It is the little things that matter. A $1250 haircut, Hillary’s
voice, and Fred Thompson’s comment about Cuban immigrants do not
seem to have much to do with being a good president. Pundits and
campaign aides would like to think elections turn on weightier
matters like whether Republicans are single issue voters or whether
Democrats value experience more than charisma. But often it is the
small incidents — because they are small and overlooked by lurking
political consultants — which the average voter notices and
rightly or wrongly sees as emblematic of a candidate. Al Gore knew
all the answers but the sighs and grimaces parodied on Saturday
Night Live convinced enough people he was the smart aleck they
loathed in school.
Truth be told even the most sophisticated voters find it hard to
make nuanced determinations based on policy. Is Hillary or Obama’s
health plan better? Will Giuliani or McCain be more aggressive in
eliminating pork barrel spending? In part these issues have become
so complex and the policy gurus so numerous on both sides that the
average voter simply lacks the expertise to determine who is
“better.” In part many of these questions are nothing more than
guesses about how a candidate will perform and how faithful he or
she will be to the campaign promises made in the heat of a
campaign.
So rather than plunge into a morass of policy minutiae voters
seek insight and comfort in small, intensely human moments and
personal quirks to give them a sense of the candidate. Seemingly
trivial events and surface characteristics play a larger role than
we’d like to admit in determining whether we want to live with a
candidate for the next four or eight years.
John Edwards’ haircut in the greater scheme of things is
meaningless. He is a wealthy man and can spend his money on hair or
suits or fancy lunches. However, in the campaign narrative which
screams “populist” and “two Americas” at every turn it seems proof
positive he is a phony for those who previously harbored a
suspicion that the populist is more a poser. It seems more likely
than not now that the former trial attorney is selling us like he
sold a jury. Combined with his work for the hedge fund and the
hefty speaking fees to talk about poverty (you can’t make this
stuff up) he seems like an updated version of Elmer Gantry.
Hillary took to the road last week. If you turned off the sound
and watched she looked every ounce the polished and attractive
politician poised to sweep to the nomination. She beamed and Bill
receded. In brightly colored outfits she seemed to defy the image
cooked up by the YouTube Apple ad video. She was vibrant and sunny,
not dour and grim. However, if you turned off the picture and the
sound on, the contrast was striking. The flat, harsh Midwestern
tones were mildly jarring and as the volume increased the screech
reappeared. Suddenly the image was more the nagging wife, the voice
like nails on a chalk board. So the question remains, for all her
polish, will Americans want her in their living rooms and on their
car radios for years to come?
Fred Thompson, the not yet candidate, usually avoids substance
as his ventures out on the stump. He did however venture into
immigration last month, declaring that “we get to decide who comes
into our home” and strangely suggested, “I don’t imagine they’re
[Cubans] coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We’re living
in the era of the suitcase bomb.” Soon criticism reigned,
questioning what dangers those fleeing Castro’s oppression pose
(and why he would offend such a key constituency in Florida). From
his blog he later suggested there really was some plot afoot by
Cubans (“we must oppose the illegal immigration of Castro’s agents
into the United States”). The episode suggested that maybe the next
best hope for conservatives is not as polished as his supporters
would hope and that he lacks advisers to point out his goofs. He
will enjoy a short honeymoon, but more of these will send
conservatives scurrying after their next best chance.
In the end, these and a hundred other small moments and assorted
personal characteristics will combine in voters minds to form an
indelible portrait of the contenders. Voter will, whether
consciously or not, conclude this one is odd, the other is grumpy,
that one is a novice and the other one is too remote. They will
decide who is resolute and who is annoying and who is just too much
to bear for four or eight years. That is why the little things loom
so large.
