May 21, 2007

Will Lazy Voters Give Us the American Idol Presidential Race?

The presidential race and the hugely successful “American Idol” TV program have two things in common. First, the competition is as much about popularity as it is about ability. Secondly, when lazy people don’t vote, popularity will win out over ability.

Millions of viewers were shocked last week when Melinda Doolittle did not make it to the final two contestants. That does not take away from the incredible talents of the remaining contestants, Blake Lewis and Jordan Sparks, but Melinda had been an overwhelming favorite to win it all by millions of viewers, including this casual observer, and she was even favored by the not-always-impressionable Simon.

But those who took the time to vote ultimately made the decision. The feedback of one viewer who posted her reaction to the outcome summed it up. Namely, “Melinda did not advance to the final two contestants because lazy people like me did not vote.” There is no doubt that Melinda will have a fantastically successful singing career, but one of the most talented singers to ever appear on that show will not be one of the top two finalists, because of lazy voters.

Many people are politically lazy because there are too many issues, too much information, too many sound-bites, too many pandering politicians, too many professional political handlers, too few statesmen and not enough leaders. So when the presidential primary process is over in 2008, we most likely will end up with the respective most popular party nominees running for the most difficult job in the world.     

The presidential candidates with the highest name recognition were off to early leads in the popularity poll results, which by no means are predictors of final outcome. Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, John Edwards and John McCain were all fairly well recognized by the public because of previous political and media exposure. Then there arose a media-inspired Democratic “rock star”, Barack Obama, and an articulate, well-organized and well-funded former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

So now, they represent the “front runners” in their respective political parties. This means they will continue to get the lion’s share of national media coverage to further enhance their popularity. And the larger their political “war chests”, the more popularity they can potentially buy.

When you consider which candidates have actually been in a significant leadership position, such as heading a business, a major city or state, Guiliani and Romney are the only two of the six front runners. Being a senator is significant, but it is very different from being directly responsible for setting organizational priorities, achieving objectives, generating revenue, establishing and managing a budget, cutting costs and directly impacting people’s jobs and careers.

That’s not to say that great leaders do not exist who have not had those experiences, but those experiences are a good indicator of leadership ability.  

As this presidential race continues to unfold, we begin to see only snippets of potential leadership ability or the lack thereof among the candidates. But educating the public on these snippets takes time and a lot of money to overcome the gap between ability and popularity.

For example, all three Democratic front runners have pledged “universal health care” to the public, and neither has any idea how much it would cost, or the devastating impact of such an idea on the overall economy and taxes we pay. None of them are about to let the voters in on that dirty little secret if it might cost them some popularity votes.

All three Democratic front runners have also renewed their usual assault on the free market system, which has produced unprecedented economic growth in the last six years. They want to confiscate profits from successful businesses and spend stockholders’ money on more dysfunctional government programs.

The Republican front runners at least acknowledge that there are serious problems facing programs such as Social Security and Medicare, even though the Republicans did not do anything about it while they had the congressional majority and the presidency. They also understand the importance of leaving free market dynamics alone, and making the Bush tax cuts permanent in order to sustain this healthy economy. The lazy voters are clueless, and many other voters just continue to accept the political rhetoric of their preferred popular candidate.     

An early media start to this presidential season for 2008 could be good for the public, if they use it to become better informed and educated on the real issues, real solutions and real leadership. Although it goes against my naturally optimistic outlook, previous voter behavior suggests otherwise.

I am optimistic that a second-tier or undeclared candidate may emerge to energize the focus on solutions and real leadership ability. I am also optimistic that informed voters will make the best decision for the country. But we need more voters to become better informed, and then vote for ability over popularity.

We need a president with real leadership ability. Popularity will then take care of itself.