Personality or Policies? How do we vote?

In a recent Guardian interview acclaimed feminist and gender theorist Susan Faludi commented on the American Presidential election with frustration at what she perceived as an irrational approach to choosing elected officials.  She remarked that “people want to fall in love with candidates, to identify with them, rather than to address the election as rational citizens”. The implication being that people do not judge candidates based on their solutions to complex problems, but on how they identify with them on a more instinctual level.

The motivation for Faludi’s opinions is clearly her frustration at the emotional and energetic support politicians like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama incite from their supporters, which she perceives as absent from Hillary Clinton's. The first two energetically identify and simplify complex problems, such as stagnating wages, inequality and target sections of society left behind by changes in the international economy; most notably those resulting from the trebling of the international labour market. Indeed China’s WTO entry  and also economic integration of the former soviet countries is one of the defining, yet least commonly understood economic events of the last 25 years.

Their solutions are simple to understand and their rhetoric loud, powerful and emotive. In the case of trump the solution to problems involves rejecting the “lazy lefty liberal” status quo and being more assertive against the world, most notably China and the Middle East. For Sanders the target is the rich, the powerful and those who succeed from collective effort whom seek not to return the favour. His solutions are higher taxation and massive increases in services and spending, with little regard for the likely political impasse in the American legislative system or how it fits within current institutional frameworks or the fiscal position. What they both have in common is that their personalities are loud, emotive, confident and whatever your views on them personally, incredibly compelling.

But for Clinton, whilst in many ways her analysis of the problems is the same, if meeker and less bellicose, the solutions proposed are, in contrast to Sanders and Trump, often highly detailed, complex and respected by experts. The problem with this is that a complex plan which aims to extend and reform the regulatory legal framework of the shadow banking sector, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry is not going to set the campaign on fire. Indeed when comparing this to an easy to comprehend, soundbite appropriate ban on Muslims, tax the 1% or rein in Wall Street, a wonkish regulatory proposal will have little traction. Nor is a much needed overhaul of family policy, such as child care, which evidence says will do much more to tackle poverty and inequality then most proposals put forward by her competitors. Indeed promoting full time labour market attachment amongst women is one of the single biggest ways of reducing poverty and inequality. It has long term benefits if the care also includes effective education for the child, but also higher household income and lifetime wage growth.

Clearly, however Clinton v Sanders or Trump is not a perfect test case for any theory that personality matters more than policy in elections. There are a plethora of other factors at play in someone’s motivation for choosing a candidate and to assume such a binary model of decision making is just a tad reductive. Indeed Clinton is a much more established candidate in which much of the public already have solidified feelings, which would always be difficult to challenge; as many have put it there is a lot of shit already stuck to her wall…..

What is more, in the current anti political, even toxic climate, having a breadth of experience is a fundamental weakness. At a time where there is such political dissatisfaction and a yearning for a greater pace of change, having a reputation for consensual compromise and incremental progress within a messy US political system is not a good look. Not only this, but people are deeply suspicious of Clinton, potentially rightly so…

There are other anecdotal examples too closer to home, such as the results of elections in Scotland, the labour leadership and also the last general election. In the first example of the 2015 general election in Scotland, areas like Glasgow were a straight fight on the left of politics between the SNP and Labour.  In light of the eventual result and SNP victory therefore it is notable that Ed Miliband’s policies were commented on as actually being more radical and effective by many left wing commentators; indeed many have acknowledged how the SNP copy and pasted several policies from the labour manifesto, including many they had previously denounced. But this had no effect on the eventual result with a full on labour rout in well-known left wing bastions. The crucial factor, arguably, was that that the bumbling, awkward demeanour of Ed Miliband was never a match for Nicola Sturgeon, a fearsome orator with sass and a piercingly sharp wit.

