The Charisma Trap
Dubbing a leader "charismatic" allows him—and his followers—to act insane.
Jack Schlossberg tried to be charismatic
It’s widely believed that “charisma” is an intrinsic feature of certain public figures. They either have it or they don’t. From the Greek for “gift from God,” charisma is seen as either divine grace—or, to capitalists and the manosphere, something like “animal magnetism.” Charisma is bred in the bone, a divine right, fit for a king. This is not a notion befitting a democracy.
Modern charisma can be understood best in its absence. So let’s take Hillary Clinton. It has long been an article of faith that she lacks charisma. In 2016, attraction to her by her pantsuit nation supporters could not be attributed to her charisma, which she by decree did not have; so our passion was re-described as calculation or neoliberal conformity. Surely it wasn’t possible to adore an industrious public servant. In 2016, right after she lost, I tried to write about this:
Maybe saying “I love Hillary” would have seemed culty. But people say with impunity they love Obama, the state of Israel, their churches, Kurt Cobain. In the end, I wish I’d said it because it’s true.
The Chapo left sure hazed me for that one. You evidently don’t fall for Hillary Clinton. You fall for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. So I stopped talking about Hillary’s charisma. And their charisma monopoly really worked for Trump and Sanders. Under its banner, they two can demagogue, get nothing done, colossally screw up our lives, whatever they want. But charismatic and blessed by the Almighty; all is forgiven.
