Voting on the Superficial
I just read an article citing that waste of skin, Bill O'Reilly, as saying that one can't "get more presidential than Mitt Romney." Read it here if you don't believe me.
What pisses me off about O'Reilly's assumption--that Mitt Romney really LOOKS the part--is that his words will probably influence the mouth-breathers that hold onto his every word and cannot form independent thoughts. Believe me. I want to (and often) believe that there are people out there that actually research the candidates and vote on the substance of their views. However, I'm afraid there will be voters out there that hear O'Reilly's subtle hero-worship and possibly be influenced to vote for all the superficial reasons: "jaw going on" or "little gray thing."
Wait a minute...wouldn't John Edwards be just as qualified under O'Reilly's nebulous definition of "presidential" given his reportedly pricey hair cut and all-american looks? Why isn't O'Reilly saying something similar in support of him? (I'm surprised O'Reilly didn't go the obvious route and tout actor Fred Thompson as "presidential." Cuz hey, he's played governmental types on TV!!!)
To be objectively fair, this same crap happens with Democratic candidates. People may vote for Hillary solely on the fact that she's a woman, not because they agree with or even know about her views on health care. Personally, I would vote for Barack Obama because I agree with his views, but not because he's black, as several people might.
Wake up, people! Image isn't everything. This problem is PERFECTLY illustrated in the last major presidential election, though in a slightly different way. Bush was touted as this happy-go-lucky "aw shucks" kind of guy from TAKE-SUS! (He's really an ersatz Texan.) Kerry was demonized as an out-of-touch elite with little personality. I know I might be taken to task for saying this, but I think the likability factor played into the 2004 election, giving us a leader with little substance, mostly filling.
I recently called into Crane Durham's Nothing But Truth radio show to discuss the likability factor and how it can blind people from making choices based on substance. I didn't get many words in, but I think I made my point...and was brutally honest about Kerry, whom I voted for. For the transcript of our discourse,
CRANE: Phil, welcome to Nothing But Truth. What influences you on voting?
PHIL: Well, the issues. Where they stand. If you think they're going to stand by what they promise. God knows that on both sides sometimes--a lot of the time--that doesn't happen. But, when you were talking about likability of candidates I would like to talk about the last major presidential election. I think where Kerry lost, partially, was [that] Bush came off as such a likable, "aw shucks" kind of guy and I think the likability factor worked in his favor. Now, let's talk about Kerry, who I voted for. I had a lot of the same views as he did. I voted for him because of that, but I have to say [that] Kerry was not a very likable person. He didn't have much of a personality. I hate to say that, you know, I put my vote behind him. In general, I don't vote for personality. I vote for issues. I vote for "is this candidate going to have the same ideals I have?"
CRANE: Very interesting. It's very interesting because I remember Bob Dole. Bob Dole wasn't a very good candidate for so many reasons. You know how he got more likable post-election of 96? [He] started doing Viagra ads and all that.
PHIL: Yeah, that's disgusting.
CRANE: Yeah, I got you. I'm just saying in America's eyes he became-- [Dole] wasn't the evil guy he was portrayed in the election and so I'm just talking on that level, that field of likability and how people are percieved. Yeah, I think it's pretty ridiculous, but that's another story altogether, Phil.
When you talk about John Kerry and the way votes can sway, you're judging it on substance. You believe in what John Kerry stands for. So you're making that on the substance of that. But you know as well as I do that, as you just pointed out that [idea of] "Oh we like Bush, we like Bush a little more and he's a kind of guy we can relate to. John Kerry's a guy who parasails-- I mean-- does windsurfing. His wife doesn't know what chili is, I mean come on. We really can't relate to him." It's interesting that you say that because unfortunately that's an element of it. I don't know if [Bush's likability] was the swaying element. I would say the Iraq war was the swaying element. I know morality came in there but I think the Iraq war fundamentally was and [intelligible]. ...Americans being more comfortable with Bush's view on that particular notion, and I'm not debating it with you, I'm just making the observation. But if you look at how candidates have tried to take elements of other parties' candidates for mere likability: Reagan-- cowboy hat. That kind of thing. Bill Clinton-- the idea is "I'm going to talk to you [unlike] George H. W. Bush, a snob that sits up at Kennebunkport. I'm a guy that wears a digital watch and I'm a little overweight and hey you know..." These things come across. It's part of the image. It's part of the emotional appeal.
So it's very interesting that you-- I mean, do you think overall the election was swayed in your mind, Phil, by that? By the mere emotion of the fact that Kerry came off as somebody kind of distant who you couldn't relate to? Bush was like "hey he's just like me"?
PHIL: Yes, because I-- unfortunately I hate to have to say this, but we're a very superficial society. And they saw GB and saw--like I said--this happy-go-lucky "aw shucks" kind of guy from Texas.
CRANE: In my hopes, it's all based on substance. That's how people are making these decisions, but they wouldn't try to package him so much if it wasn't an element certainly, and a very important element of how people are elected in this country. So Phil, I appreciate your point and I appreciate your candor.
