I found the passage on the Where and the How particularly interesting, especially in an election year. Leaders running for office must decide how they will balance appealing to the masses while clearly articulating their platform and plans. The example given, contrasting Obama’s “soaring rhetoric” with a heavy focus on ‘we’ and Clinton’s more pragmatic but less inspiring realism about the difficulty of leading the country. Obama, of course, won that campaign, and it could even be argued that Trump beat Clinton using the same focus on what he said, not the how of accomplishing his goals.
Looking at this election through that lens, candidates who were very plan oriented, such as Elizabeth Warren, had strong bases but failed to expand their appeal. Pete Buttigieg, who famously adopted much of Obama’s language, managed to rise in the polls. The two candidates with the most support, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, had clashing styles. Bernie Sanders used people-oriented policy to explain how he would get support for his plans, while Joe Biden touted his experience as Obama’s VP. In this, they combined both the rhetoric with the ‘how’ to gain mass appeal.
I think part of the reason society tends to disfavor candidates that are plan-oriented is because their plans take away from their charisma (or contribute to the lack thereof). We are “aware” of how charisma can lead to blind followership, but are still attracted to it when we see it on a debate stage. As for the current two democratic candidates, I think the “how” is still lacking, but they have done a decent job of answering some of the other seven questions. Now it’s up to us to ask even tougher questions and actively seek answers.
I remember learning about a study that was done to analyze unifying language in speeches I believe for my Social Science Inquiry though I’m not too sure. The study was looking at connections between the usage of the word “we” in speeches and public support. As long as I am remembering it correctly, they found a positive relationship between using the word “we” and public support. I had not thought of this experiment when doing the readings until reading your comment. I think that it is interesting in the context of the leadership questions to consider who the politicians mean when they say “we” rather than just looking at sheer quantity of times it is said.