Personality is an issue

Mark Penn (strategist for Hillary) recently released a book called “Microtrends”, in which he talks about various small blocs of voters that share common characteristics. One of the groups he identifies is the “Impressionable Elites”—people that are less interested in a candidate’s stance on issues than they are in the candidate’s personality, with the underlying reason being that those individuals don’t often have to deal with the direct consequences of policy changes in certain areas.

Penn doesn’t make a value judgment about this type of voter—as a pollster, he’s only interested in defining reality so that he can leverage it. However, he ended up pretty much nailing me, and it’s prompted some self-evaluation.

The only area where I really feel any direct impact from policy changes is taxes, where the Republican playbook would be of great personal benefit. However, I voted for Obama in the primary (and will vote for him in the general too :) ). I tend to vote Democratic because on my stances on health care and education, as well as a healthy distrust of the social conservative wing of the Republican Party, but my choice of Obama over Clinton was absolutely about personality.

People make their voting decisions for all sorts of reasons, some of which would be considered silly or misguided by others—we’re probably seeing that more in this election than in others, due to the race and gender dynamics. Somebody who thinks I should be voting on the issues alone probably thinks I am misusing my vote. My response, and I’m interested in what others think on this, is that in this particular election, personality very much is an issue.

There will always be (and should be) substantive disagreement between our two political parties—two well-informed and dedicated political parties advocating their causes and beliefs serve a valuable purpose, and contribute to the long-term progress of this country. However, there’s a difference between that environment and a polarized atmosphere where demonization is the order of the day and actually getting things accomplished is a potential casualty.

We’ve done that routine for about seven years now. I think the American people were asking for moderation of policy with the midterm 2006 elections, and all they got instead was a stalemate, as both sides stand too far apart to agree on anything, and neither has the power to completely force their will. So, I think we have to ask again, and make it a little clearer this time.

Although Hillary is more of a centrist than Obama from a policy perspective, I believe that Obama has the greater capability to rebuild some sense of cooperation in Washington. In the current environment, you can’t work with the other side without being perceived as weak; I think Obama would go into office with a mandate to work with the other side, which changes the conversation completely. A Hillary presidency, in my mind, ends up being very much the same story as W’s presidency—if she has Congress, then the Republicans will be ignored if not openly mistreated, and if she doesn’t, then nothing will be accomplished. While partisan “revenge” for the past eight years is tempting on an immature level, I think that there is a higher road that needs to be taken. Not to take on the language of fear, but I don’t think it should take an act of terrorism for our government and our country to be united. Barack Obama is best equipped, by force of personality, to make that happen.