In Politics, Personality Is Power: Diana Had It, But Gore Loses Out

WASHINGTON — Personality is now power. Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan achieved an extraordinary amount of political power by force of personality. So did British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Princess Diana.

Diana had political power? Of course. It was on display in the astonishing spectacle of her funeral, when she achieved her ultimate triumph: She forced the British monarchy to bend to her will.

The queen of England found herself helpless before Diana’s angry constituency. She had to make humiliating concessions: a television speech paying homage to her ex-daughter-in-law, a royal funeral for someone to whom, a year ago, she had denied a royal title. And what happened at the funeral? The queen got insulted to her face by Diana’s brother.

Earl Charles Spencer said Diana “needed no royal title to generate her particular brand of magic.” He promised his sister, “we, your blood family” will raise your sons in “the imaginative and loving way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men.” Not like they would raise them, “immersed by duty and tradition.” So there.

To which the audience outside and inside Westminster Abbey responded with spontaneous applause. Not so long ago, Spencer’s defiance would have earned him a nice long stay in the Tower of London. Or maybe a short stay. “Oh, who will rid me of these troublesome in-laws?” the queen would have said. Off with his head!

Instead, it was the queen who had her head handed to her by her subjects. They demanded she pay homage to the tragically deceased princess of Wales. Diana, not the queen, was “She who must be obeyed.” That’s political power. And we now know who orchestrated the whole thing: Blair. The royal family knew nothing about damage control. Why should a queen know about damage control? Or public opinion? She rules by the grace of God, doesn’t she?

Well, no. She rules by the consent of her subjects--just like a politician. And she must work hard to cultivate that consent. Far harder than she used to--because Diana’s funeral was a turning point in British history.

Blair’s political advisors had to be called in to manage the whole affair. Labor Party consultants knew what to do. They managed the prime minister’s rise to power by deftly exhibiting Blair’s personal qualities. Family values? Blair was constantly photographed with the wife and kids, the very image of a modern yuppie household. Religiosity? They went to church (almost no one in Britain goes to church). Hipness? Everyone knows Blair once played in a rock band. Toughness? Blair’s carefully staged confrontations with the unions and the Labor left.

Blair’s election last May was a personal victory, and it meant the British political order has been transformed into something far more personalized. Now, just a few months later, the British constitutional order has been transformed. The royal family is being forced to personalize its power. “Show us you care, Ma’am,” the popular press demanded. She tried, but her populist affectation was awkward, like Bob Dole singing “I’m a Dole man” on the campaign trail last year.

The queen admitted there were “lessons to be learned” from Diana’s short life and public career. Like what? The cheap techniques the princess of Wales used to build a devoted personal following?

Yes. It’s called image management, and it’s the very essence of modern political life. Today, personality has become a key source of political power. Skillful politicians (and consultants) know how to market personality. Reagan was a master at it. He projected likability, while most current aspirants to leadership of the conservative movement come across as harsh and mean.

Clinton also rules by the grace of personality. The trick he learned from Reagan is to show no trace of cynicism. Clinton is all optimism (“the man from Hope”), openness (down to his underwear) and vulnerability (his 1992 confessions on “60 Minutes”). Clinton’s personal favorability rating now stands at 63%.

People like Clinton, but they don’t trust him. Just 53% say they consider Clinton honest. Compare Vice President Al Gore. His rating for honesty is 64%. Lucky for Gore, Diana’s death bumped the news about money-laundering Buddhist nuns and illegal calls for cash right off the front pages. People still say they trust Gore more than Clinton. But they like Clinton better (Gore’s favorability is at 55%).

Gore is one of those politicians who have trouble projecting personality. That could be a problem if--as now seems likely--Gore comes under investigation by an independent counsel and his ratings on trustworthiness start to tumble. He doesn’t have the personal base Clinton had when he got into trouble in 1994. The same was true of George Bush. Bush got elected because people thought he could do the job. But when his job ratings sank, Bush had no personal base of support to fall back on the way Reagan and Clinton did.

Personality is not essential to get elected these days. People will still vote for you if you’re doing your job, or if you’re running against an incumbent who isn’t, even if you have the personal appeal of a stick. Yes, even Prince Charles could get elected, given the right circumstances.

While personality is not essential--think of all those boring white men who get elected governor of California--it’s mighty useful. Personality is now a source of power in a way that it has never been in the past. That’s because today, it’s easier than it ever was to make people like you. That’s what image management and damage control are all about.

Now wait a minute. Hasn’t personality always been a source of power? George Washington was a national icon; Americans wanted to make him king. Napoleon Bonaparte was the original “man on horseback,” savior of his country. Great wars have always produced charismatic heroes--Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight D. Eisenhower. And in our own time, Colin L. Powell.

More than a few people watching the canonization of Saint Diana were struck by the eerie similarity to the story of another woman whose power grew in death: Eva Peron. Of course, Evita’s story is far more unsavory. And when it came to designer fashions, Diana would have had a hard time keeping up with Evita. But both women were pretty shrewd about using the media.

So what’s new about personality as a political commodity today? Simply this: Today, personality can be marketed in and of itself, without any connection to ideas or achievement. People used to become icons because they did things. They won wars. They built empires. They championed great causes. Now it’s who you are as much as what you’ve done. Personality politics is no longer extraordinary. It’s normal.

Look at the embarrassing coincidence of Mother Teresa’s death the same week as Princess Diana’s. The world was forced to consider, if only briefly, its standards of renown. People the world over admired Mother Teresa for her life of devotion and sacrifice. But they did not identify with her as a personality. She was not a celebrity. Diana was. Women in Europe and America could identify with her conflicts and struggles--with who she was, not what she achieved.

That kind of identification is made possible by television. TV enables public figures to market personality--which has become the life blood of politics all over the world. But it has a price. Once politics is about personality, the line between public and private is obliterated. Everything becomes relevant. The underside of the television culture is the tabloid culture, where there are no limits. The tabloid culture cost Clinton his majority in two elections. It cost Gary Hart his career. It cost Diana her life.

It also means that, once people have gotten a fix on a personality, it’s almost impossible to change their minds. Look at Dan Quayle and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). They’re both trying desperately to change their public image. But Americans got such a powerful first impression of Quayle (lightweight) and Gingrich (blowhard) that the prospects for change look doubtful. Sure, it’s unfair. But that’s personality politics.

Just last month, another public figure calculated the cost of personality politics and decided not to pay it. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy (D-Mass.) held a press conference to announce he would not run for governor of Massachusetts. He felt it would be impossible to keep personal issues--his failed first marriage, his family’s problems--from dominating the campaign.

Of course, we now have a whole industry of image consultants to deal with problems like that. Last week, former Clinton campaign manager James Carville and former Clinton pollster Stanley B. Greenberg announced they were setting up shop in London. Uh-oh.

Don’t be surprised if Dick Morris shows up in England soon, peddling proposals to the royal family. After all, he saved Clinton’s presidency. Polls will be taken: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way the queen is handling her job?” Maybe Morris can marry Sarah Ferguson, the duchess of York (she also had a thing about toes) and settle down in the English countryside: Sir Dick, the man who saved the crown.