the character and attributes of the politician standing for election.
I believe that this can be seen through three main avenues: the politician’s speech, the politician’s actions, and the personal ideology and characteristics of the politician. Throughout the rest of this chapter we will investigate each of these categories in turn paying specific attention to how they can affect a politician’s personality in the public eye.
I. Speech
Firstly, let us examine how what a politician says and how they say it, can impact voters’ opinions on the overall character or personality of the said politician.
Often politicians use language that every day voters use in order to intensify the image of them just being a normal person. Take Donald Trump for example who uses basic vocabulary and repeats his sentences to take the sophistication out of what he is saying and seem like an every-day American. I think that many people are no longer content with politicians using high-level vocabulary and ultimately confusing the voter or making the voter feel as though the politician thinks that they are superior to them. Analysts have suggested that Trump’s speeches are in line with a reading age that is between that of a year 4 and a year 8. To many Americans Trump seems like someone you could easily talk to as is speech is comprehendible, which means that people are far more likely to warm to him as a person. Furthermore, Trump, like many other politicians, uses catchphrases, which he repeats and emphasises with vigour to enforce his message and make it memorable. Phrases such as “build a wall” and “make America great again” have become well known within the household, which whether we support them or not shows some success on the part of Trump’s speech. Notice how these phrases are simple and monosyllabic meaning that anyone whether they are a university graduate or a high school dropout can understand his speech. This further builds on Trump’s image of being an everyday American who is here for the people as people can take away simple messages from his speeches without struggling to understand what he is talking about.
As well as this, many politicians change their style of delivery in order to emphasise a certain aspect of their personality. Even a speech with excellent content, vocabulary, and messages has the ability to be ineffective without delivery. Some of the greatest speeches of all time are remembered for the vigour and passion with which the orator delivered their messages. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech would not have been nearly as compelling if it was not for his excellent pace, expression and inextricable passion for what he was advocating for. It is evident to most people simply from the tone of one’s voice and one’s delivery how much someone actually cares about the issues that they are talking about. A display of a certain characteristic within a politician’s speech is likely to be seen as an attribute, which this politician possesses not only upon addressing and talking about one specific issue but, which is part of who they are as a person. For example, Jacinda Ardern uses intonation, and a passionate but calm tone, which more broadly reflects on her image as a ‘different’ politician as the vibrancy with which she speaks is not common in most politicians. Conversely, Donald Trump speaks loudly, brashly and often very authoritatively, which contributes to his persona of someone, who strives to ‘get things done’ in government and is a hard-line politician. Voters are influenced by these aspects of the politician’s delivery as they use it as an indicator as to the greater personality of the politician.
Clearly speech is vital to shaping a politician’s personality for two main stakeholders.
Firstly, those people who take the time to attend rallies, conventions, and debates can gain a better understanding of the politician’s character, through the politician’s content and delivery. Events such as rallies are less common in New Zealand ,however, audiences of the political debates that are held prior to general elections are a good example of this stakeholder. As these voters get to see the politician speak in the flesh it is likely that this speaker may be more compelling and charismatic than one previously thought, and so this experience may significantly change the voters’ perspectives on the politician’s personality. However, I think that it is important to note that in the case of rallies and conventions in countries such as the USA the people attending this event, to watch representatives of only one political party speak are likely already convinced of the fitness of the politician or party for office. The signs, large cheers of support, and sporting of merchandise or memorabilia advocating for specific candidates or political parties, would suggest that these voters are less likely to be on the fence and more likely to be your ‘die hard’ political supporter. Because of this one may argue that this stakeholder is often of little importance in respect to speech shaping how people view the character and personality of a budding public representative.
