What does it take to be cool? A group of researchers last year claimed to have cracked the code, identifying six criteria for coolness.
Cool people were generally seen as extrovert, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open and autonomous, according to the study which polled 6,000 people across 12 countries and was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
It’s hard to tick all six boxes but think of someone like David Bowie, Sinéad O’Connor or CMAT perhaps.
What about politicians? Can they be cool? Certainly, they are capable of setting fashion trends. Emmanuel Macron wearing aviator sunglasses for an eye condition at the World Economic Forum led to a jump in sales for Maison Henry Jullien, the makers of his Top Gun specs.
READ MORE
The Barbour wax jacket, the workaday coat of the British country squire, has been enjoying a retail boom in the UK in no small part thanks to Nigel Farage. In contrast, the “SS” winter coat appears to have had its moment. Not even Donald Trump wants to be seen next to US border protection commander Gregory Bovino, a pin-up for the “Nazi” aesthetic.
Politicians may like to be cool – and political parties in Ireland have been investing heavily in boosting their social media presence. But staying on-trend can be difficult. Policy stances fall in and out of fashion. A few years ago, “woke” was in vogue. Now all the cool kids in Government Buildings are talking tough on immigration.
The trick is to avoid trying to look cool. Michael D Higgins being pictured in a messy study with Joe Biden was a paean to shabby chic. Simon Harris posting a selfie in a bucket hat and sunglasses at an Oasis gig was just cringy.
I say this fully aware that rating the coolness of politicians is the kind of superficial analysis that we need to get away from. There is a concern that image now matters more than substance in politics; that “vibes” matter more than policy. The media can play a role in either promoting or combating this shift in emphasis.
[ Micheál Martin knocked by poll as he ponders walking Trump tightropeOpens in new window ]
Exhibit A is last year’s presidential election, memorable primarily for two “viral” moments: Catherine Connolly doing keepie-uppies with a football (cool) and Jim Gavin walking through a farmyard wearing white trousers (uncool).
Exhibit B is the 2024 general election and the outsized emphasis placed on Harris’s awkward encounter with a disability worker in Kanturk, Co Cork. For the Tánaiste to lose his cool was, frankly, uncool. But who believed this isolated exchange represented his considered stance on disability issues?
From such examples, one might conclude that relatively trivial factors are having an exaggerated impact on politics, and that social media is accelerating this change. But is it that simple? “What we definitely observe is this personalisation of politics,” says Stefan Müller, associate professor in politics and international relations at University College Dublin, but establishing cause and effect is more complicated.
Müller, who specialises in using large data sets to examine political activity, is the joint author of a magnificently titled study, Evidence for the Irrelevance of Irrelevant Events. It looks at the question of whether “irrelevant events” outside politicians’ control, like sports results or natural disasters, affect voting behaviour.
The short answer is no, despite an “influential strand” of US research suggesting otherwise. Müller and TCD academic Liam Kneafsey took a novel two-pronged approach, first, mapping GAA results with constituency voting patterns since Irish independence and, then, taking a deep-dive into recent opinion polls.
They found no evidence that sports results – or any change in mood they might generate in a community – affected Irish voting behaviour. “We believe our findings challenge previous arguments that voters are simply irrational and influenced by irrelevancies,” they say.
Turning to the Kanturk example, Müller says “there has been some commentary that this really influenced the campaign but if you look at the polling ... Fine Gael were already losing support before the Kanturk incident. So it might have contributed to it but was it the only cause? Maybe it has changed some people’s view of Simon Harris; that could be the case”.
Minor events “can at least change the narrative of the campaign”, he says, and there’s a bandwagon effect where people tend to mirror the prejudices or preferences of their peers. If a politician gets a negative image in the public sphere – whether it’s deserved or not – it can be difficult to shake off.
A further concern around “irrelevancy” is raised by Donald Trump’s example. He has adopted a strategy of “flooding the zone” with manufactured outrage and attention-seeking to discombobulate his opponents. Are politicians using distraction as a political tool?
“It definitely plays a role,” Müller replies. “But I still think in Ireland, for example, voters are quite knowledgeable compared to other European countries.” He says election studies show attitudes towards policy strongly correlate with candidate preference. In other words, substance matters. “I wouldn’t underestimate voters and their ability to select between issues and not being driven only by one aspect.”
There’s a lesson here for politicians or political analysts who put great store in image management.
And even if “vibes” are playing an increased role in politics, that’s not all bad news. Why? Because changing trends ensure we never get stuck with one bad fashion for too long. The uncool – those who fake authenticity, or those who trade what’s right for what’s popular – are usually found out in the end.
