Charisma and Authenticity, not Policy.

There is a disaster shaping up, if Democratic politics is really about policy.

But maybe, it really isn't about policy.  Political leaders are brands:  Rock, paper, scissors.

Enthusiastic crowd

At this moment there is a sharp debate taking place within Democrats.  Bill Clinton is a point of division, with some saying Clinton-type-centrism is essential to electoral victory, others that Clinton centrism was a disaster for the country. 

Thad Guyer, in a comment yesterday, warned that policy on illegal immigration was a huge motivator for voters of both parties and that Democrats needed to get their policy right, i.e. in Guyer's view Democrats should "move right" and oppose illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.   "Illegal immigration was a defining issue in the 2010 midterms and in the 2012 Obama-Romney race. . . .  Trump didn't create that, he tapped into it. . . . . Trump buried all primary contenders and Hillary with that policy. Policy on hybrid cultural-political issues matter-- a lot. . . .What will Democrats, especially progressives, sell swing state voters on that in 2020? The answer is they will move right or not be in the White House."  

Simultaneously, comments like this one by Ralph Bowman, a southern Oregon senior, are common within Progressive Facebook groups.  "Move left," they say.   "Democrats are dying since they abandoned the unions and rejected the Great Society via Bill Clinton and his strangulation strategy of placating Wall Street with NAFTA and  end to aid to dependent children. Wimps will never get my vote again."  

Maybe policy isn't that important.  I assert this even in the face of Facebook and other comments saying policy is all important.   My sense from hearing candidate speeches and watching crowds is that crowds are not marking off a checklist of policies.  They are evaluating and confirming that the general world view of the speaker "clicks" or "syncs".

I don't think it is about the policy. It only looks like it is about the policy, and the actual points of policy are after-the-fact rationalizations of an intuitive decision to believe or not believe that candidate.

I think voter bonding is about the leader and his or her overall image and brand and ability to connect with one voter or another.  Trump did not win because he voiced the right policies.  His policies were inconsistent and general and obviously implausible.  "We will have really great health care and it will be so inexpensive, you can be sure" is not a policy.  It is a wish, a sentiment, a pipe dream.  "The Iran deal is the worst deal in the history of America" is a sentiment.  It put him on the side of backers of Israel, but otherwise was completely general. I never heard him say what specific things he would change.

His comments on immigrants and immigration were forceful but general and fluid.  He was clear about one thing:  Immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East were dangerous and he was against them and would fix something somehow.   His election rally speeches were not preceded by an explanation of his immigration policy.  They were preceded by a tearful and angry woman whose child had been killed by an illegal alien.  Message:  illegal aliens are dangerous and wrong.

The audiences got that message and they cheered it.  Trump would do something about it, and he could because he was tough and cruel when necessary.  He would do something about DACA, end it, fix it, change it.  What he would do was unclear.  This is a message of sentiment, not governing policy, and it worked.  It was what people wanted to hear.  They could trust Trump to do something.   

Trump's appeal came from having created a brand that stood for bull in a china shop strong and fearless as a change agent who could brashly insult and demean his opponents, thus demonstrating that he was credible in ignoring rules of decorum and legislation that propped up a status quo people wanted changed.  He was an symbol of change and strength with support from people with contradictory views: social conservatives, libertarians, establishment Republicans, anti-establishment Republicans, Wall Street and anti-Wall Street.   Republicans found something to like, or at least to stomach.

Hillary Clinton came to adopt nearly all of Sanders' positions, but Hillary was not credible as "almost Sanders."  She was understood to be nearly anti-Sanders, because even though the policy choices nearly merged, the symbolic meaning of their brands were opposite.   Bernie represented authentic, rumpled, give 'em hell opposition to the status quo, and Hillary represented preservation of the status quo by nudging it in the direction of the flow of history, solving the acute problems that emerged.

Trump, Hillary, and Bernie were each brands, symbolizing a general sentiment.  The bird landing on his podium in Portland was powerful symbol--people noticed and cared and considered it validation by the Great Power of the Universe that Bernie was anointed--but there wasn't policy in the symbol.  It just showed people inclined to like Bernie that their faith was validated.

Had Bernie's position on college been that it should be capped at $100 per semester, so there was some student buy in, I do not think many Bernie Sanders supporters would have abandoned him, saying they were policy oriented and it should be "free or else."  They would have trusted that Bernie was making the authentically best proposal possible.  Trust validates policy, not the other way around.