Secondly, voters who watch these events online, on television, or on the news are becoming increasingly important stakeholders. Seventy years ago there would have been no opportunity to live stream the Republican or Democratic convention in the USA or watch a political debate in New Zealand, but that has all changed. Now voters are able to see politicians speak from the comfort of their own home. Therefore, it is fair to say that this stakeholder is relatively novel. Nevertheless, unlike halls or stadiums which have a limited capacity, the number of people watching an event on television is unlimited and often significantly larger than the number at the event itself. In the lead up to the 2017 election over 1 million viewers watched channel three’s election debate between Jacinda Ardern and Bill English. Although the experience of these viewers may be slightly less authentic, they are still watching these representatives speak and are likely forming opinions as to the politician’s character from the vocabulary and style, which they maintain throughout the debate or event. Yes, many of the people watching these events will be interested in the policy of the politicians, but it is unfathomable that none of the viewers will either consciously or sub-consciously be swayed by the speech of the politician as to their personality and character. Speech plays such a large role in personality politics because language and communication with others is one of the most accessible avenues for every voter to explore. Some voters may not meet the politician or understand their policy but most will be able to, through the introduction of television and online streaming, hear a politician speak and form opinions based on that. One does not need a degree in political science to pick up the anger, passion, excitement, volume, or placidity (or the lack of these different tones and styles) in a politician’s voice and it is because of this and how we attribute nuances in one’s speech to their overall persona that speech is so integral to the construction of the perceived personality of a politician.
II. Actions
Secondly, politicians often act in certain ways in order to convey messages surrounding their personality, which are completely detached from their policy, to the voter. This can be seen in two main ways.
Firstly, one can analyse how politicians conduct themselves in the public eye by looking at their facial expressions, gestures, and emotions. Former Prime Minister Sir John Key was famous for using his “smile and wave” politics to attract voters and make him seem like a kind and personable politician. Key became a much-loved New Zealand politician, and many agree that his insatiable charisma heavily contributed to his success in three elections. A showing of emotion on behalf of the politician, such as a smile in Key and Ardern’s, can often make them seem more “human” to the average person on the street as the public no longer view them as policy robots but as people who have feelings just like themselves.
Although a show of positive emotion is clearly compelling in the cases outlined above, often a display of sorrow or sympathy can strike a chord at the heart of a voter. During the campaign for the 2008 Democratic Nomination in the United States, Hillary Clinton, whilst visiting a diner in New Hampshire, began to well-up when talking about how she “don’t want to see [the United States] fall backwards.” She addressed how difficult the campaign was and how she was trying to act in the best interests of the country, which allowed many voters to empathise with her and see her as a relatable woman trying to do extraordinary things. Consequently, Hillary later won the New Hampshire primary, despite losing the overall nomination, which shows the profound affect that a politician’s apparent hardship and, hence, personality can have on voters.
I think that when a politician shows vulnerability as Hillary did in New Hampshire the voter begins to see the character of the politician as more sincere or credible as we think that these emotions are instinctively real, and that the politician feels strongly about bringing about significant change in their electorate or country. From the perspective of a 15-year-old I think that this particular display of emotion resonates with youth. This is because we have seen far less of these types of emotional outbursts, so we have not yet been desensitised to these emotions. As well as this as children we are taught that expressing emotion is a good thing, whether it be in the form of sadness, happiness or anger, so we are naturally inclined to side with someone who acts in line with our former teachings.
Furthermore, humans of all ages are generally inclined to empathise with someone who is in a position of discomfort or strife. Whether it be supporting the ‘underdog’ in sporting fixtures or giving to charity altruistically, we do not like to see people suffer without having committed any significant wrongdoings. Hence, some registered Democrats in New Hampshire who were tossing up between Obama and Clinton, may have empathised with and possibly voted for Clinton because of this innate human desire to support those experiencing difficulty.
Secondly, let us interrogate how the type of actions committed by a politician can influence how we perceive their personality. I think that there are two broad categories of these actions: actions that create positive public image, and actions that create negative public image for the politician.
