Despite the influx of newer generational terms in today’s political conversations, “rizz,” which was defined by the Oxford University Press as “style, charm, or attractiveness,” has mercifully been missing from the campaign trail. A related term, charisma, has always had a complicated but strong connection to winning elections.
Understanding an Elusive Trait
Defining charisma is daunting. It is easier to tell that someone has it than to explain the reason behind it. Bob Hawke, Barack Obama, Boris Johnson, and even Donald Trump are examples of people who are perceived to have it. Its modern uses stem from German sociologist Max Weber, who defined a charismatic individual as one ‘treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers. These, as such, are not accessible to the ordinary person but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary.’
This definition raises questions: is charisma something someone is born with or something that can be given?
Charismatic leadership is not an intrinsic quality, as it is shaped by the representation of the individual and their unique social identity. Australian National University psychology professor Michael Platow supports this theory, arguing that charisma is not something that is born with. Leaders can shape social identities within communities by producing “us-ness,” which brings people together. For example, Trump’s supporters gained admiration and opinion for him, leading to him assuming the title of throne saver. Politicians often create plans that anticipate designing a vision of “us collectively” during rallies and public events.
Charismatic leadership has an impact on social identity dynamics, but elections depend on the supported impacts. An analysis of five Australian Prime Ministers found that Bob Hawke exhibited significant charisma, with his approval rating being over 10 percentage points higher than expected. Other indicators of intelligence include height in leader males and perceived emotional intelligence.
The Dark Side and Trainability of Charisma
Research co-authored by Haslam on 48 heads of state who died in office (2000-2013) identified a doubled rate of occurrences where those states were described as charismatic after death. Haslam explains this as an oversimplified admiration for a person’s contribution after their death, which tends to create “a very pure, undistilled image of them as a group member.”
Jacquart, Antonakis, and others delineated life as a setting where charisma could be taught, having identified nine rhetorical and three nonverbal methods a speaker could utilize. Their research on US presidential nomination speeches from 1916 to 2008 showed that their model predicting the more charismatic candidate winning 23 out of 24 elections was accurate.
Perpetrators of the ‘charismatic psychopath’ phenomenon, as Haslam terms it, include Hitler, Mussolini, and Jim Jones. He explains, “It’s pretty obvious that in toxic groups, where they have those kinds of leaders, that’s going to be a problem.” In Lu’s explanation, true charisma can be “a tool that can be used for good or for bad … even if you can develop it in people, that doesn’t necessarily mean everybody should.”