Policies each promoted were generally congruent with their brands (Bernie says free college; Hillary says affordable college, therefore demonstrating the brand positioning of Bernie as he front edge of liberal redistribution with Hillary following, but the brands themselves were the prime division between the two of them, not the policy.  Rumpled anti-establishment vs. establishment liberal.   Had Hillary adopted "free college" as a policy, it wouldn't have changed the brands.  It would simply have confirmed Hillary's brand: Hillary was a slippery but competent politician who would change policies to fit the politics of the moment.

Jeff Merkley is a US Senator from Oregon.  He has spent a lifetime doing progressive public policy.  He is probably in the thinking-it-over phase, being told he could be The One  He communicates that he understands the positions of the progressive left.  As a potential candidate for president, I contrast him  with "Sully" Sullenberger, the pilot of the plane that landed safely in the Hudson River. 

I have no idea of Sullenberger's politics, but if he were generally a Democratic progressive, then  Sullenberger would have more credibility and plausibility as a US president on day one of the campaign than Jeff Merkley would have after 100 town halls in New Hampshire.   Why?  Because Merkley would confirm he is a legislator concerned with policy.  That would be the brand.  In contrast,  "Sully" is already credible and famous for having known what to do in a crisis. He exercised cool, adept, judgement and he got lucky, since there was a river there to land the plane, and there did not happen to be a bridge or a ship in the wrong spot.  That is his brand.

"This is your captain speaking."  With those words an airline pilot takes responsibility for your life.  Credibility.  If Sullenberger were a candidate he would start with a well established brand that would match up nicely against Trump.  Cool and decisive vs. erratic.  

There are others with well established brands.  A successful veteran professional quarterback has credibility as a leader.  A veteran winning football coach has credibility as a motivator.  A former news anchor has credibility as a person who knows things. An actor we have seen doing heroic things has credibility as a human in real life who can do heroic things.  In a staged "reality" TV show audiences saw Donald Trump being a smart, decisive leader.  Americans bought his schtick; if Trump could do it on TV he could do it in real life.  So could Democratic actors.  Better one that played a hero rather than a comic.  We want a leader, not a critic.

Democrats don't need a person who is right on the policy (immigration and sanctuary cities, as Guyer argues) but rather a candidate who knows what to do in a crisis and has credibility doing it.   Sally Yates, the veteran Justice Department leader who was peremptorily fired by Trump is not famous yet,  but she has a brand: career service to American justice.  That is a strong brand.

The immigration issue did not empower Trump.  Trump empowered the immigration issue.   He said Mexican immigrants generally are criminals and rapists and Middle Eastern ones are terrorists so we should keep them out.   The message was decisive, but very general.  The establishment was shocked that he could make so sweeping an insult to Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal.  But a great many people liked it and agreed, and were happy someone said what they had been thinking but were too polite to say.   

The position had some natural appeal to a big block of voters, which became Trump's base , but it jelled because Trump sold the idea. 

The Democrat who can win will have a brand--or quickly create one--that stands for something that matches up well against Trump.  Patriotic integrity would be a strong brand, and it would be more likely to come from a military, police, or Justice Department direction than from a legislator.  Cool professionalism would be another strong brand matchup, and it could come from anywhere, but especially business or sports or someplace where professionalism can be displayed.  A governor's office might work.

The public is divided in its own mind about what to do about immigration. The issue is ripe for someone with general credibility to voice some moderate position and have people think it is "reasonable enough."  The right Democrat will sell the idea that immigration is good for America, always has been, always will be, simple as that.  Then he or she will voice some actual policy that generally endorses immigration but is less than a free-for-all,  and people will accept it as reasonable because a leader they defined as reasonable voiced it.  They are in good hands.

What do the passengers know about flying a plane?  Almost nothing.  When the captain comes on and says, "This is your captain speaking.  We hit unexpected turbulence. We are diverting 60 miles northwest to get out of it immediately," few people question whether we should just power through it, go south east, or whether we should have known about it before we got there.  People do know whether the captain sounds nervous and unsure of himself.  They are acutely aware of the tone of voice.  That's what assures the passengers--tone of voice, not flight plan.

The Democrat who can unite the party and unite the country and win the election will be someone who comes to the campaign with high inherent credibility as a truth teller, probably based on biography, and who then says whatever he or she says with a tone of voice that seems calm and reasonable.  The person will not mimic Trump.  It will be a rocks-paper-scissors matchup.  Something different but something just as good.

Leadership is character and authenticity, not policy.