Doings of politicians that create positive public image for the politicians are generally calculated as well as being designed to gain significant media attention. This is because whilst shaking one person’s hand at a local park ay earn a politician one vote, the reporting of this hand shake and conversation may convince another 1000 people to vote for the politician. During the 2017 NZ general Election both Bill English and Jacinda Ardern visited shopping complexes around New Zealand to connect with voters. This tells voters first and foremost that this politician has the time for them and does not think that they are somewhat superior to the voter. Visiting people in a relaxed and casual environment such as a shopping mall also once again emphasises to the voter that the politician is no different to them self and so this politician is more likely to better represent who they are in parliament. This is particularly important as it is more likely for a politician to care about a certain group, class, or race, of people if they are a part of one of these groups. The voter may think that it would be unlikely for the politician to hurt “one of their own” whilst in power, which gives the voter relative security within society. Finally, these visits allow people to clearly see other aspects of the politician’s personality first hand, which helps people form their own character image of these politicians, based on which they may vote. For example, if John F. Kennedy had not mingled with the masses of small town America many would have not had an insight as to Kennedy’s charisma and presence. The importance of meeting with the public in public and informal spaces cannot be overstated for politicians promoting their personality and party ideology. As a result of this it is now extremely uncommon for a political campaign to be run without a significant amount of relaxed public gatherings, whether they be in shopping complexes, cafés, or even, in recent times, people’s homes.
On the other hand, we also need to consider actions committed by politicians that negatively influence their public image and how people view their personality. I think that often due to the nature of the media and the issues that the media focusses on, as I will address in a later chapter, these faults in the politician’s behaviour or morality are often the most publicised and are, hence, the most consequential for a politician’s public image.
In the 1988 US Presidential Democratic Nomination Senator Gary Hart was exposed by the media upon suggestion of Hart having extra-marital affairs. Such was sentiment towards this issue of infidelity at the time that, despite him being the frontrunner for the nomination, he withdrew himself from this race. Clearly Senator Hart recognised two important truths in this race. Primarily, that his actions had severely influenced the public’s perception of his personality due to the large stigma surrounding the matter in question. And secondarily, that people would likely change their votes based upon his character, to the degree that it would be unlikely that he would be competitive in such a race. Hart did re-enter the race but then months later pulled out again, such was his recognition of the political capital he had lost through his actions and through the process of tarnishing his public personality.
Nevertheless, it is also important to remember that sometimes the misdemeanours of politicians do not corrode their personality to the point of ending their political career. Look no further than the claims of sexual harassment from multiple women against Donald Trump brought to the press during the 2016 US presidential election campaign. The said claims, however, did not result in Trump’s withdrawal from the race for the Presidency and he eventually won the election reaching the Oval Office. Let us now analyse the reasons as to why Trump still succeeded in his election despite these claims of harassment. Firstly, I think that many of these claims would have not tarnished Trump’s character in the eyes of his voters. The justifications for this may have been numerous; however, I think that it is likely that many voters brought in to question the reliability of the claims and simply did not believe that Trump ever committed such acts. This would have been particularly likely as Trump often commented on the lack of trustworthiness in the media and the phenomenon of fake news. Secondly, I think that in the case that voters perceived these serious claims to be true they may not have been weighted heavily enough in the voters’ construction of the overall character of Donald Trump. They may have been prepared to effectually turn a blind eye to these actions due to other personality traits of Trump that they endorsed. Thirdly, a select group of voters may have diverged from the current trend of personality politics and still decided to vote for Trump in support of the Republican party’s and his policy rather than Trump’s personality.
Therefore, although in some cases politician’s actions that are immoral or showing a lack of judgement and correctness can destroy one’s personality and, hence, often their ability to get elected or re-elected there are also times when politicians survive these incidents and their political careers are not significantly impacted. The overall influence of one of the actions in question on a politician’s career can be affected by a variety of conditions, which include: the type of voter part of the said politician’s voter base, the current political climate, social standards or customs, the coverage of the media, and the character of the competitors. In Trump’s case I believe that the last conditions regarding the character of his competitors was possibly one of the most important in the eyes of his voters. This is because many of Trump’s voters bought into the narrative of Hillary Clinton also being immoral and of having committed numerous wrongdoings also. If this race had been between Trump and another politician with a less supposedly discoloured record than Clinton, I believe that many voters may have switched from backing Trump to supporting the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately, in the game of personality politics two wrongs can often make a right as the voter uses the seemingly abhorrent actions of one politician to excuse those of another politician.
