Reply #29: it is not merely a matter of race, nor of "elitism" [View All]

Rural and blue collar voters vote against the "professors" - an intellectual, erudite, nuanced, cautious, academic personality style. We nominate professor Gore, professor Kerry and now professor Obama. Brilliant and talented men, all, but with a certain style. We cannot really complain when the voters reject them over superficial matters of style, since I am convinced that we select them for exactly the same reasons. We can relate to them, we find them attractive and charismatic, they fit our ideal of personality type and background. Millions of everyday voters, however, cannot relate to that style, cannot identify with these men - in fact their style and manner of speaking sets their teeth on edge. We can't imagine that everyone would not fall in love with our heroes, or we think that there must be something wrong with those who do not fall in love with them, so we keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

LBJ and Truman had rugged "everyman" styles and appeal. The Kennedys and FDR, while born to wealth and highly educated, did not project an image of superiority or entitlement. They could speak to the common man, as it were, as equals. You can see the difference in posture and body language, in hand gestures, in tone of voice and in phrasing. Gore, Kerry, and Obama talk and act like they are in the lecture hall up in front of the undergrads. LBJ, Truman and the Kennedy brothers talked and acted like they were in a noisy, rowdy union hall, rubbing shoulders with the riff raff, as they fired up the troops for an impending strike.

I am not saying this is fair, nor the way things should be. I don't fault Kerry, Gore and Obama for their personality styles and do not mean to diminish their skills and accomplishments. Their style is a handicap in national political elections, however.