"It's the Person, Not the Party"

Part 3: The 2020 Trump-Biden Contest - Character in the Time of Crisis

This lecture continues our examination of personality-driven politics, focusing on the 2020 presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The analysis explores how personal qualities and character assessments influenced voter decisions during a time of national crisis, representing a critical shift from the dynamics of previous elections.

I. The 2020 Election: Character Testing in Crisis

The 2020 presidential election occurred during one of the most challenging periods in recent American history—a global pandemic, economic upheaval, and social unrest. These extraordinary circumstances fundamentally altered how voters evaluated leadership character, creating a unique test for both candidates.

Historical Context: A Nation in Multiple Crises

The 2020 election took place against a backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had claimed over 230,000 American lives by Election Day, triggered unprecedented economic disruption, and fundamentally altered daily life across the country. Additionally, the murder of George Floyd sparked nationwide protests about racial injustice, adding another layer of social tension. These simultaneous crises created a unique crucible for assessing presidential character and leadership qualities.

This extraordinary context shifted voter priorities from the anti-establishment sentiment that dominated 2016 toward a desire for stability, competence, and empathy. The election became less about disrupting systems and more about demonstrating the character traits needed to navigate multiple overlapping national emergencies.

While the 2016 election rewarded perceived authenticity and disruptive potential, the 2020 contest placed a premium on different character traits: empathy, steadiness, and the capacity to unify rather than divide. This shift demonstrates how crisis conditions can dramatically alter the personality traits voters seek in leadership.

II. Character Dimensions in Crisis Leadership

The unprecedented challenges of 2020 brought certain character dimensions to the forefront of voter consideration, creating a markedly different evaluation framework than previous elections.

Empathy vs. Strength

The pandemic highlighted the importance of emotional connection with suffering Americans.

Biden: Leveraged his personal history of family tragedy and grief to connect with Americans experiencing loss. His willingness to demonstrate emotion and acknowledge pain resonated during a time of widespread suffering. His empathetic communication style, including direct addresses to bereaved families, created a personal connection transcending policy positions.
Trump: Emphasized strength, resilience, and optimism as leadership qualities during crisis. His focus on economic reopening and resistance to displaying vulnerability aligned with his established brand of decisive leadership but resonated less during a time of collective grief. His approach to COVID-19 prioritized projecting confidence over acknowledging suffering.

I've been a Republican all my life, but watching Biden talk about loss and grief after my mother died from COVID... it was the first time I felt like a politician understood what we were going through.

- Michigan voter, October 2020

Stability vs. Disruption

The multiple crises fundamentally altered the appeal of disruptive leadership.

Biden: Presented a return to normalcy and institutional stability after years of disruption, now amplified by pandemic chaos. His long history in government, previously a potential liability, was reframed as valuable experience for navigating crisis. His message of steady, predictable leadership provided psychological comfort during uncertainty.
Trump: Continued to embrace his disruptive outsider persona, challenging institutions like public health authorities even during crisis. The same disruptive qualities that appealed to voters seeking systemic change in 2016 created concerns about unpredictability during multiple national emergencies. His confrontational approach to crisis communication heightened anxiety for some voters seeking reassurance.

Research in crisis psychology consistently shows that during periods of acute threat and uncertainty, people often prefer leadership that offers predictability and stability, representing a significant contextual shift from 2016's anti-establishment sentiment.

Unifier vs. Fighter

Social division and polarization created new leadership challenges.

Biden: Positioned himself as a unifying figure who could bridge partisan divides during national crisis. His campaign emphasized themes of national healing and reconciliation at a time of extreme polarization. His moderate persona and willingness to work across partisan lines suggested potential for reducing social tension.
Trump: Maintained his combative approach, framing the pandemic and social justice protests in polarizing terms. The fighter persona that energized his base created concerns about his capacity to unite the country during multiple crises. His confrontational rhetoric during national emergencies reinforced perceptions of divisiveness.

After four years of constant fighting and then a pandemic on top of it, I just wanted someone who could calm things down and bring people together. The country felt like it was coming apart.

- Pennsylvania voter, Exit poll 2020

Trust in Expertise vs. Intuitive Leadership

The pandemic highlighted contrasting approaches to expert guidance.

Biden: Emphasized deference to scientific and public health expertise during a complex public health crisis. His "follow the science" message aligned with voter desire for evidence-based pandemic management. His willingness to acknowledge the complexity of the crisis and defer to experts suggested intellectual humility.
Trump: Presented intuitive leadership that sometimes challenged or contradicted scientific consensus. His skepticism toward certain expert recommendations aligned with his brand of challenging establishment thinking. His preference for optimistic messaging sometimes conflicted with scientific assessments of the pandemic's severity.

The pandemic created a unique leadership test where complex scientific information needed to be translated into public policy, revealing fundamental differences in how the candidates approached expertise and uncertainty.

III. Age and Cognitive Function: The Beginning of a Key Narrative

The 2020 election featured the two oldest candidates ever nominated for a first presidential term, bringing questions of age and cognitive capacity to the forefront of character assessment. This dimension would ultimately become even more significant in subsequent political developments.

The Age Factor in Leadership Perception

Both candidates faced scrutiny about age-related capacity:

Biden: At 77, faced persistent questions about cognitive acuity and stamina for the presidency. His occasional verbal stumbles and memory lapses became fodder for opponent attacks and media scrutiny. His campaign countered concerns with demonstrations of physical vitality and by framing his age as providing valuable experience and wisdom.
Trump: At 74, faced fewer age-related concerns despite being the second-oldest president in history. His high-energy persona and unscripted communication style projected vitality that partially offset age concerns. However, his hospitalization with COVID-19 during the campaign temporarily heightened questions about his physical resilience.

