The three people pictured for this article come from very different backgrounds and have wildly different visions of the future of our country. However, they share one thing in common – each has gained a substantial following by simply and genuinely being themselves. They speak from their gut, not from political talking points. They aren’t coached or scripted, and do not modify their stance on an issue because of a public opinion poll or media criticism. They speak what’s on their mind at the moment it comes to mind, usually without much filtering. The unpredictability of what might emerge from of their mouths, especially in the heat of debate, attracts large audiences and commands media attention. This latter characteristic often puts them at odds with their own party, who see their message compromised by coverage of style over substance. As a result, all three have been accused of being downright ruinous to their party for not holding their “genuineness” in check.
Most politicians try to carefully craft an appealing public persona for themselves to maximize votes and keep their media coverage positive. They have become so good at it, the only way we know most of them is by their “public” face. However, most people have a sixth sense that can detect when a person is contriving a persona (faking it), even in someone they initially liked. With this backdrop, it is a breath of fresh air to see politicians who are genuinely themselves and eschew false public personas, regardless of their ideology.
On both ends of the political spectrum, the 2016 Presidential election illustrated the power of being genuine. On the Republican side, Donald Trump never deviated from displaying his pompous, bombastic, loud, and often insulting self throughout the campaign. While his personal manner turned many people off, he remained true to himself and did not attempt to modify his personality to suit a potentially larger voter base. His consistency and confidence in his positions, despite arrogant and unpolished expression, secured him a dedicated following that easily outnumbered his detractors. It also made him stand out in a large field of primary contenders (17) making it simple for voters to distinguish his candidacy from all the others. On the Democrat side, the contrast in candor between the two main primary contenders (Sanders and Clinton) could not have been more obvious. Like Trump, Bernie Sanders confidently followed his own script, which bore little resemblance to that of the establishment Democrat Party platform. He spoke from the heart, and while his manner and ideology were both profoundly different from Trump’s, he exuded the exact same authenticity. His opponent was the complete opposite. Hillary Clinton endlessly regurgitated establishment “talking points”, molded her positions to match opinion polls, and always appeared to be reciting lines and concepts from memorization as opposed to from the heart. While she retained sizable support from “traditional” Democrat voters and the media, her true standing under the covers was always tenuous. Democrat insiders were so aware of Ms. Clinton’s Achilles heel that they took “extracurricular” measures to assure her nomination by suppressing support for Sanders. When she was in direct competition with Trump, the contrast between contrived and genuine became stark.
Fast-forward to today and you can see a very similar scenario playing out in the field of Democrat candidates for President. Bernie Sanders is still himself and retains his loyal following. Many of the other candidates have now decided to also adopt a socialist campaign platform (similar to that of Sanders), however, this comes off as clearly contrived. Several of the main elements comprising the platforms of Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Beto O’Rourke are copied not only from Sanders, but directly from the newest genuine personality in the mix – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a.k.a. AOC). While not old enough to be a Presidential candidate herself, AOC is currently having the exact same effect on the Democrat party that Donald Trump had on the Republican party in 2016. Trump’s authentic expression (raw as it is) and high energy entertaining style drew voters away from the “traditional” Republican candidates and violated the norms of decorum of the party. It divided the party at the time, a condition which in part still exists. In AOC’s case, her quick and fearless approach to defining policy ahead of her party (Green New Deal) flew in the face of her status as a “freshman”. Her earnest naivety made her a media “darling” and endeared her to the younger generation. Like Trump, she has divided her party. The Democrat Presidential candidates are clearly trying to siphon off some of AOC’s media coverage, energy, and support base and make it their own. We predict they will ultimately fail. AOC’s policy suggestions are not what make her so popular. It’s her authenticity as a person. This is what the other candidates lack. They should all be counting themselves lucky that AOC isn’t 4 years older.
Joe Biden’s candidacy is interesting in this mix. His recent reversal on the Hyde amendment is a prime example. The Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions, was first enacted as part of the 1977 fiscal year appropriations bill. In late 1977, then Senator Biden wrote a letter to his Delaware constituents which included the following statement:
The 1977 fiscal year appropriations bill prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, “…unless the life of the mother is in danger”. This is the position which I have consistently supported.
