MarkJ redux: In troubled times, attractive pols win
Note from Dan: Mark Jurkevich is taking a short vacation, so we don’t have a column from him today. This post is derived from a theory he has and that he explained to me in a series of emails back in January 2010.
The election is tomorrow and it features four relatively physically attractive candidates. So I thought it was time to renew an old post from around back then. We’ll start with an email Mark sent back then that I regarded at startling.
It was about Scott Brown’s victory in a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy:
“That is quite a message the folks in Mass. sent to the Dems in electing Brown. The Republicans also seemed to get the theory that when Americans are feeling bad it sure helps to put a good-looking candidate in front of them. Brown looks like Mitt’s younger cousin.”
I responded with some surprise, and he went on:
“A) The USA hasn’t felt this bad about itself since the back end of the Carter years;
B) Reagan won, in part because of his virility, good looks and glamor surrounding him and Nancy. Americans compared them to how Jimmy Carter and his family looked, their tea-tottling and confessions of having lust in his heart etc.;
D) I have an email exchange between you and me from early 2007 where I asked you what you thought about Romney. You basically replied you know nothing about him and that he is irrelevant. I responded about America’s down beat mood and presented my good-looks theory, with the point being this guy might rise-up in the primaries. As it is, he came damn close and was actually a pundit favorite for a few weeks during primary season.
D) Likewise, long before the 2008 primary season, I am on the record of applying the same theory to Obama, and suggesting he just might be the Dem’s candidate. And of course, in the general elections, I pushed the theory.
I responded that if this was the case, how what explains Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s success in politics? She’s never lost a race, but she’d would have never made the cover of Sports Illustrated in a swimsuit, either.
Mark’s response:
“One thing that is important in this theory is that it is not about just good looks or youthfulness – Donny and Marie Osmond were cute but would not fit the theory. As an example, the Reagans were old, but the theory definitely applies. It’s about conveying health, style, a sense of glamour.
“The point of the theory is that in times when Americans are feeling bad about themselves, they will gravitate towards such a candidate quite strongly even if the candidate’s positions on issues are less aligned with their own, than that of his/her opponent(s). A final point is that many people will probably try to deny this tendency about themselves because they will feel that it is an admission of shallowness.
“Your Mikulski example is flawed. She is a long term incumbent that first won the office in very different times. The theory I support is that Americans — when they are angry, frustrated and hurting — will much more strongly be affected favorably by good looking candidates with good looking family.
“The uglies can do just fine during better and happier times. The last 2 years are not better and happier times. Of course these parameters carry much more significance when neither of the opponents are incumbents.”
I forget how I responded, but he came back one more time:
“Oh, and do you believe that in better times when American’s are satisfied with how things are going in life, business and government – that McCain would have selected Palin, or that Palin would have gotten the traction she got?
Other than being physically attractive, what does she have to offer? In fact, her attractiveness factor drops proportionately to how often she has to talk in any depth about any issue of substance. McCain understood the good looks theory, but like the gambler that he is, he took it to an extreme in what in football lingo was a Hail Mary.”
So what are your thoughts, folks? Is he right or wrong, or it is somewhere in between? And will it have any bearing on tomorrow’s election?
November 5, 2012 - 6:00 AM
I’m sure there are some people out there who will vote for Romney solely because of his looks.
Regarding the Reagan’s, Ronnie may have been good looking, I found Nancy about as attractive as “Miss Jane” on The Beverly Hillbillies. She apppeared to be anorexic.
Another component that closely aligns with the ‘good looking’ theory is that of charisma. Like him or not Ronald Reagan was charismatic. His one-liners might have been scripted, but they were delivered perfectly. Bill Clinton oozed charisma. Even Rush Limbaugh admitted – early on before his ‘hate’ campaigns – that he found Bill Clinton utterly fascinating & likeable. Even George W Bush, early on, had that SW Texas charm of homespun folksiness that made Al Gore’s professorial delivery seem robotic & lecturing.
