To understand contemporary politics, including the campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, it is essential to distinguish between two qualities: charisma and charm. They are different kinds of political magnetism. Thanks to sociologist Julia Sonnevent, I will never confuse them again.
In her book Charm: How Magnetic Personalities Shape Global Politics, like German sociologist Max Weber, she defines charisma as a quality that distinguishes an individual from the average person. I’m doing it. Having it does not make a leader morally better or worse. Think of great figures like Charles de Gaulle, Adolf Hitler, and Winston Churchill, who communicated through unparalleled rhetorical performance. Their charisma required closeness to the audience.
Attraction requires proximity. It is, Sonevento writes, “an everyday magic spell cast by politicians.” To succeed in today’s media environment, she argues, “political leaders must appear relatable, authentic, and relatable,” she argues, noting that they represent our country, rather than distant figures who embody it. It responds to the desire for familiarity and familiarity. Beer.
That doesn’t mean charisma is a relic of the past. When Barack Obama gave his formal speech in front of a staged classical column in a large stadium, he was aiming for a charismatic performance. But Mr. Obama was about to dazzle us when he filled out the NCAA slot and shot a hoop. President Trump’s rental of Madison Square Garden this weekend appears to be an attempt at a charismatic event. However, he created McDonald’s fries to attract people.
“Glamour is a hallmark of modern politics, not just in the United States but internationally,” Sonnebend told me recently at an event in New York City hosted by the intellectual community Inter-Intellect. “Analysis without taking politics into account misses the core element,” she argued. “There’s more emphasis on individuality than there used to be. We need to understand how that works.”
To understand how her ideas can help us understand the United States and the unique relationship between charisma and charm that Trump, Harris, J.D. Vance, and Tim Walz have, I talked to her Associate Professor I visited Sonnebend, the New School, where I work. What follows is a condensed and edited version of our conversation. There I learned that charm works, in part, because almost all of us want to be seduced.
Connor Friedersdorf: Trump always wears a suit and tie. He rose to prominence as a billionaire CEO at the boardroom table. He loves hosting large gatherings. Kamala Harris isn’t very good at giving speeches in large arenas. She has tried to avoid traditional interviews. However, people in small groups and more casual settings seem to find her likable and approachable.
Is charisma or charm the 2024 election?
Julia Sonnebend: When you think of dance videos and cooking videos, Harris is a great example of the glamor category in many ways. A tweet went viral in which someone suggested that instead of a formal interview, they should appear on Food (Network) and cook, and people were all like, “You should actually look that traditional.” Maybe not,” I suggested to her. “Perhaps you have a better chance of success in this intimate setting.” “Show the power of charm and the value of everyday interaction.” Still, at the debate, you can wear formal wear and a flag pin. He is trying to show off his charisma.
Trump’s case is even more complicated. He has strong charisma. Considering the assassination attempt, how did he realize this is the moment he was about to produce that iconic photo of his fist raised? He has the presence of mind to create moments like that, and it’s a more charismatic situation. I just don’t feel like doing it. That’s not normal.
Some of my students argue that there is nothing appealing about Mr. Trump. But when he tells personal stories, when he says “you guys are just like me” at a barbershop in the Bronx, when he wears a red baseball cap, you know, super formal business suits This is not a common accessory. Then there’s the element, which is a form of attraction. Most politicians try to combine charisma and charm, even if they are closer to one or the other.
Friedersdorf: Why do voters care more about attractiveness than before?
Sonnevend: One reason is the changing media environment. We have near-continuous access to politicians — or maybe that’s an illusion. Think about the totemic object we all carry around: our cell phones. It’s the intimacy of sitting in bed with the screen close to your face and watching politicians record their own videos and live streams on their phones. It’s not like sitting in your living room and watching TV with leaders on stage.
In our daily lives, there are many moments during meetings, interviews, and dates where we feel awkward or are unable to be our true selves. But in our politics, we want our leaders to perform consistently and with integrity, without being too sophisticated or calibrated. We know that attempts at attraction are highly structured. But if it works, it doesn’t feel like a performance. Everyday scenes have become political arenas, as then-New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, wearing a gray hoodie, recorded a video in her home announcing, “I just had a conversation with President-elect Joe Biden.” It’s normal to happen.
