Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:12:42.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charisma in the 1952 Campaign*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

James C. Davies
James C. Davies
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term charisma—miraculously-given power—was transferred by Max Weber from its original religious meaning to politics. He described it as “the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership.” He contrasts charisma with leadership based on custom and tradition or on competence related to “rationally created rules” of law. The charismatic leader is thus the one whose claim to rule is neither as a perpetuator of traditional values nor as one who resolves conflicting interests by reasonable and just means but as one endowed with superhuman powers to solve political problems. In the abstract, pure case he is seen by his followers as being all-powerful, all-wise, and morally perfect.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1954 , pp. 1083 - 1102
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (New York, 1946), p. 79Google Scholar.

2 An additional 222 in the Far West were interviewed before the election but were deliberately dropped from the post-election sample. These 222 are not here considered because of the need for information available only in the post-election questionnaire.

3 The selection procedure is described in the Note on Method at the end of this article.

4 The interview questions used to derive evidence of charismatic responses toward the candidates were:

a. “I'd like to ask you what you think are the good and bad points about the two parties. Is there anything in particular that you like (don't like) about the Democratic (Republican) party?” If necessary: “What is that?” (This is a condensed version of the four actual questions.)

b. “Do you think it will make a good deal of difference to the country whether the Democrats or the Republicans win the elections this November or that it won't make much difference which side wins?” If the answer was “Yes”: “Why is that?” If “No”: “Why do you feel it won't make much difference?”

c. “Now I'd like to ask you about the good and bad points of the two candidates for president. Is there anything in particular about Stevenson (Eisenhower) that might make you want to vote for (against) him?” If necessary: “What is it?” (This version is similarly condensed from the actual.)

d. “Now, adding up the good points and the bad points about the two candidates, and forgetting for a minute the parties they belong to, which one do you think would make the best president?”

e. “Some people say that Eisenhower is not a real Republican. What do you think about this? Is he the kind of man that you think of as being a real Republican?”

f. “What about Eisenhower's ideas and the things he stands for? Do you think that he is pretty much the same as most other Republicans or is he different from them?”

If necessary: “Why do you say that?”

g. (After asking for whom the respondent planned to vote:) “What would you say is the most important reason why you are going to vote for Stevenson (Eisenhower)?”

h. (If the respondent has said he was not going to vote:) “What would you say is the most important reason why you would vote for Stevenson (Eisenhower)?”

5 Eleven additional borderline cases (nine pro-Eisenhower and two pro-Stevenson) were rejected because the evidence satisfied only two of the three judges that charisma was the chief factor in the respondent's perception of the candidates. Thirty more cases (all pro-Eisenhower) were rejected because only one judge regarded the evidence of charisma to be adequate. See the Note on Method for further explanation. The Stevenson voter is discussed in note 10 below.

6 The question was: “How about the candidates for vice-president: aside from their parties, do you have any strong opinions about either of them?” If necessary: “How is that?”

7 See Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, “Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable,” Journal of Personality, Vol. 18, pp. 108–43 (Sept., 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Despite the small number of cases, these differences are highly significant statistically; significant, that is, at the one per cent level of confidence using a Chi-square test. This means that there is only one chance in a hundred that the differences between the two categories of individuals are due to chance. The Chi-square formula used here and elsewhere in this article, except where another formula is given, is the basic one of χ 2 = (o – e)2/e. Since both difference between the two categories and the direction of difference were predicted here, the level of significance is doubled here and elsewhere in the article where direction was predicted.

9 Respondents who voted or would have voted Republican tended more often than Democrats either to say we should pull out of Korea or to say we should take a stronger stand. Since being Republican in terms of the 1952 vote is thus related to this policy issue, this factor was controlled in Table I by eliminating Democrats and comparing only Republican charismatics and non-charismatics. This practice is followed in all comparisons where there is evidence that voting or intending to vote Republican is related to the response given to a particular question. In such cases, the charismatics and non-charismatics are labeled Republican in the tables.

10 Curiously, but consistently with this hypothesis, the one charismatic respondent who voted for Stevenson said after the election that he had never considered voting for Eisenhower and that he had decided to vote as he did “three months at least” before the election. When he was first interviewed on September 25, just six weeks, before the election, he said he was going to vote Republican, had only favorable things to say about Eisenhower, and unfavorable things about Stevenson.

11 The wording of these questions is given in footnote 4, items a and c.

12 The difference is significant in both cases at the five per cent level of confidence. In Table IV, because the expected frequency among the least black-and-white charismatics was less than five, the following formula was used:

See McNemar, Quinn, Psychological Statistics (New York, 1949), p. 207Google Scholar.

13 The question was: “Some people don't pay much attention to the political campaigns. How about you, would you say that you have been very much interested, somewhat interested, or not much interested in following the political campaigns so far this year?”

14 The question was: “Do you think it will make a good deal of difference to the country whether the Democrats or the Republicans win the election this November, or that it won't make much difference which side wins?”

15 The question was: “In the elections for president since you have been old enough to vote, would you say that you have voted in all of them, most of them, gome of them, or none of them?”

16 Berlin, Isaiah, “Political Ideas in the 20th Century,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 28, pp. 351–85, at p. 371 (April, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Wherein π = P 0 – P e/1 – P e. P 0 signifies observed per cent of agreement between two or more judges selecting a particular characteristic out of a group. P e signifies expected or chance per cent of agreement between two or more judges selecting such cases.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.