It's Charisma, Stupid
Пол Грэм предлагает простую теорию президентских выборов в США: побеждает более харизматичный кандидат. Он ссылается на бритву Оккама, утверждая, что это объяснение проще политических интерпретаций о сдвиге страны влево или вправо. В качестве примера он приводит победу Клинтона над Бушем-старшим: Клинтон казался более энергичным и мотивированным, тогда как Буш выглядел уставшим. Грэм считает, что политические комментаторы — и левые, и правые — переоценивают идеологические факторы, тогда как на деле выбор избирателей определяется личной харизмой кандидатов.
November 2004, corrected June 2006
Occam's razor says we should prefer the simpler of two explanations.
I begin by reminding readers of this principle because I'm about
to propose a theory that will offend both liberals and conservatives.
But Occam's razor means, in effect, that if you want to disagree
with it, you have a hell of a coincidence to explain.
Theory: In US presidential elections, the more
charismatic candidate wins.
People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right,
have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one
candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The
country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of
shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which
makes it easy to believe it was the cause.
But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George
Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just
seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed
old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters.
Clinton didn't represent any national shift leftward.
[1