Does the likability factor matter in the debates? Should it?
I mean, look at Reagan; everybody (okay some) thought he was oh so nice; that didn’t make him a good president.
It seems the debates are about the likableness of the candidates.
Would you vote for someone who was cranky and distant if you believed in their platforms?
Must we be entertained by them?
It can be reasonable to believe that someone whom a voter feels is “likeable” is someone whom other politicians will also feel friendlier towards and more comftorable with, which means said candidate is more likely to be an effective President. Jimmy Carter, for all his folksy manner, often came across as aloof and over-intellectual, and he had serious problems working with a Congress that his own party controlled. Conversely, Reagan was able to make a great deal of progress on his programs through a Democratic House because his personal warmth and charm carried over to dealing with Congresspeople.
It’s also a consideration for massing public support for a program. Kennedy’s rousing call to go to the moon before the end of the decade gave a major public relations boost to NASA and helped get NASA the necessary funding; conversely, Bush Sr.'s later call for a manned mission to Mars fell flat in many ways because he didn’t have the charisma or charm to infuse into the idea.
So a charismatic, likeable politician in many ways has an advantage over dull or aloof politicians, and voters may have asked themselves after the first debate, “Well, I like Gore’s programs, but if he’s going to be as nasty to Republicans in Congress as he was to Bush tonight, how likely is it that he’ll actually get Congress to do anything he wants?”
Well, Eisenhower was definitely likeable. His campaign slogan said so.
Well, gosh. Everyone likes Ike, right?
Woodrow Wilson. THERE’S a guy I’d like to get drunk and go nekkid with. Maybe at the next Princeton-Yale game.
Make no mistake about it, people WANT to like their President, and will usually vote for the more genial of the two nominees.
So, conservatives (like me) who hoped that the 1984 election proved the American people were on our side were kidding themselves, as were Democrats who thought the 1996 election proved that the public was on their side. CLinton was a lot more likeable than Dole or Bush, Reagan was a lot more likeable than Mondale or Carter, JFK was a lot more likeable than Nixon, Ike was a lot more likeable than Adlai… it goes way back.
When’s the last time a guy with some genuine charm lost to a guy with none? Hmm… 1972, I guess. I wouldn’t vote for McGovern for dog catcher, but he was a genuinely nice man (something I could never say for Nixon).
I’ve opened a variant on this thread over in IMHO: Likeable Presidents, Part Deux.
Oh, I see. You meant likeable".[sup]*[/sup] For a minute I thought you had misspelled lickable. I think we all know who the lickable president is.
[sup]*[/sup]Yes, I know likable is in the dictionary, but that doesn’t mean you have to use it.
As per my observations (and feel free to chime in with agreement), agressive, assertive guys in companies where I have worked move on to become department heads, officers, district managers & partners. Nice, likeable guys stay in customer service answering the phones. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an exception to this trend, and ya know why? Because all of the people who will be their adversaries are agressive & assertive, claw-your-way-to-the-top power players.
Put yourself in this position: you, as a CEO, need to promote one of your middle mamagement guys to the position of CFO. Would you rather have an agressive, assertive, no B.S. type of guy, or a kind, personable “nice guy” to the position, knowing full well that whoever gets that position will be doing corporate arm wrestling with those bastards on Wall Street? (or wherever)
A similar parallel I drew in another thread:
Let us also not forget that the president will be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Think about our Generals & Fleet Admirals and ask yourself if they need to be likeable or assertive. I feel that their Boss should be the same, but more so.
Of course, in most businesses the customers don’t get to elect who will become the department heads, officers, district managers & partners.
This is true, why do you suppose we don’t view our government as a business, interacting with other (sometimes foreign, sometimes hostile) businesses?
Tempted to start a new thread on this, but there are already way too many election related threads:
I just came from the IWON message boards where people are rather disgruntled (yes, they’ve all had their gruntles removed) about Ma Bush making telemarketing-style phone calls to peoples’ homes in the evening. Only 4 replies so far, but they all seem pretty irritated that Ma Bush needs to stoop to that. Any Floridians here gotten the call from Ma Bush?
I think what most people are looking for in a President is leadership. That doesn’t just mean good ideas we agree with, but the ability to gain support for them.
There are a lot of Presidential candidates who everyone agreed were smarter than their opponents, but still lost, because people wouldn’t buy what they were selling.
Wilson’s 14 Points may have been the right thing, but he couldn’t convince the Europeans or his own Congress to back him.
Hoover did a brilliant job with relief efforts after World War I, but was a failure as a President.
Carter was perceived even by his opponents as being smarter than Reagan, but that didn’t help him with the Iranians.
Bill Bradley came off more as man who wanted to talk about being President than someone who actually wanted to BE President, and he suffered for it. And the questions about McCain’s temperament didn’t help his chances.
As Nixon proved, you don’t have to be liked to be liked to be elected, but Nixon preferred to play in the foreign policy arena, where he could do things without needing a consensus of the people.
I’ve known several CEO’s in my career. Certainly to reach that position you have to be ambitious, driven and bold, as well as smart. But many of them were quite likable and were known as “builders,” “motivators,” and other terms which imply interpersonal skills.