Another anecdotal example is that of the Labour leadership election; Jeremy Corbyns supporters repeatedly highlighted his warmth, character and asserted, rather insultingly to his opponents, that “he’s a real person, he’s not a robot”. He had no history of messy compromise and his plans were often off the cuff, simple and with a clear populist target in mind; the rich, the banks and the big businesses avoiding tax. In contrast, Yvette Cooper, had detailed plans and an incredible grasp of policy details whether it be on immigration reform, the banking sector or how family policies improve ordinary people’s lives.  Like Clinton she too viewed child care and parental leave along the same lines, that they should be viewed on a par with transport infrastructure in their fundamental importance to the economy. But yet again in the eyes of her opponent’s voters it was her personality which was her weakness; they argued that she lacked charm, seemed too polished or even, rather offensively, robotic and so could not be trusted. She is in many ways the archetype politician who when asked a difficult question triangulates, equivocates and defensively avoids answering directly. Perhaps this is a product of experience too. As a government minister most of their contact with the public and the press will indeed be defensive. Trying to spin, react and avoid saying what everyone largely already knows, but to admit would be to lose the argument.

The last example offers the potential for a more robust assessment of how people vote, however with less reliance on anecdote and subjection. A study by Sheffield University conducted a panel survey of voters in the general election with repeated interviews over a year or more before the election regarding their opinions. It controlled for their opinions of their party, their voting intention and also their opinion of party leaders as well as individual characteristics such as education. They found that, after taking account of party allegiance, which is clearly the largest factor, for both David Cameron and Ed Miliband peoples personal opinion explained 15% and 14% of why people voted for them. What is interesting however that is for smaller parties the figures were much larger, with 35% for Nick Clegg and 43% for Nigel Farage.

The results are informative and interesting, but obviously cannot really be extrapolated beyond the case of a general election. They don’t dispute that long term party allegiance is still the most important determinant and, as such it doesn’t inform much about contests where voters largely agree, such as selecting a new party leader. In these contests it is arguable that policy vs personality is more important. Indeed it’s questionable whether party allegiance is really a good instrumental variable or proxy for policy. In these contests, or those where parties fight on very similar positions we’re left with anecdote and assumption, with the usual danger of selecting the cases to fit your predisposed narrative (which I admit I could be accused of too).

Indeed there are clearly politicians and cases which are contrary to this. Angela Merkel with her considered, consensual and cautious approach is arguably the most notable and successful example. Her power in Germany is almost hegemonic in spite of a career largely in absence of any strong opinions or charisma. Her approach is the archetype of a politician who seeks consensus and the best achievable outcomes given each situations constraints. Indeed for those who think it is a particularly female problem, the likes of Nicola Sturgeon, as well as Angela Merkel require some consideration.

From a personal, anecdotal perspective speaking to people in Sweden where I live about how they vote is incredibly informative.  It is always shocking as a Brit how rational and calculating they are when it comes to important decisions. For them it is a case of simply judging the status quo against the likely outcomes of the policies proposed by each party. Indeed in discussing the referendum with them they are always shocked at how emotional and personal it has become, pointing out quite wisely that this is how regrettable decisions are made. One look at their recent leaders and you can clearly see it is not personal charisma on which they base their decisions…..

What then is the cause behind the apparent difference, if anecdotal, that we perceive in how people chose to vote? On the one hand education and the ability to understand complex issues and solutions is clearly important. The level of anger in the political climate and the urgency with which people yearn to see change is also fundamental. For example, in the context of Sweden and Germany, both countries are relatively wealthy, with low unemployment and as such have less urgency to seek a politician for radical change and have the luxury of slow, cautious, reform. In countries like the UK and America which have sections of society which have been affected differently by the integration of the east in the global economy, this is arguably different.

Perhaps though, fundamentally what is different is the respect people have for the politicians, experts and institutions in different contexts. Without confidence in these, how is it possible for voters to make a judgement on the outcomes of any potential proposals? When one looks at polls regarding who voters trust in terms of the media, institutions and politicians the trends have not only been negative for sometime, but are at their most negative amongst Trump Voters, Sanders voters and in Britain UKIP. 

If the perception is that a politicians promise is worthless, that the predictions of experts are nonsense, and the yearning for change so great, then perhaps the judgement of a personality is all that is left? Perhaps in this context, it is actually the most rational option available to voters?