Biden’s statement of support for the Hyde amendment appeared genuine, as he repeatedly affirmed that support for the next 42 years – until last week. “Lunch Box Joe”, long seen as an “everyman” statesman who follows his principles, has now succumbed to heat from his own establishment friends and the whims of opinion polls. His “change of heart”1 was obviously and transparently a politically correct choice and completely counter to his long-held and vigorously defended moral position. The New York Times described his confusing justification for flipping – to somehow compensate for the potential enforcement of aggressive new state level abortion laws – as “head-spinning”. This explanation was every bit as weak as his previous position of support was strong. That kind of behavior reveals a false facade. Biden’s carefully built plain-speaking persona is a guise, not genuine.
Not so for Trump, AOC, and Sanders. These three have each have stuck to their guns on many positions and/or decisions that have been relentlessly pilloried by the media and deemed destructive, dangerous, anti-American, or even the result of a psychiatric disorder. None of that has made much of a difference in their behavior, nor will it, because of who they are. As disagreeable as some of their ideas may be, they don’t hide themselves behind a facade for cover. Their positions do not change solely to fend off criticism. If they do change a position (rarely), it’s because the facts fundamental to an issue have changed allowing for a logical modification or new position that can be as strongly and boldly defended as was the previous one without having to compromise on principle. There is evident honesty in their personalities, and each has captured a small bit of the “underdog” role that naturally accompanies anyone appearing to authentically defend their beliefs in the face of great odds.
This is not to say that the passionately defended positions of any of these three is correct or good for the country. Only that they are being completely up front and open about those positions. In 2016, the voters valued this personal characteristic more than any other. Neither Sanders or Trump could reasonably compete against Hillary Clinton with her experience in government or her network of well-connected donors and loyal “deep-state” supporters. But the real Hillary Clinton (if she exists) was entombed in a very carefully crafted facade from which she couldn’t escape. Sanders and Trump, while far from perfect, presented as truly genuine personalities in which, depending on your ideology, you could comfortably trust. So far in the 2020 field for President, it looks like deja vu all over again.
1 “Change of Heart” was a direct quote from Biden’s communications director Kate Bedingfield in reference to her boss’s flip on support for the Hyde amendment. It is a curious choice of words for a change that likely would never have occurred had Biden decided not to run for President.
2 Responses
Brilliant as usual. The entombment of the “real” Hillary Clinton had to happen a VERY long time ago. Not sure if I ever shared this with you guys but my passion for politics and in following daily what was up in Washington didn’t really start in earnest until the Lewinsky mess. JFK and RFK’s assassinations made DC a sad place, Watergate made DC a criminal place, Kuwait made DC a war place, but the Lewinsky mess made DC Peyton Place. Call me shallow but that along with Chris Matthew’s constant coverage of all the dramatic and personal details got my attention all day, every day……………. and brought me face to face with Hillary.
You guys made me think twice about the fact that the average Joe citizen (and non-citizens for that matter) has absolutely no clue who Hillary really is yet so many hang their undying support for her around her shoulders like a thick cloak. Fascinating. Completely agree that there is NO doubt that we know exactly who Trump, Bernie and AOC are as people and can pretty much assume that what we see of them publically is exactly what their inner circles see of them privately – no chance of that being much different. But Hills? Not a chance, or so I think.
I never paid much attention to her before Lewinsky but it was during all that sordid coverage that I came to a quick/solid/never-have-changed-my-mind conclusion that Hills is a big fat phony-baloney. I often wonder if there is any place where she is just “her” and what that version of “her” is actually like. Is it when she is with her grand kids? Alone with Chelsey? Alone with Bill? Wherever it is, it is obviously carefully guarded because we truly never see it – OR – is it possible that the real version of her doesn’t exist at all and never has? What if there has never been a tomb but just a shell with space that gets filled by handlers? Yikes.
You are spot on K. There are a number of prominent politicians who I think are disturbingly similar to the way you describe Hillary (…”just a shell with space that gets filled by handlers”…). Two that come to mind are Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. Gore always seemed to me to be a real-life Manchurian candidate. Every single thing that came of his mouth was an obviously rehearsed and memorized line – and poorly delivered at that. What is amazing is that so many people knowingly accept that kind of false facade, even when their spidey-sense tells them it’s a mask, just so they can vote for their party. On the one hand they don’t care who “their” candidate really is if he/she supports their ideology, but they demand absolute honesty and purity from candidates of the opposite ideology. I remain convinced it all gets back to how incredibly poor the education system in this country has become. Legions of young adults now lack the confidence and ability to reason and think for themselves on matters having a national or world view. They simply accept the parade of false realities created daily by the Nancy Pelosi’s and much of the media.