Let Them Be Known by Their Deeds and Character, Not by Their Charisma

Charisma--who has it and who hasn’t--has been a preoccupation in this presidential election campaign as in many others. There should be another question: How good is charisma for the body politic and in human affairs? Prejudice is not only about race, color and creed. There is a collective myth that demeans public figures who do things well, and honorably, but without the need for thunderous applause, or to move the group to near-hysteria.

Charisma is to be scrutinized, not followed. The effect that it produces in those it influences is regressive, not enhancing. The bond between the leader and the emotionally led is based on an unconscious identification. The follower thinks, feels, temporarily believes that he is the other; that he has the power, success, sex appeal of the admired leader, or his love. The link is based on illusion, not reality. Fantasy is encouraged, rational thinking impaired.

The word charisma comes from the Greek for favor. Those who possess it make promises, and those who submit to it hope for the favor of the blessed one. It is deeply human, on both sides. It appeared in the Bible, where the subject of charisma deals with the forms of obtaining divine grace. The readiness of the populace to fall into line, to plead to be the ones to be so graced, accounts not only for the followings behind religious leaders but also for the ubiquitous support ready and available behind “inspired” leaders in any field.

Franz Anton Mesmer, an Austrian physician, added a new word to our language. Scientists of the period noted the frequent occurrence of somnambulistic states and hypnotic-like trances attendant to the application of his magnetic cures. A committee, which included Benjamin Franklin, set up by the French government to investigate Mesmer’s work, found no scientific validity to his theory of animal magnetism. But his observations, the social stratifications and interpersonal influences between those who would control and those who seek to be controlled persists. In psychotherapy, alongside rational therapy, there remains an equal pull to the magical and mystical. The audiences of the Bakkers and the Swaggarts continue undiminished. Large numbers of people were mesmerized by Oliver L. North, slipped readily under his hypnotic spell and shouted for him to be President.

At a time in history when charisma seems to be emerging as a major qualification for the presidency and training in the entertainment industry a road to its attainment, the populace may be enjoying a moment of rest and sanity to be cherished. One of the greatest communicators in political history, who because of his talent is immune from ordinary scrutiny and accountability, is nearing the end of his term. We may be approaching a period when the new leaders will need to explain and justify their deeds and be held accountable. With Michael S. Dukakis, George Bush and Lloyd Bentsen being demeaned as lacking the trait of commanding inspiration, the people can go forward this time without being in a trance.

This is not by way of derogating the role and desirability of inspirational leaders and models, like a spirited teacher to whom a creative individual may owe his start. But this depends on a presence, not an image. Charisma does not preclude the presidency, but should not be its requirement. F.D.R. and J.F.K. had it and were good leaders. Harry S. Truman came in without it and was a positive President as well. Winston Churchill had it big and used it to good ends. But so did recent and past totalitarian dictators come in on a beam of charismatic power, with nefarious consequences to those who bestowed it.

It is character, not charisma, that counts. Character comprises one’s total expectable behavior and performance--what one demonstrates and the record he accumulates toward achieving and maintaining his goals. There is a complex, often contradictory agenda in life. At stake to be assessed is the total behavior of those who would serve, how much one agrees with what each candidate says he will do and how much one feels he will do what he says. The electorate might have the luxury this time of choosing on this basis.

It turns out to be more complex. In his own electrifying speech to the convention, Jesse Jackson praised Dukakis’ strength of character and his not stooping to demagoguery. The danger has not been from that direction. Dependability seems to be Dukakis’ central trait. Character itself should be enough, even if it has less chance of winning. But with reason at the reins, and charisma on board, the American people seem to have been offered the most interesting package within memory. Awaiting what comes from the other side of the political fence, this should be an unusual opportunity and a telling election.