Research shows that voters often assess cognitive function through the lens of their existing candidate preferences, applying higher scrutiny to candidates they already oppose while dismissing similar concerns about preferred candidates.

Public Assessment vs. Professional Evaluation

The 2020 election highlighted a growing phenomenon where voters made amateur psychological and cognitive assessments:

Armchair Diagnosis: Voters increasingly engaged in amateur diagnosis of candidates' mental and cognitive states based on public appearances
Selective Perception: Partisan affiliation strongly influenced which cognitive lapses voters noticed or considered significant
Media Amplification: Selective editing and highlighting of verbal mistakes or confused moments shaped public perception
Absence of Neutral Assessment: No standardized, transparent evaluation of cognitive function was available to voters

This lay assessment of cognitive function would become an increasingly significant factor in subsequent political discussions, particularly regarding President Biden's capacity to serve effectively.

Early Warning Signs: While both candidates demonstrated occasional verbal missteps and confusion typical of their age cohort during the 2020 campaign, the frequency and nature of Biden's lapses would later be viewed retrospectively as early indicators of more significant concerns that would emerge during his presidency. This dynamic illustrates how public perception sometimes perceives patterns that institutional structures may be slow to acknowledge.

IV. Character Through Crisis Response: COVID-19 as Leadership Test

The COVID-19 pandemic provided an unprecedented real-time test of leadership character and decision-making that significantly influenced voter perceptions.

Crisis Leadership Dimension	Trump Approach	Biden Approach	Voter Perception Impact
Communication Style	Optimistic messaging emphasizing economic concerns; resistance to acknowledging severity	Somber acknowledgment of crisis gravity; emphasis on public health guidance	Biden's approach aligned better with crisis psychology research showing people prefer candid assessment during emergencies
Relationship to Science	Questioning of expert consensus; suggesting untested treatments; prioritizing economic reopening	Deference to scientific experts; "follow the science" messaging; caution over reopening	The pandemic elevated the importance of scientific credibility, benefiting Biden
Personal Behavior	Resistance to mask-wearing; holding large gatherings; projecting personal invulnerability	Strict adherence to health guidelines; modeling recommended behaviors; limited public appearances	Biden's approach symbolically communicated seriousness about the crisis
Empathy Display	Focus on economic impact; emphasis on American resilience; limited acknowledgment of personal loss	Direct addresses to bereaved families; sharing personal grief experiences; memorial initiatives	Biden's empathetic approach resonated during widespread grief and anxiety
Institutional Trust	Challenging public health institutions; suggesting political motives behind guidance	Expressing confidence in government agencies; proposing institutional strengthening	The crisis increased desire for functional institutions, benefiting Biden
Leadership Narrative	"Wartime president" facing invisible enemy; focus on economic recovery	"Healer-in-chief" who would unite country against common threat	Biden's narrative better matched psychological needs during communal suffering

The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the character traits voters prioritized, elevating empathy, steadiness, and deference to expertise over the disruptive strength that dominated the 2016 election. This shift underscores how crisis conditions create distinct leadership challenges that reward different personality profiles.

V. The Character-Based Decision of 2020

Exit polling and post-election analysis revealed that the 2020 election was decided largely on character assessments rather than specific policy differences, continuing the personality-driven pattern established in previous cycles but with different character priorities.

Exit Poll Insights: Character as Deciding Factor

45% of voters cited "bringing the country together" as their most important leadership quality sought in a president
Among voters who prioritized "a candidate who cares about people like me," Biden won by a 23-point margin
67% of Biden voters cited "presidential character" as their primary voting motivation rather than specific policy positions
Among the 17% of voters who said the pandemic was their top issue, Biden won by a 66-point margin

These patterns reveal that voters responded primarily to perceived character traits rather than specific policy details, particularly in relation to crisis management capabilities.

Key Insights from the 2020 Election

The unique circumstances of the 2020 election revealed important evolutionary aspects of personality-based voting:

Crisis Alters Character Priorities: The multiple national emergencies of 2020 shifted voter preference from disruptive authenticity toward empathetic stability, demonstrating how context shapes which personality traits voters value.
Empathy Outweighed Strength: In a time of widespread suffering, the capacity to acknowledge pain and demonstrate compassion proved more electorally powerful than projecting strength and optimism.
Institutional Experience Regained Value: The chaotic crisis environment rehabilitated the value of government experience and institutional knowledge, qualities that had been liabilities in the anti-establishment environment of 2016.
Unity Message Resonated: After years of intensifying polarization, amplified by crisis conditions, the promise of reduced division and national healing created powerful emotional appeal beyond policy specifics.
Character Directly Tested Through Crisis: Unlike previous elections where character was largely assessed through campaign rhetoric, the pandemic provided a real-time leadership test that powerfully shaped voter perceptions.
Age Concerns Emerged But Didn't Dominate: Questions about age-related capacity surfaced but were secondary to crisis management character traits, though they would later gain significantly more prominence.
Public Health Crisis Created New Leadership Test: The pandemic introduced a novel dimension to character assessment—the ability to understand and appropriately respond to complex scientific information during an evolving emergency.

Continue to Part 4: The Unrealized 2024 Trump-Biden Rematch

In our next lecture, we'll examine how perceptions of President Biden's cognitive capacity evolved during his presidency, the growing public perception of decline that preceded institutional acknowledgment, and how these dynamics shaped the potential 2024 rematch that ultimately did not materialize.

Proceed to Next Lecture