The Celebrity Presidency

The Daily Mail reports that left-wing documentary producer Michael Moore is encouraging Hollywood actor Matt Damon to run for the Presidency. This is apparently because he has been a vocal critic of Barack Obama and seemingly stands more chance of winning because of his popularity. While this may well be a non-story as Matt Damon hasn’t yet indicated any desire to run it does highlight a growing shift in public opinion regarding the kind of person who can be President and the skills they should possess.

The skills necessary to be President have changed with legislative ability counting for increasingly little. It is not difficult then to see why Obama is now in trouble; as the superficial and manufactured ’image candidate’ his style and ability to perform counted for more than his ability to craft and pass legislation. When he came to power he did so on the back of powerful slogans and images with little substantive content behind them. Obama was simply a fuzzy mirror upon which the electorate projected their feelings and hopes; Obama reflected that image back at them.

The increasing importance of mass media in election campaigns means that candidates for the Presidency are media performers. They are even expected in our modern era to be pop culture icons and to exude star-power. This is why a career as a celebrity, specifically an actor, translates so well into the role. Today spin doctors require a candidate to read scripts to the camera, pause and smile at the right moments and to talk in soundbites. As we tend to experience democracy through our television the electorate increasingly judge candidates not on what they are saying but how they look saying it – hence the phenomenal importance of being a strong television performer.

As a result of different skills being prioritized we are seeing different kinds of people becoming candidates and ultimately the President of the United States. These people while charismatic television performers may not necessarily be effective legislative performers. We are witnessing a new type of President aptly named by Alan Schroeder as the ‘Celebrity in Chief’. Obama is a perfect example. This also goes some way to explaining why he is consistently forced to compromise and remains politically impotent; quite simply as a celebrity leader he is not used to dealing with the nuances and struggles of Washington politics. Why then Michael Moore is keen to see another media performer as President is baffling. As Richard Neustadt said the Presidency is “no place for amateurs” and part of the problem is that time and again we elect amateurs to the White House.

The Celebrity Presidency has a severe impact on civic and democratic engagement. While the likes of Pippa Norris from the Harvard School of Government argues that it more closely connects elector with the elected in a kind of ‘virtuous circle’ in actuality it reduces the quality of democracy with the public only experiencing democracy as spectators via  TV. They are like the prisoners of Plato’s cave mistaking the dancing shadows for reality. They are exposed to a one way stream of images yet not engaged in any kind of meaningful political conversation. 

So too we see other effects too numerous to cover in any detail; among them a convergence around the median voter to ensure mass popularity and shifting political discourse with issues being dumbed down and condensed into tiny time slots for TV audiences. But also candidates all coming to look and sound the same and perhaps as a result we have decreasing levels of faith in democratic processes with candidates no longer representing vast ideological differences. Finally, it undermines faith in the Presidency itself and reduces politics to a mere form of entertainment.

Given the above perhaps Moore would be willing to reconsider? But alas… I doubt he reads my blog!

Advertisement

---