What pisses me off about O'Reilly's assumption--that Mitt Romney really LOOKS the part--is that his words will probably influence the mouth-breathers that hold onto his every word and cannot form independent thoughts. Believe me. I want to (and often) believe that there are people out there that actually research the candidates and vote on the substance of their views. However, I'm afraid there will be voters out there that hear O'Reilly's subtle hero-worship and possibly be influenced to vote for all the superficial reasons: "jaw going on" or "little gray thing."
Wait a minute...wouldn't John Edwards be just as qualified under O'Reilly's nebulous definition of "presidential" given his reportedly pricey hair cut and all-american looks? Why isn't O'Reilly saying something similar in support of him? (I'm surprised O'Reilly didn't go the obvious route and tout actor Fred Thompson as "presidential." Cuz hey, he's played governmental types on TV!!!)
To be objectively fair, this same crap happens with Democratic candidates. People may vote for Hillary solely on the fact that she's a woman, not because they agree with or even know about her views on health care. Personally, I would vote for Barack Obama because I agree with his views, but not because he's black, as several people might.
Wake up, people! Image isn't everything. This problem is PERFECTLY illustrated in the last major presidential election, though in a slightly different way. Bush was touted as this happy-go-lucky "aw shucks" kind of guy from TAKE-SUS! (He's really an ersatz Texan.) Kerry was demonized as an out-of-touch elite with little personality. I know I might be taken to task for saying this, but I think the likability factor played into the 2004 election, giving us a leader with little substance, mostly filling.
I recently called into Crane Durham's Nothing But Truth radio show to discuss the likability factor and how it can blind people from making choices based on substance. I didn't get many words in, but I think I made my point...and was brutally honest about Kerry, whom I voted for. For the transcript of our discourse,
CRANE: Phil, welcome to Nothing But Truth. What influences you on voting?
PHIL: Well, the issues. Where they stand. If you think they're going to stand by what they promise. God knows that on both sides sometimes--a lot of the time--that doesn't happen. But, when you were talking about likability of candidates I would like to talk about the last major presidential election. I think where Kerry lost, partially, was [that] Bush came off as such a likable, "aw shucks" kind of guy and I think the likability factor worked in his favor. Now, let's talk about Kerry, who I voted for. I had a lot of the same views as he did. I voted for him because of that, but I have to say [that] Kerry was not a very likable person. He didn't have much of a personality. I hate to say that, you know, I put my vote behind him. In general, I don't vote for personality. I vote for issues. I vote for "is this candidate going to have the same ideals I have?"
CRANE: Very interesting. It's very interesting because I remember Bob Dole. Bob Dole wasn't a very good candidate for so many reasons. You know how he got more likable post-election of 96? [He] started doing Viagra ads and all that.
PHIL: Yeah, that's disgusting.
CRANE: Yeah, I got you. I'm just saying in America's eyes he became-- [Dole] wasn't the evil guy he was portrayed in the election and so I'm just talking on that level, that field of likability and how people are percieved. Yeah, I think it's pretty ridiculous, but that's another story altogether, Phil.
When you talk about John Kerry and the way votes can sway, you're judging it on substance. You believe in what John Kerry stands for. So you're making that on the substance of that. But you know as well as I do that, as you just pointed out that [idea of] "Oh we like Bush, we like Bush a little more and he's a kind of guy we can relate to. John Kerry's a guy who parasails-- I mean-- does windsurfing. His wife doesn't know what chili is, I mean come on. We really can't relate to him." It's interesting that you say that because unfortunately that's an element of it. I don't know if [Bush's likability] was the swaying element. I would say the Iraq war was the swaying element. I know morality came in there but I think the Iraq war fundamentally was and [intelligible]. ...Americans being more comfortable with Bush's view on that particular notion, and I'm not debating it with you, I'm just making the observation. But if you look at how candidates have tried to take elements of other parties' candidates for mere likability: Reagan-- cowboy hat. That kind of thing. Bill Clinton-- the idea is "I'm going to talk to you [unlike] George H. W. Bush, a snob that sits up at Kennebunkport. I'm a guy that wears a digital watch and I'm a little overweight and hey you know..." These things come across. It's part of the image. It's part of the emotional appeal.
So it's very interesting that you-- I mean, do you think overall the election was swayed in your mind, Phil, by that? By the mere emotion of the fact that Kerry came off as somebody kind of distant who you couldn't relate to? Bush was like "hey he's just like me"?
PHIL: Yes, because I-- unfortunately I hate to have to say this, but we're a very superficial society. And they saw GB and saw--like I said--this happy-go-lucky "aw shucks" kind of guy from Texas.
CRANE: In my hopes, it's all based on substance. That's how people are making these decisions, but they wouldn't try to package him so much if it wasn't an element certainly, and a very important element of how people are elected in this country. So Phil, I appreciate your point and I appreciate your candor.