The Power Of Narrative Politics

I contributed this piece to The New York Times’ “Room For Debate”.

The assigned topic: What type of mistakes or blunders hurt a candidate’s electability? What’s the best way to orchestrate a comeback?

My take: It’s not a single mistake that tends to kill a candidate, unless it puts you in handcuffs or in front of a mug-shot camera — or on Gary Hart’s lap or next to Mike Dukakis in a tank (though you might recall that it wasn’t just the tank ride that did in Dukakis but other noticeable slip-ups, like this cold response to Bernie Shaw’s question about seeking vengeance if hypothetically his spouse was raped and murdered).

Instead, the killer usually is a series of blunders that contributes to a negative narrative — if you will, an evil alter ego. Think Al Gore as a serial exaggerator in 2000.

This ties into a pet theory of mine about presidential politics in post-Cold War America. While we’ve elected three gentlemen with decidedly different backgrounds and beliefs, Presidents 42-44 had this in common: each earned the big job courtesy of compelling biographical narratives — Bill Clinton as the son of a father he never met, George W. Bush finding spirituality, Barack Obama and his personal experience with race and racial relations.

This isn’t something entirely new to American politics. The story of a young rail-splitter was a part of Abraham Lincoln’s appeal, just as Teddy Roosevelt took full advantage of his “Rough Rider” experience to charge up political hills.

But in the last 25 years, the biographical pitch seems more intense — as though the acid test is to pass muster on the pages of People, not The Economist. Perhaps because it coincides with a watering-down of the president — America’s leader dressing more casually, trading in pomp and ceremony for more pedestrian acts like reading to children, and making announcements more on a scale with a governor than a president (I’m thinking the small-ball, small-dollar Rose Garden events during the Clinton presidency) — cult of personality seems as important as ever.

Why is this germane to 2016?

For one, there’s the question of whether Hillary Clinton can weave a compelling tale of personal growth and perseverance. The same challenge applies to Jeb Bush.

Second, there’s the question of whether the Republican nominee can avoid being biographically swift boated as was Mitt Romney in 2012.

Anyway, keep an eye on this in the weeks ahead.

Both Clinton and Bush have yet to formally kick off their campaigns. Meanwhile both have had rough springs. Hillary doesn’t engender trust; Jeb struggles to escape the past.

See if their big speeches are a turning point in their candidacies. Or, if not, if negative narratives slowly erode their chances of becoming the next president.

Previously:
• 06/01/15: Sorting The Republicans' 2016 Kingdom
• 05/28/15: To Command Without Having Served
• 05/21/15: 2016: Do Looks Matter?
• 05/15/15: John Bolton's Swan Song

Comment by clicking here.

Bill Whalen is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he studies and writes on current events and political trends. In citing Whalen as one of its "top-ten" political reporters, The 1992 Media Guide said of his work: “The New York Times could trade six of its political writers for Whalen and still get a bargain.” During those years, Whalen also appeared frequently on C-SPAN, National Public Radio, and CNBC.