III. Personal ideologies and character
Thirdly, it is important to contemplate how the personal ideologies and characteristics of politician’s can shape how people view their character. I think that this aspect of a politician’s personality held possibly even more significance in the eyes of the average-voter prior to the beginning of the 20th Century and the rise of the progressive movement; however, personal ideologies of politicians still remain relevant in politics today.
This facet of personality politics is possibly the least ethical out of the three avenues of judging a politician’s character as it involves discrimination based on aspects of the politician’s lives that are very difficult to change such as the religion, race, gender, and visual appearance of the politician. Unlike speech style and content, which can be learnt or edited, and the actions of politician’s, which are generally the result of conscious decisions, the personal ideologies and characteristics of politicians are usually either embedded in the politician or are physically difficult for them to change at will. Some may argue that because of this it is unjust for these aspects of a politician’s life to be considered when voting in an election. Nevertheless, many other people also think that a politician effectively buys into this public scrutiny and judgement when they enter the political sphere.
I think that we should start our analysis by looking at the topic of religion and how people can form judgements based on this as over time I think that this would have been one of the most significant determinants in the suitability of a politician in the eyes of the public. In most countries around the world one specific religion has dominated society or was the founding religion of that society. Hence, the public have generally seen it fit for their leaders to also have these religious beliefs. I think that in this case there is a clear link between personality and policy as many religious beliefs take different stance on different issues and policy. For example, citizens of a country who were protestant Christians would likely support policies fighting the communist threat overseas as many protestant Christians supported during the Cold War. Hence, theses citizens would likely select someone of their own religion to carry out these policy wants. Furthermore, different religions have different views on the treatment of power and the role of government, so it is likely that people would elect those who will best put in to practise their ideology on this topic and clearly many people would have thought that the best people to do this would be those politicians ascribed to one’s own religion.
Despite the United States being secular approximately 75% Presidents have been of Christian protestant faith. However, in 2014 the Pew Research Center found 46.5% of the United States’ population to also be of protestant faith. Although the figures of religious affiliation of the population of the United States are likely to have varied over time, I think that these two values show one of the key flaws within our democratic system. Because elections in a democracy such as the USA are decided roughly on the majority’s wants, despite the electoral college voting system, the population is not always proportionally represented in government. This means that the largest religion in the United States has had the ability to elect presidents with the same religious beliefs, time and time again. As well as this the conflict between protestants and Catholics is also clear upon recognition that John F. Kennedy has been the only president in the history of the United States that has been a Catholic. I think that this sort of negative rhetoric towards certain religions also should be considered as whilst one religious group may have wanted a politician of their same religious group in power they may have equally not wanted a politician of their opposition or rival political group in power.
Whilst we have seen how significant the religion of politicians has been in American politics, in recent years the impact of politician’s beliefs has been lesser so in New Zealand. As of 2018, three out of the four most recent prime ministers of New Zealand have said that they were agnostic, meaning that they do not ascribe to any particular faith. This clearly shows that the average New Zealand voter is far less likely to think that the religion of a politician should be a determining factor in their fitness for the post than the average American voter. This is possibly due to the fact that New Zealand has historically been more progressive on social issues within society, such as women’s rights to vote and capital punishment, than the United States. This has likely led to New Zealand voters being more likely to more readily accept diversity within the beliefs of their leaders, in whether or not they hold religious beliefs and in what religious beliefs they do hold. Hence, although in other parts of the world the religion of a representative can play a major role in their ability to reach office, here in New Zealand the relevance of religion in relation to electability is not so great.
