by Howard Gardner
With President’s Day around the corner, it seems a good time to reflect on the nature of leadership. Below, we share Howard Gardner’s responses to some questions recently posed by an Italian journalist.
Until the 20th century, most citizens had no idea of what their leaders looked or sounded like, and certainly did not feel that they had any personal relations or connections to the leaders. This did not matter so much, because most countries were not democracies, and even those that were usually had parliamentary systems rather than direct election of leaders.
We live in a time of more direct voting for leaders and where most citizens have access to the media– first radio, then television, now a 24-7 news cycle which includes Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc. Even though leaders themselves do not know that many citizens, citizens feel that they know the leaders. Indeed, they might well want to use the first name with Tony or Bill or Silvio because they feel that they have an intimate relationship to the leaders, even if the relationship is obviously one way and largely illusory.
Also, politics in terms of parties has declined universally. Fewer and fewer people ALWAYS vote Labor, or Christian Democrat or Communist. Indeed, as the world now knows, my home state of Massachusetts, regarded as the most liberal state in the United States, just voted in a Republican Senator by a wide margin. In most elections, only a tiny minority of voters actually know the stated positions of the candidates, and even fewer understand the issues well enough to paraphrase a law (like health care legislation) or a policy (on immigration, on nuclear test ban, on carbon emissions etc).
Accordingly, we now have a state of affairs where elections are significantly ‘beauty contests’. Just as voting on television programs like “American Idol” have a lot to do with how comfortable the audience feels with the performers now invading their living rooms, so, too, elections often hinge on how likeable and simpatico are the candidates. It is not that most Americans thought that George W. Bush was MORE competent than Al Gore or John Kerry. They liked Bush better and that sufficed for him to win two elections, against individuals who were arguably more competent and certainly more knowledgeable, but with whom the voters would not have liked to ‘share a beer’.
Your questions focus on the faces and on the body language of leaders in the world today. In ordinary life, we do judge people in terms of how comfortable they seem to be with themselves (that is signaled by body language) and on how sincere and friendly they seem (and that is signaled by eyes, mouth, and facial expression). With respect to the British case, it is clear that the smiling, comfortable charming Blair wins out over the rather dour and awkward Brown. And Cameron also wins in that comparison against Brown, and perhaps that is why he is the head of the Tory party.
Turning to France, Sarkozy comes off as too active, too energetic, too frenetic, but with the passage of time, people are getting used to these personal characteristics and, for his part, Sarkozy has calmed down a bit.
Obama certainly comes off as likeable and as comfortable in his own skin, and those are major reasons why he was elected. But there is something about the presentation of self that is rather distant, rather professorial. Obama likes people well enough but, unlike Clinton or Blair, does not seem like he NEEDS to have people around him. And that sense of distance– which served Charles deGaulle well– does not play well in a determinedly demotic, populist environment.
Which leaves Silvio Berlusconi. Truth to tell, most of the rest of the world cannot understand why Berlusconi remains a popular leader, despite his checkered past and his obvious personal and professional involvement in shady activities (financial, sexual). I have to think back to Latin leaders, like Juan Peron, for a similar example. And of course, Berlusconi cannot really be a ‘man of the people’ with his billions of dollars and control of the media.
I suspect that Berlusconi prevails for two reasons: l) There is no viable opposition (Sarkozy benefits from this lack of opposition as well); 2) His rascal personality and behavior has an appeal to the Italian population, particularly older males– just as Zuma’s persona in South Africa justifies sexism on the part of macho males. This is not just an Italian or South African phenomenon: Both Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Arnold Schwarzenegger in California benefit from this male chauvinist persona.
As an American with little sympathy for Berlusconi or Zuma, I like to quote Abraham Lincoln: “You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” There will be a post-Berlusconi era!