h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why is it so hard to talk only about issues? Why do we have this irresistible urge to talk in terms of personalities?

We may be attracted to a person because of what they do well (kick a ball or poke one with a stick, play a riff, tell a joke, act a part) but very soon everything we think and say about them becomes personal. We want more of their personal magic, *as revealed in* their poking or kicking etc.

It's the cult of personality. It works both ways, positive and negative.

Take an imaginary cross-party cardboard cutout caricature of a politician; let's call him Mr. Blowhard. Most comments will not be of the kind "I can't stand that Blowhard, he favours big business", generally they will be more like "I can't stand that Blowhard, he's a smarmy swine".

Why is this?

Because it's easier than to offer a real reason?

Because people are too lazy, or too ignorant to want to go beyond their "gut level" response?

Because your fictitious Mr Blowhard actually IS a smarmy swine?

Morning,

I cannot remember the source of this quotation , " Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man" , but I haven't seen one which I would 'rate' yet,

Novo

"Because people are too lazy, or too ignorant to want to go beyond their "gut level" response?"

You often get people saying that they're proud of their instincts or judgement and that because they don't trust Mr Blowhard they won't support.

Where personalities can be important is when you catch politicians behaving badly.If you know for a fact that someone has lied or done something which makes them look untrustworthy it can colour how you view anything they later say.
You may want to vote according to the policies but a part of you follows that sense of distrust and wonders if the policies are a true representation of what that person means or just political expediency.
This is particularly true of party leaders ~ how you feel about a particular leader can affect how you see a whole party.

But it becomes a beauty contest, doesn't it? So good candidates are passed over in favour of uncontroversial candidates. Is this the fatal weakness of democracy, or can voters get smarter?

Politicians seem to want to be all things to all voters.
Actually standing up and having an opinion is pretty much political suicide these days.
Particularly if you couple that opinion with a conscience or set of principles.

How new is this though? Clement Atlee wasn't quite boy band material. Mind you, he ran against Winston Churchill...

My feeling is that when politicians noticed the trait and tried to pander to it by hiring PR consultants and so on, they encouraged the trait. While they may bemoan the fact that personalities are judged instead of issues, to a large extent they've made their own bed.

Well there's two opinions blaming the politicians. Nobody want to join me laying it on the voters?

I'm not completely exhonerating them either - but they do get encouragement.

An interesting aside - I don't think many other places judges less on personality and more on issues than Northern Ireland - which also has some of the highest average turnouts.

Isn't a big part of it the media too.
I mean the other day Reuters actually covered the whole Tony Blair ~ is it or isn't it a fake tan story.
The only politicians who seem to be prepared to stick their heads above the parapets are always quickly shot down by the media.

It's just that blaming the media, or politicians, or the establishment in any guise, just looks like a cop-out, in a democracy.

Why not blame the majority (of those who go and vote) who establish the same establishment? It can be unestablished!

Could it be that most people don't want to criticise "the majority of us"? Why on earth not? Is this the remnants of a left-wing mythology that says there are "people" (also known as "the people") and then there are the bosses, who are not the people, and are somehow opposed to them?

There's also quite a wide perception in Britain that fundamentally, there isn't a lot to choose between parties in terms of policy. If people feel that way - even if it's incorrect - personality is going to play a larger role than it otherwise would when forced to choose.

I don't agree that it's a cop-out in a democracy - it may be a democracy, but it would be crazy to believe that we all have equal power to influence opinion.

Show me a major party leader or cabinet member who is principled outspoken and is uncaring about the media's opinion or playing to the current trend and i'd be happy to go out and campaign and vote for him/her.
Right now we got to deal with what we got.

I think ones that aren't that bothered about media opinion are mainly not in the Government anymore. I admired Robin Cook, Claire Short, and Mo Mowlem.

I think that personalities matter because Tony Blair has developed such a presidential style that it becomes an issue in itself. I doubt I will vote Labour because in part Blair has pulled away from his party.

It's not so much personalities as emotions.
The issues get drowned out by all the synthetic indignance.

I think the most frustrating thing is not the personalities issue, but the fear issue. Most of the major parties are using fear either as a major tool in their manifestoes [fear of aslyum seekers, crime, illness et al] or fear that the other party may get into power through inaction/voting for a smaller party.

There are so many boogymen in this election I don't know who to vote for!

When things get polarised, the centre is not a safe place; it's under attack from both sides.