When Barack Obama was elected as the first African American president of the United States shockwaves were sent through the country, that less than 50 years before had been complicit in the segregation of African Americans. Nevertheless, it is likely that globally people generally weight the race or ethnicity of a politician significantly when voting for their representatives, so perhaps Obama was simply an exception to the rule. Race is a concept that is very similar to religion as there is generally a dominant race in a specific country that has the largest representation in the government of that country. Despite New Zealand’s progressive stance on the religion of politicians, it appears that the race of politicians is still influential in the voter’s minds. Only 6% of the 52nd New Zealand parliament (2017-2020) was represented by people of the Asian ethnic group, whilst approximately 11.8% of New Zealand’s population belongs to the Asian ethnic group. Likewise, every New Zealand prime minister has been of white skin colour and has been of European ethnicity, despite our current population being only 74% of European ethnicity. Although, New Zealand is far from a xenophobic society in 2018, we have always had underlying stigma and sometimes negative rhetoric being propagated around the issue of race or ethnicity. Your average voter in 2018 may be far from racist but may still be subconsciously swayed to vote or not to vote for someone based on the colour of their skin or their place of origin.
However, speaking from the position of a youth I believe that this judgement of a politician based on their race is likely to become far less prominent in the years to come. I think that more people of ethnic minorities are likely to be elected as representatives as a new generation that has been brought up in an incredibly ethnically diverse society begins to complete ballots. Schools that were previously dominated by Europeans are now becoming increasingly mixed with a variety of different ethnicities and I think that this ‘bottom up’ approach of normalising diversity within society will hopefully resonate in ten or twenty years’ time when increasingly mixed with a variety of different ethnicities and I think that this ‘bottom up’ approach of normalising diversity within society will hopefully resonate in ten or twenty years’ time when our politician’s ethnicities better represent those of the New Zealand public.
Nevertheless, I think that it is important to recognise one specific step that we made in 1867 to ensure better representation of Maori in parliament. The Maori Representation Act allows for there to be Maori electorates, which means that there is a certain number of Maori seats within parliament. Only people of Maori ancestry may vote in these electorates for candidates that can either be Maori or of a different ethnicity. Currently, there are seven Maori electorates and, hence, seats in parliament. Although this is effectively a form of affirmative action, which parties such as National and Act disagree with, it has acted as a device for New Zealand to escape the rise of personality politics, in that people running for these Maori seats are less likely to be discriminated against based solely on their race and none of their policy decisions if they are Maori as only people with Maori lineage can vote for these electorates. Some people may turn their noses up at this solution and claim that it has acted as a “band aid over a bullet hole” as it artificially creates more racial representation within parliament, which is still less than that which is required, and fails to address pre-conceived stigmas that many New Zealanders still hold around the issue of race, which I think should be considered in a system that has been fairly similar for 150 years. However, in terms of reducing the impact of the race of politicians in a country where voting on perceived character and personality is commonplace, I think that this solution gets the tick and is a faint light on the walls of a dark tunnel, which our society is still trying to navigate through.
Over the last few decades gender and its representation has become a lightning rod of an issue, which has divided families, nations and the Western World. On this topic there have been two main concepts or issues from which societal debate has erupted. The first being equality between men and women, and the second being acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community. Politicians have been instrumental in bringing about this change but here we will focus on how the gender of politicians themselves has impacted their political careers.
Let us begin with the representation of men and women within politics. Historically, men have dominated the political sphere and women have been severely underrepresented within government. The most significant reason as to this disparity between men and women in politics was legislative. Prior to the passing of the Women’s Parliamentary Rights Act in 1919 in New Zealand, women were not able to run for a seat in the house of representatives and it was not until 1941 when women were able to be elected to the legislative council, which was the higher of the two houses. However, it took another fourteen years after the Women’s Parliamentary Right Act and a by-election in 1933 to see Elizabeth McCombs be elected to the house of representatives and hence be the first women to achieve this feat in New Zealand. Hence, there must have been causes, other than purely legislative grounds, that prevented and still somewhat prevent equal representation of men and women within parliament. Second to legislative barriers I think that the stigma and misconceptions society has endorsed surrounding women have ultimately deterred average voters for