2016: The Authenticity Election
Every four years, the U.S. Presidential election is dominated by many storylines, but there is usually a single, salient narrative that holds up throughout history. For re-election campaigns, it is always a referendum on the candidate who has been Commander-in-Chief for the past four years. The challenger must make the case that it is time for voters to cut their bait and make a change. This was certainly the case in 2012, where Mitt Romney was ultimately unsuccessful in making that argument.
Looking back at the past several Presidential election cycles, we can see pretty clearly the themes that won — or lost — each. 2008, for example, was viewed as a referendum on the eight years of George W. Bush, but it was the “hope” election, where voters across the country were inspired by a hopeful, optimistic vision of America’s future.
Today, like we do every four years, we are facing a similar situation on both sides. Republican candidates have made a focus of their campaigns a referendum on the Obama Presidency, arguing that the past eight years have been a failure and therefore, a change is needed. To be fair, Hillary Clinton also has been using the “referendum” model of a campaign theme, arguing that we need to continue the work that was started over the past eight years — a substantial part of which she played a key role in the Obama administration.
But what we have seen throughout the campaign thus far is that voters are no longer singularly focused on policy proscriptions and visions so much as they want an authentic candidate. This harks back to the question that comes up, in some simplified form or another, every presidential cycle: “Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?”
As a result of a ceaseless news cycle, we are now at a point where we see every candidate at their best, and at their worst. We expect our candidates to have no human flaws, which only serves to strip them of their humanity. And as a result, when a candidate like Donald Trump takes the stage to say something that many Americans think, for good or ill, he can chalk it up to his not being afraid of “political correctness” or “the morality police.” In so doing, voters view what would traditionally be seen as a weakness (a proclivity for crass, factually inaccurate, or offensive statements) as the candidate “standing up for what they believe in.” This is the “who would you rather have a beer with” question on steroids.
Coupling a high authenticity quotient with the ability to govern and lead at the same time has proven to be far more elusive. This hasn’t gone unnoticed, as the candidates who are credited with leading the authenticity pack — Trump, Cruz, and Sanders chief among them — have found this to be the chief criticism of their candidacies. While their die-hard followers may not be quite as concerned with implementation, if any of them are successful in securing the nomination, they will have to convince the rest of the general public that they are the best candidate to get the job done. This will, without question, be their chief communications challenge through the general election.
Throughout the ages, our perceptions of what makes someone “presidential” and what qualifies them to be President have changed. We have changed our evaluations of what qualities we seek in our leaders. As a nation, we have chosen military leaders to guide us through times of turmoil, like Washington, Jackson, Tyler, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower, among others. We’ve looked at those who inspired us with a new vision for what our country could be. And today, we as an electorate are looking for someone who we feel represents us by representing their true self to us.
Andrew S. Ricci is a Vice President at LEVICK, a Washington, DC-based public relations and government affairs firm.
