Alpha: Reagan's Nashua moment

This is a famous moment during the 1980 New Hampshire Republican debate between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  Remember, this isn't about a political party or an issue, it's about social dominance.

Notice how Reagan stands up, his face becomes dead serious, he locks eyes with his challenger, he raises his voice, and delivers a line that reasserts his dominance (i.e., I am paying for this microphone...therefore it is mine to control).  Contrast with Michael Dukakis's disastrously beta death penalty answer. 

You can't do this at just any moment, and you can't just say anything.  It has to fit the context.  For example, it would be totally inappropriate and counter-productive to respond in a violent way.  If Reagan had physically attacked the moderator, he would have gained a reputation for being unhinged and hot-headed -- and probably would have to face criminal charges.  The context determines the right amount of alpha.

It's really tough to do.  It's easier to understand the phenomenon than it is to act on it -- especially in the heat of the moment, when it counts.   And it's hard to fake.  People might say, "Yeah, well, Reagan was an actor."  My guess is that they're right for the wrong reason: actors are high testosterone.  High testosterone people are more likely to stand up for themselves and don't shy from confrontations.

Comments

This reminds me of that

Submitted by SerfsUp on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 18:29.

This reminds me of that Saturday Night Live sketch where Will Ferrell keeps screaming "I drive a Dodge Stratus!" when he feels his manhood and authority is being challenged.  The angry-teenager absurdity of his reaction only emasculates him further in the eyes of his family.  People are going to watch this clip and react differently depending on how they personally define "dominant" or "alpha" behavior.  You believe that confrontation, yelling, and aggression are "dominant" modes of conduct.  Others believe in more subtle, more "sophisticated" and thoughtful modes of operating.  I think which reaction is most "dominant" in a given circumstance will be context-specific, but I can't help but think that in an advanced society, there just aren't that many situations where this sort of angry-teenager, "this is MINE!" behavior are respected and deigned to.  Personally, it's hard for me to watch Reagan's behavior and not roll my eyes.What's the end-game with these "this is alpha and this is beta" analyses?  If more people started acting like angry, hormone-driven teenage boys, the world would be a far more violent, nasty, brutish place.  Is that a better outcome?  Is the end-game a society where people start to take on "traditional roles" - some men are dominant authority figures, other men are omega-serfs, women are submissive domestic servants?  If so, I guess you could say Saudi Arabia is a progressive society from a paleo perspective. 

Let's not mix "is" and

Submitted by John on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 01:00.

Let's not mix "is" and "ought". The fact that you don't like Reagan's reaction in no way contradicts the dynamics of the situation. He demonstrated social dominance, people rallied to him. Those are facts. As for what type of society I advocate, you hit the nail on the head: I think Saudi Arabia is a shining caliphate on a hill, and one that we can only hope to achieve in our lifetime. (Then again, I own a burqa import business, so I'm biased.)

The people who "rallied" to

Submitted by SerfsUp on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 19:01.

The people who "rallied" to him in that clip were his supporters. I'm sure that his behavior probably did not succeed in winning the support of any of his detractors in the audience. People are more complicated than animals. Most people don't immediately kowtow when some self-styled alpha male starts beating their chest and yelling. Many times it just emboldens opposition. Even "betas" and "omegas" will watch this clip and roll their eyes or snicker. It's possible that undecided voters who watched the clip may have decided to support him after watching this performance, but I haven't seen any "facts" to support that proposition. Did he witness a jump in the polls after this "moment"? In my experience, the only people who cite this event as seminal or any way noteworthy are Reagan fans to begin with.

Learn some history:

Submitted by John on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 21:00.

Learn some history: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2009/10/new-book-tells-inside-story-of-p...

I think there is an

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 01/16/2012 - 15:47.

I think there is an "ought" here. If you want people to take you seriously and respect you, you can't simply take all challenges lying down and submit to the whim of someone who's mistreating you. Being totally unruffled in the face of a challenge can come from a position of strength, but you have to have established or demonstrated strength first. So just because someone disrespects you doesn't mean you have to knock them out, but if you want others to think of you as someone not to be tangled with they'd better believe you could have knocked that person out and just chose not to. If a presidential candidate gets walked on by a debate moderator, how much more will they be walked on by someone with actual power. This sort of posturing still defines much of human dynamics, and there are very few people in my experience who are successful in achieving social dominance of whatever form while mocking the posturing necessary. Even if it seems stupid or irrational, to be highly socially successful as a man (in terms of women want to bang you, men want to be you), you have to seem willing to step to challenges and willing, at times, to disregard the feelings of others.

Nice! People with the astute

Submitted by Donald Kjellberg on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 13:19.

Nice! People with the astute quality of chutzpah are rare these days.