Unprecedented Reaction?

The 2016 election has stirred quite a bit of passion on each end of the political spectrum. The media is treating the reaction this time as unlike anything that’s happened in recent history. Really? Is the passion and reaction to the election in 2016 actually any different than:

• 1976 – I was 16 years old and still 2 years shy of being able to vote. My history teacher in high school at the time made sure the class was up on the platforms of both candidates and their backgrounds. When Jimmy Carter won, I distinctly remember two reactions – on the Democrat side there was enormous relief that the badness of the Watergate scandal was now “cleansed” to a great degree since the Republicans had been voted out. The Republicans, while similarly relieved to have Watergate behind them, thought we went overboard in electing a “Peanut Farmer” as President. How could he know anything about governing a nation?
• 1980 – This was the first election in which I could vote. Despite the fact that Ronald Reagan had already served as governor of California and was not new to politics, the constant refrain in the media and from the opposition was “he’s an actor – how could he know anything about governing a nation”. That constant drumbeat had an effect, and when I went in and voted for Reagan it was with a nervous twinge of uncertainty. After he won, there were several months of exasperation in the media, accompanied by a lot of personal insults about bad acting and old age. This refrain eventually died down however, and in 1984 Reagan won in the biggest landslide in American history.
• 1992 – For me, this was the first election where the personalities of the candidates, as opposed to their policies, made all the difference. Ross Perot instantly created headlines whenever he spoke with his characteristic loud confidence. In many ways he was similar to Donald Trump (wealthy self-made businessman, anti-establishment, forceful, shunned political correctness). Dana Carvey played him perfectly on Saturday Night Live. Bill Clinton was “cool” – a good speaker who effortlessly included contemporary phrasing and expression in his speeches, and a jazz-inspired saxophone player to boot. He was able to attract a large young audience. His extra-marital transgressions, many of which were known even then, didn’t matter to his supporters since they were more than balanced by his likable personality and his leadership experience as Governor of Arkansas. Against these two vibrant and exciting personalities on television, George H.W. Bush had almost no chance. Even though at that time he was by far the most prepared and experienced person in the world to be President, his bland personality could not compete with the other two candidates. He looked as though he was trying way too hard to be passionate when it just came naturally to Clinton and Perot. Style and size of personality ruled in this election.
• 2000 – This was one of the closest contests in history and everyone was on pins and needles on election night and during the recounts for several succeeding weeks. But it was the emergence of true vitriol against George W. Bush during his Presidency that was striking. While plenty of insults were tossed at Clinton, Reagan and Carter, none of them were as low and distasteful as what George “W” received. This marked the inception of a new level of extreme reaction to a President in my lifetime. Ironically, Bush won a second term rather easily, which obviously meant the hateful rhetoric and passion were not nearly as widespread as the media was portraying it.
• 2008 – The passion pendulum completely swung to the other side of the spectrum. Most of the same energy behind the over-the-top dislike and disgust of Bush was transferred into over-the-top effusive and ingratiating praise for Barack Obama. I say “most” because a chunk of that hate and disgust energy was held in reserve for Sarah Palin  (the Republican choice for Vice President). Her religious faith, intellect, speaking habits, even her reading list was viciously attacked. Just as Obama was benefiting from a new level of positive emotion and passion, Palin was being subject to another new level of negatives. Neither were deserving of the treatment they received – Palin was in her third year as Governor of Alaska while simultaneously raising five children. Obama had scant leadership experience on his resume at the time and had been a US senator for only two years before starting his presidential campaign. Unfortunately, it was now being established that any adjectives assigned to future candidates by the media had to at least reach, if not eclipse, these new extremes in order to be viewed as relevant.

So should we really be surprised about the reaction to Trump in 2016? In a lot ways it’s just par for the course now – the new normal. It was hard to imagine anyone receiving harsher criticism than George W. Bush. But then Sara Palin came along. Then it was impossible to believe anyone could be dumped on more than Palin. But then Trump came along. Imagine what kind of language and expression will have to be used in the next election to make it appear as exciting, dramatic, and newsworthy as 2016? Is this what the media is now reduced to in order to sell content?

Just like in 1992, the personalities of the candidates played an outsized role in 2016. In fact, it is eerily similar. The similarities between Perot and Trump are obvious. And while the policies and experiences of Hillary Clinton and George H.W. Bush are very different, their personalities both came off as less exciting, and even boring compared to the natural enthusiasm and large aura of their opponents. The presence of varying personality types among our politicians is not new. What has evolved is the amount of “tabloid” style hype of the personalities of the candidates in the media. Also, that hyped message now has a technological reach greater than ever before. Is the journalistic perception of a jaded America’s need for scandal and drama, and the consequently overblown, personality-focused coverage of the candidates, the real reason for the unprecedented reaction in 2016? With the explosive growth of seductive Facebook posts and soul-baring Tweets, has traditional journalistic news coverage devolved to the financial imperative of sell at all costs or die? It certainly appears that way.