Personally, I think Mitt Romney is the GOP John Kerry. Extremely close in pesonality, appearance, overall demeanor, just in so many ways. I might be vastly wrong, but we’ll see in about 42 hours.
CHICAGO EARLY VOTERS GO FOR OBAMA:
-
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2012/11/chicago-early-voters-go-for-obama.html
-
Sadly, I have to agree with the basic theme of this article.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/conservatives-long-for-the-sad-days-of-yesteryear/
I agree with E.J. Dionne that this is choice we are making on Tuesday.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-gilded-age-vs-the-21st-century/
Good one, LB!
Debbie:
1.”I’m sure there are some people out there who will vote for Romney solely because of his looks.”
A lot of people’s votes in every election, at least in the TV age, have been swayed by a candidate’s looks. This is America Debbie!
Crooked Road – you are absolutely correct that charisma played an important role for Reagan, and also for Clinton, as flawed as he was (the “trail park love affairs were hardly as glamorous as JFK’s dalliances).
In this election cycle, most Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are hurting badly. So, as the good-looks theory would sugget, both parties put forth candidates who are good looking and have good looking families. As such, in tomorrows election, the good-looks theory will not be a relevent predictor. Its a foregone conclusion – America will have a good looking president and first family for the next 4 years.
LB Hagen,
Was it really newsworthy enough to come to someone else’s blog and tell us that the early voters of CHICAGO voted for Obama?
I think in general, tall and goodlooking people have been shown to be more successful in business and many walks of life. Not just politics. I don’t know if this makes us shallow, or evolutionarily hard-wired to assign succcess and value to certain physical characteristics.
I don’t buy the orignal premise. Personality is WAY more important than looks.
I would like to think we are not so shallow and irrational.
Obama is certainly attractive, healthy, and “with it”. He has charisma and a genuine Joie de vivre, “can do” attitude. In bad times, that should matter.
#9 LB is just trolling for hits on his blog.
Re: Comment by Kristen — November 5, 2012 @ 9:19 am
Well documented for both gender. I believe that the consensuses is that it is evolutionarily hard-wired.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 5, 2012 @ 9:57 am
If one (not just Sandi) had to choose between running for office against a tide of shallow-irrational Vs. running for office against a tide of hate-filled-irrational, which would you pick.
Re: choosing in general. Was the reaction to style points in the so-called debates related to a propensity for shallowness, in general? Why should style, appearance, etc trump facts, logic, underlying principles, etc?
I would choose “shallow-irrational” over “hate-filled-irrational”. Hate is much more destructive in the long run IMO.
My mother is of the generation that loved JKF as much for Camelot and looks as politics but she is sure not voting for Romney.
LB has to come to this blog, John Wilburn. No one reads his.
Sandi, I think Obama and his family fall into the good-looks category every bit as much as Romney and his family. It goes to show you how bad we as a country have been hurting for 4+ years now. Both party’s nominated the good-looks candidate.
In this general election, the good-looks theory will not be a relevant predictor because its good-looks vs. good-looks. That is a first for as far back as I can remember.
MarkJ, regardless of how “bad” things are now, when was the last time we had a short fat presidential candidate? I don’t think it has anything to do with how bad we perceive things to be or not. Humans prefer better looking humans,under and conditions, consciously or not.
1972, Nixon v. McGovern, anyone?
And recall that last week when I asked a poster to delineate what they meant by “Rmoney looks presidential”, they immediately assumed I was implying racism, when I was actually closer to this line of thinking.
Some people need the reassurance of a stereotype, and it’s ingrained in them to think “presidential” equals WASP CEO. And sorry MJ, but it’s hardly a great insight; in many realms, even classical music, looks are often as important (or more) as skill in achieving great success now.
Nixon was one of the least attractive presidents I can remember,and when he was elected things were going to hell fast.
Warren, my parents voted for Nixon over McGovern and it had nothing to do with Nixon looking presidential. It had everything to do with them buying the story that McGovern was a communist.