Friedersdorf: What if the charm attempt fails?
Sonnevent: Every time you try, you’re more likely to fail. And the feeling the audience has when it fails is usually disgusting. It’s interesting to see the fine line between successful performance and captivating performance. This approach attempt is meant to make you feel, “Okay, that’s actually him.” he is real I got to know him. But in some cases, you may feel like you’re trying to deceive or manipulate them, or that they’re sharing too much. Attractive people are great at making others feel like they know them, while maintaining boundaries and avoiding nastiness.
Friedersdorf: So a cringeworthy example would be when J.D. Vance went to the donut shop. Did your interactions with the staff there feel more awkward and formal than natural?
Sonnebento: Yes. Vance is not attractive. He is superior in the charismatic atmosphere of formal debates. Tim Walz is the opposite. He’s better at charm.
Friedersdorf: As a young woman, my grandmother would go to Hollywood movie premieres and watch 1950s movie stars take to the red carpet. When she got older, she would belittle her on shows like Access Hollywood and say to me, “You know what? The stars are no longer shining. To borrow Us Weekly’s tagline, she felt that stars were “just like us,” and that was a bad thing. Do politicians lose something in catering to our desire for exposure, which fuels our disdain for them?
Sonnevent: There’s a certain kind of magic that we’re losing. When you introduce viewers to your personal life, you lose the magic of distance that is the core of charisma: the stardust that can never be touched. There’s a difference between a god-like character and the fantasy of a guy you can have a beer with. If there are too many accesses, the excitement will be halved. Think of the Royal Family. And think about how difficult it is to have fans who start to know too much, and the inevitable controversy over what people think about those specific details.
Still, you can get other forms of magic that are appealing.
Friedersdorf: What are some examples of people who lost a little bit of the magic that comes from distance, but gained a little bit of the personal charm that comes from intimacy?
Sonnevent: When I was growing up in communist Hungary, there were very few commercial products available, so I looked to Princess Diana as a kind of icon. For me, she was my first example of this magical, far-off character, the princess.
But what I remember talking about for hours with my mother was about Princess Diana’s marital problems and how to resolve them. I was able to tap into this very common form of unhappiness that she displayed in a perhaps histrionic way. We felt that we knew her deep-rooted unhappiness and her marriage, even though we live in very different circumstances than her.
Friedersdorf: Perhaps there is no stable sweet spot. As humans, do we always crave more intimacy when faced with mystery, and more mystery when faced with intimacy?
Sonnebend: In politics, we may see a cyclical process in which a country has an attractive and charismatic leader for a while, but then they get tired of it, want change, and choose a more bureaucratic process. .
Sometimes we are fooled by charming people – abusers, scammers, charming psychopaths, sociopaths. Many people have this quality, and authoritarian leaders may also have this quality. So I’m not saying celebrate all aspects of it. There is a dark side to charm.
At the same time, I think we all want to be seduced. Attraction is very important in everyday life, whether we accept it or not. It is very important whether your child has an attractive teacher. It is important for a new school to have an attractive president. It’s important for fundraising, but it’s also important for the day-to-day feel and atmosphere of the university, because it’s made up of interesting people. Attraction itself is not good or bad. And I’m really trying to counter what I think is the hypocrisy of saying I don’t want anything to do with temptation.
Friedersdorf: So even in politics, the importance of attractiveness is less of an option and more of a fact to be dealt with?
Sonnevent: I think we’ve been trained, especially on the left, to be critical of performance. And I think we should be more honest about the fact that performance is extremely important to politics. That doesn’t mean it’s the only factor. Policies and other factors are not important. But it’s a defining feature.
It’s fragmenting and disillusioning audiences who often don’t follow politics because they’re fed up with it and think it’s gone too far. If we have fascinating characters who can bring a little seduction and magic into our lives, it can enliven and energize politics. And with attraction comes risk and its dark side. I don’t think we should adopt the simple answer of whether attraction is a magical process that we all need or a disaster that we should fear. We need to be aware of its presence in social life, reflect on it as it arises, and do our best to understand it.
