In Politics of Celebrity, Be Charming, Win Big

Lighten up, they told him. If you want to win the presidency, show people your human side and stop talking about issues all the time. It wouldn’t hurt to relax.

And so it was that Adlai E. Stevenson, brainy and remote, began stumping for votes at lingerie counters and playing croquet with startled senior citizens in the 1956 presidential campaign. Other White House contenders have taken similar advice, with Richard Nixon blurting out “Sock it to me!” on “Laugh-In” and Jimmy Carter confessing sinful thoughts in a Playboy magazine interview.

“Democracy begins in conversation,” philosopher John Dewey said years ago, and the 2000 version of this political maxim is alive and well--a reality driven home most tellingly by Al Gore’s and George W. Bush’s cuddly appearances earlier this month on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and guest spots this week on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

“We live in a celebrity culture that treats elections like one more form of entertainment, so Americans want to know the inner personalities of candidates,” cultural historian Neal Gabler said. “And the fact that we’re living through good economic times, when issues aren’t tearing up the country, makes the force of personality even greater.”

Some may recoil at the sight of Bush dressing like Regis Philbin or Gore groveling with a platter of pastries before Judge Judy Sheindlin on the “Today” show. Yet he who turns on the charm is often rewarded: Bush, whose campaign had been trailing in the polls, got a major “bounce” after his appearance on “Oprah,” and he has either closed the gap with Gore or overtaken him, according to a host of recent public opinion surveys. Few political strategists can say with any certainty how much Bush’s “Oprah” appearance sparked this change, but the potential effect of her talk show and others is unmistakable.

Winfrey’s broadcasts with Gore and Bush drew higher than usual audiences for her. The vice president’s appearance was seen in 8.7 million households, compared with Winfrey’s average 7.5 million daily average for 1998-99, according to King World Productions, which co-produces and distributes the show. Although similar figures are not yet available for Bush’s appearance, those numbers are likely to be even higher because the overnight ratings for major markets were larger for that show.

At a time when 47% of the 18-to-29-year-old public says it gets news about the presidential campaign from late-night television show monologues--a finding by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press--it is unrealistic to think candidates would confine themselves to interviews about policy on network news programs.

“Ultimately, this comes down to dollars and cents,” said Robert Dallek, biographer of Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy. Candidates spend a fortune on TV ads, he noted, but exposure on David Letterman’s or Jay Leno’s show is free, and it can often generate weeks of coverage in other media. If the focus is on personality quirks instead of hard issues, so be it.

“Look at all the mileage that Bush got from the GOP convention when we learned he read ‘Hop on Pop’ to his children,” said Evan Cornog, author of “Hats in the Ring,” a study of presidential campaigns. “It puts the focus on personality as never before, and it will cause some people to wonder: Should Gore read ‘Goodnight Moon’ on television to show that he’s a caring and nurturing father too?”

The schmooze fest rolled on this week, as Bush and his wife, Laura, tried to score points Tuesday night with an appearance on King’s interview show, while Gore held a “town hall” meeting with college students in Michigan on MTV. Then Gore and his wife, Tipper, chatted with King on Thursday night.

To be sure, Gore and Bush have talked about issues for much of this year, and the debates will likely put an even greater focus on their political experience, competence and grasp of detail. Yet it appears the “happy talk” component of their respective campaigns may play a more crucial role in this year’s battle than in previous contests.

For some, these appearances are a black mark on American democracy. “It’s become a disgusting spectacle,” said cultural critic and author Camille Paglia. “The idea that you now have to kiss the ring of Oprah Winfrey or act like a buffoon on a television show to win the U.S. presidency is something that should concern all of us.”

But others believe this is merely the latest wrinkle in a long historical continuum. Although the media have changed, experts suggest, the impulse to ingratiate has not.

“The desire of candidates to reveal themselves, to promote their persona, has been a part of our politics for more than 100 years,” said Gil Troy, a McGill University historian and author of “See How They Ran,” a study of presidential campaigns. “Voters don’t just go about electing a virtuous man; they have to choose a personality too.”

During the age of Washington and Jefferson, candidates were not expected to directly campaign, let alone voice an eagerness to hold office. It was considered unseemly, beneath the dignity of the presidency. But that changed as party politics became more fiercely contested and new technology--from railroads to radio broadcasts--made it easier to reach millions of voters.

Political campaigns evolved into theater, with torchlight parades in the 19th century and fireside radio chats in the 20th century. In our television age, few quarrel with the need for candidates to project a genial image. And it would be absurd to say that Bush or Gore has sullied the process--not after Bill Clinton eight years ago talked about his underwear on MTV and played a saxophone on “The Arsenio Hall Show.”

“People know that they’re being pandered to, and they’re really not stupid,” said Steve Ross, a USC cultural historian. “But until it backfires on them, American politicians will turn their campaigns into ‘The Full Monty.’ At some point, there will be nothing left to reveal.”

Meanwhile, there are votes to be won. Bush and Gore sat with Winfrey because most of her millions of viewers are women, who come to the polls in larger numbers than men. And although both candidates came across as warm and fuzzy, Bush seemed to have won this round, according to media reviews.

A key reason, the accounts suggest, is that he actually kissed Winfrey, while Gore merely shook her hand. Bush’s deft performance included one-liners and loving comments about his daughters, his decision to stop drinking, his religious faith and his favorite fast food. It was great TV, yet some wonder whether these appearances don’t wind up patronizing women.

“Part of me is very turned off by the idea that presidential candidates are guided by entertainment values, and I’m sick of [Winfrey’s] attempt to get people to keep revealing things about themselves,” said Susan Douglas, professor of communication at the University of Michigan.

But, she added, “Bush and Gore had to engage in female-style banter on ‘Oprah,’ and women know when they’re being courted. They’re not stupid. If that’s how you get their attention, who’s to say you shouldn’t do it?”

Just ask Judge Judy. She was impressed by Gore’s on-air offer of pastries, after complaining that his Secret Service retinue had taken over the “Today” show’s guest room and blocked her from eating breakfast. But when asked whether he had won her vote, she joked: “The muffins weren’t that good.”