Character Vs Competence

Two Ways to Lead

With the American federal election less than a week away I've decided to compare Obama and Romney. Not by examining their platforms or political views, but instead by looking at the way they present themselves personally as a leader. There are several different ways to be a leader. From leading by example, to being a voice that others can rally around. When it comes to politics I've found there are two specific kinds of leaders than are most common. The first is a leader who uses charisma and character to relate and inspire the public. The second is a more robotic calming figure, who seems in control and professional.

Photo Retrieved from http://www.geografi-tjek.dk/foto.aspx?id=858

The first example we will look at is the competent and robotic style of Governor Mitt Romney.  Let's face it Mitt Romney is pretty boring. There is essentially nothing about him that makes a person want to watch him. A high level business executive, it is almost as if he has been groomed for this job his entire life. Imagine the stereotypically president from movies and it is easy to picture Romney. He doesn't posses any qualities that make him relatable to the public. Which causes him to appear distant from the concerns of the general public. This style is not all bad however, as it conveys a professional demeanour. This gives the public a feeling of and individual in control. A characteristic sought after for a leader of an entire nation. This style has won many times before, just look at our friend Mr. Harper. There's a boring guy who won based on his platform and his profesional look. This type of candidate uses a low risk strategy to attempt to win. This may be low risk but it doesn't have the potential for the reward that other styles provide.  

Photo Retrieved from http://thewhizzer.blogspot.ca

Barack Obama is an opposing style to that of Romney. In the sense that he is relatable to the public, he conveys an everymen image. For example he is a documented sports fan, characteristic like this make him appear more relatable to the general public. Obama himself carries a more interesting demeanour than his counterpart. He has a charisma about him that makes him likeable. Even his speeches appear more interesting as his delivery comes with a certain flare that I just don't see when Romney delivers a speech. This isn't to suggest Obama gives wild and exuberant speeches with no level of professionalism. It does however appear that his speeches are less calculated and I find this more appealing to listen too. The strategy to use a candidate's personality to market him to the public can be very effective. Although this may not be the most popular example, let's take a moment to examine Hitler. Hitler used his charisma and his strong belief to gain support. Do we honestly believe that if Hitler delivered his speeches in a slow monotone style he could have gained the support he did. I for one have high doubts. Charisma however effective does have the potential to blow up. It is a much riskier style that can cause a candidate to look unstable or a little crazy, or just not be taking seriously.

I believe Barack Obama has done an excellent job using his charisma in balance with professionalism to produce an ideal style of candidate.  Strictly speaking from a style standpoint and excluding the actual issues, I feel that Mitt Romney's lack of personality and relatability will hurt him in the upcoming elections. I may have a bias for Obama based on the fact that I agree with him on more of his platform ideas than those of Romney, but it is clear these two candidates have opposing styles and I believe Obama's is more desirable.