That is not necessarily true.
There have been many plan spoken people in history who have made it have had great historical moments in history.
Abraham Lincoln was not the best looking man in history nor a great speaker or writer, but his Gettysburg address is one of the greatest speeches the world has ever known.
Being anointed by God beats out being or having “ Charisma ( as we know the word and meaning of the word charisma today ) “ any day.
Bill Clinton had “ Charisma “ and look where it has gotten us.
Charisma can some times be a trap.
The media, anti-God, anti christian culture of today has hijacked the Christian term “ Charisma “ and has perverted with their own meaning of it and their own standards.
The Greek word Kharisma has the meaning of favors bestowed, gift of grace, favors freely given.
It was originally a Christian term until the secular world perverted it into the meaning of what we know Charisma today is.
Jim Jones of the Jonestown cult was very charismatic, who had “ Charisma “
Many women have been fooled by men who have “ Charisma “
The gift of discernment is a great blessing from God for those who have it and use it.
All that glitters is not gold.
Lucifer who comes as a angel of light appeals to those who are attracted by things that appeal to the senses.
What I mean by charisma is, I think, a pretty ordinary meaning of the word. People who have charisma have the ability to talk to and really communicate with others. That is not a common ability—how many of us would be able to take a radio microphone and make a 30+ year career out of simply talking to people, tens of millions of people, every day? Rush did it, but I don’t know anyone with that level of charisma. People who are charismatic also know how to “read” other people really well.
When I look at a candidate, I look at him holistically. He may have the best message in the world, he and I might agree on 99% of the issues, but if he does not have that charismatic ability to communicate with people, he is not going anywhere in an election. I have seen dozens of candidates that fit that description in the last few decades—great messages, great platforms, the communicative ability of a gnat.
Charismatic people also get things done, because they know how to communicate. When I look at Trump, I see someone who can get things done—building a financial empire from nothing is not a trivial matter. In order to do that, he had to know how to communicate, how to find the right person for the job, etc. Those are qualities we need in a president, especially since that corrupt Washington culture will oppose any president who threatens its power and influence.
Given a choice between a candidate who shares 94% of my views (e.g. Cruz) but can get hardly anything done because he lacks the charisma and fortitude to do it, or a candidate who only shares 73% of my views (e.g. Trump) but who is charismatic enough to get things done, I will gladly vote for the one who can get things done.
Yes, Bill Clinton was reportedly charismatic. I saw him only as a manipulative psychopath, which means whatever charisma he had was totally false. The ability to recognize psychopaths is not universal; if more people had that skill, Clinton would have never been elected. In addition, because so much of the electorate cannot tell the difference between psychopathic manipulation and true charisma, the RNC didn’t even field any decent candidates against him. Dole had good ideas, but was about the most uncharismatic person imaginable. And he lost in a landslide.