Women are Smarter than that
The other morning I was reading Ladies Home Journal, a publication that I confess I do not like but I peruse because of my interests in media and advertising. By way of background, LHJ is a very conservative women’s magazine. Even while it tries desperately to come into the 21st century after 125 years of existence, it feels still in many ways like a publication out of the 1950s. (To their credit, they are obviously doing something that appeals to a large number of women. LHJ has a circulation of 4.1 million readers. To put that into perspective, that’s almost half a million more readers than People magazine and almost twice as many readers as O, The Oprah Magazine.)
Rick Warren of Purpose-Driven Life fame writes a monthly column for this publication. It is usually about God or being a better person or something along those lines. This month’s column is called What Makes a Great President?
I have issues with this article on a number of levels. First, the article’s subhead is “For women who want to vote with their heart.” Since when should our heart be the organ that is used to decide who to vote for? Is this publication suggesting that only women vote this way or that they should vote this way? Are they suggesting that women vote with their hearts, but men vote with their brains? While I am aware from studies that in the final analysis when people are standing in the booth it does ultimately come down to a gut decision, but is that where the process should start? Is that what a major women’s publication should be espousing during this critical election?
Second and even more offensive is the language that is coded into this text. Remember, Rick Warren is the pastor that held the Saddleback Civil Forum. This forum was the first long form interviews with the two presidential candidates after they were selected by their respective parties. Because of this, he has become a powerful influence in the political process.
During the forum, Pastor Rick (as he is known) went out of his way to say that he was friends with both McCain and Obama. Yet, in this article which will be read by millions of women and presumably passed on to their husbands, Warren shows that he is partisan toward McCain. The column says in part:
The foundation of leadership is not competence or charisma, but character. Charismatic people are often assumed to be the best leaders, but it’s a trait that can be used for good or evil. Three of the most charismatic leaders of the 20th century — Hitler, Mao, and Stalin — were also its worst, destroying the lives of millions. Without character, charisma becomes a menace, used to manipulate situations for selfish reasons. Whether leading in business, education, politics, or family, character always trumps charisma.
Charisma is the term that has been used again and again to describe one candidate and one candidate only in this campaign — Barack Obama. Not only does Warren use the term over and over to ensure people get the underlying code, he equates the word with the worst of history’s despots.
Since when did charisma become a bad word? According to the dictionary, charisma is “a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people.” More colloquially, charisma is sometimes defined as being filled with spirit. In Christianity, it is ascribed to someone who can perform miracles because they have been infused with the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn’t we describe the vast majority of our leaders as charismatic? Wouldn’t we describe the vast majority of our religious leaders as charismatic? Wouldn’t we describe Rick Warren as charismatic? Is he like Hitler? Or Mao? Or Stalin? I don’t think so. Though I do believe, like many others, that he wields more influence than he should and not all to the good.
Yes, the article goes on to say that a president should have compassion, contemplation, cheerfulness, concentration, courage, and a clear conscience. Certainly all of these things could also be applied to Senator Obama. However, the column is structured to lead the reader to be anti-Obama from the start — “don’t like this guy because he’s charismatic, even if he does have all these other attributes.”
Shame on Rick Warren, shame on Ladies Home Journal, and shame on their publisher, Meredith, both for being so deceptive and for treating women like they don’t have a brain. Please feel free to contact them.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I agree with your assessment that charisma gets a bad rap. As a student of the discipline, I’ve often tried to uncover the reasons individuals are sour on charisma and its impact. More specifically, why charisma isn’t regarded as a viable leadership model? I understand that some historic figures have tainted the model, but haven’t every leadership model, in some way or the other, been tainted by an individual? I’ve come to the conclusion that many opponents of charisma find it unfavorable, not so much for its traits, but the exclusivity of its characteristics. One comes to despise what he can never have nor ever be. If leadership is about influencing and persuading in conjunction with empowering, what better model than the charismatic one? Eminent sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) is credited with secularizing “charisma,” which was thought to be a purely religious concept. Weber postulated that charisma was the most challenging leadership model, largely because it relied on sheer force of personality. Its power derived from the personal ambition, vision and high energy of the individual. Canvassing the world stage, we rarely see effective leadership at its core and even more rarely see charismatic leadership in its pristine form. Yes, we are apt to apply a subjective label on an individual who interests us, but charisma has specific traits that supersede a smile, eye contact and the gift of oratory. In fact, it’s a combination of personality proclivity and socialization. The charismatic leader causes schisms inherent within his/her personality as well as followers. It’s a reality that he/she has to live with division as part of its DNA. Such a level of scrutiny and factionalism has to cause discontent. It’s often this discontent that pundits comment most about. The passion behind the concept pushes people off the fence of indecision and neutrality. You either love the charismatic or despise him. In the end, whether you hate or love the concept behind charisma, it is a growing reality in a media-centric world. In fact, charisma is in-step with the aspirations of the populous. So much so that those lacking charisma are at a severe disadvantage.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Thank you for your interesting and thoughtful post.
It is interesting to think about the candidates in terms of what you present. Obama has charisma — something that is not easily attained and therefore a cause for jealousy perhaps. While on the other hand, Sarah Palin is going out of her way to say that she is “Joe Six Pack,” suggesting that anyone can do what she has done. Of course, this is smoke and mirrors since her tax returns just revealed that she and her husband made $170,000 last year. I don’t know about Alaska, but that buys an awful lot of beer in NY!!!
Can you clarify one line for me? “…we rarely see effective leadership at its core and even more rarely see charismatic leadership in its pristine form.” What would that pristine form be?