Why Are Americans so Concerned with A President's Personality?

[Icefrisco]

Before I start I would like to not make this into a bash-America thread. Now I shall start.

For years Americans have generally focused more on a candidate's looks and personality then his/her beliefs, experience, and affilitiations. I do not see this in most other countries and I have always wondered why Americans feel it is more important to have a candidate who you could have a beer with then one that actually knows politics. Most of the recent American presidents have great personalities and/or are considered people you could have a chat with(Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower). This worries me because as many political analysts and polls have said people like certain candidates mainly for their personality. Luckily when Clinton was elected for his personality he was a good president but people elected Bush for his personality and he sucked. Americans may very well repeat this mistake again and that is what worries me.

[jankren]

People dont vote for American idol winner solely on her/his singing ability but also the appearance. Its just human nature really.

If a candidate is based solely on intelligence then Mike Gravel will win.

[Maverick]

For years Americans have generally focused more on a candidate's looks and personality then his/her beliefs, experience, and affilitiations. I do not see this in most other countries

I agree but I don't believe this is a uniquely American trait.

I have always wondered why Americans feel it is more important to have a candidate who you could have a beer with then one that actually knows politics.

"To those seeing and hearing him, he should appear a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and religious man...
Men in general judge by their eyes rather than by their hands; because everyone is in a position to watch, few are in a position to come in close touch with you. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are." (The Prince, XVIII)

The majority of Americans can only decide who to vote for based on appearances. Nowadays with tv, it is even more of a popularity contest because the tv forum lends intself to concise and very general (unspecific) debate and oneupmanship. A good show for any candidate is one where they look attractive and presidential and dazzle the audience with their charm, wit and rhetorical platitudes like "change", "progress", "liberty" etc. while trying to get opponents to say something specific which can be used against them in the next debate because every candidate necessarily wants to say different things to different people at different times, if any candidate appears to be consistent it's only because they have consistently said nothing. I think this holds true for any industrialized nation where campaigns are won or lost based on televised public appearances, for example Putin's very successful tv campaigning in Russia.

Most of the recent American presidents have great personalities and/or are considered people you could have a chat with(Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower). This worries me because as many political analysts and polls have said people like certain candidates mainly for their personality. Luckily when Clinton was elected for his personality he was a good president but people elected Bush for his personality and he sucked. Americans may very well repeat this mistake again and that is what worries me.

Americans will definitely repeat the "mistake" in the foreseeable future elections, as will almost every voter in democratic countries around the world. I take some solice in the fact that, if a politician is clever enough to trick most of his countrymen and "appear a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity..." then he is at least relatively intelligent and a good liar which are desirable qualities in a president, especially in times of war or crisis.

[Sleeper]

Really. This is true the world over. Why do you think Tony Blair got the nod in England when he did. The current pm was far better suited to the position from an experience and party knowledge view. In fact, the current PM was outplayed for no other reason than Blair was more likable.

[Каие]

No it doesn't work like that in the UK...we vote for each party representative in each constituency then the leader of the party with the largest percentage becomes Prime Minister.

[Shaun]

No it doesn't work like that in the UK...we vote for each party representative in each constituency then the leader of the party with the largest percentage becomes Prime Minister.

Yes but a lot of the time we know so little about our party representatives for our constituency that we are really voting for them because of the leader of their party.

[pwijnands]

Yes but a lot of the time we know so little about our party representatives for our constituency that we are really voting for them because of the leader of their party.

Which is why they should introduce a test before a vote counts. If someone doesn't know the policies of the person he votes for, his/her vote shouldn't count. If this would be too rash, you could come to a % score of the test. If a person got 5% right, his/her vote would count for 0.05 vote only.

[Каие]

But we look more at policies and whether or not the leader of that party is capable rather than personality, religion, married life, how he runs his household...etc.

[jarnomiedema]

Well, it's one of the main reason why I've always been opposed to the idea of electing the Prime Minister of the Netherlands or the mayors of the cities we live in.. It'll always turn into a popularity contest, with arguments like 'he seems likelable and friendly' instead of 'I think he has the experience and political know-how to get things done'..

The Prime Minister is usually the head of the party that has the most seats in the coalition that will form the new government after an election. The same thing applies to most mayoral appointments, although there have been cases where mayor were appointed whose parties had only small representations in the city councils. That doesn't mean that the will of the voters is completely ignored, because the city council votes on whether to accept or reject the proposed mayor.

Elected officials are there for a reason and I personally don't think everything should be left up to the voter. That's exactly the reason why I'm also vehemently opposed to referenda, because they usually lead to very conservative, preservationist results, whereas most good politicians tend to think long-term..

I know, I know, I'm taking up the politician position.. I should probably be burnt at the stake..

[Shaun]

But we look more at policies and whether or not the leader of that party is capable rather than personality, religion, married life, how he runs his household...etc.

No we don't. We're as bad as America, except for the importance of our Prime Minster being religious. Even then, when was the last non religious Prime Minister we had?

[Каие]

No we don't. We're as bad as America, except for the importance of our Prime Minster being religious. Even then, when was the last non religious Prime Minister we had?

I have to say i disagree.

Isn't that why Bush got in - because he's the kinda guy that you can imagine having round to your house to have a BBQ and a few beers? Isn't that also why the Huckster is liked?

Also they are both Christian and republican.

[mrmouth]

So we Americans choose our president on who would appear to be able to bong more beer, or who has the least wrinkles?

Thats news to me. **** sake.

[Shaun]

So we Americans choose our president on who would appear to be able to bong more beer, or who has the least wrinkles?

Thats news to me. **** sake.

Isn't that why Bush got in - because he's the kinda guy that you can imagine having round to your house to have a BBQ and a few beers? Isn't that also why the Huckster is liked?

[mrmouth]

You actually think that Bush was elected twice because people thought he would be fun to hang out with?

Huckabee has a small amount of support, mainly from evangelicals, hasn't won a primary, and likely wont. In fact after super Tuesday he will most likely drop out.

If this theory were correct, then why has John Edwards dropped out, without having won a primary? Why hasn't Romney won a primary? Why is a man who is 70 some-odd years old leading him?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Huckabee has a small amount of support, mainly from evangelicals, hasn't won a primary, and likely wont. In fact after super Tuesday he will most likely drop out.

He won Iowa .

Why hasn't Romney won a primary?

Nevada, Wyoming, Michigan?

[mrmouth]

Alright, alright. Ive payed about as much attention to this primary crap as I pay attention to what comes out of my rear before I flush.

The fact remains, neither are front runners. The only reason Romney is taken seriously is because he was adopted by the far right as the lesser of two evils over McCain. The absolutely hate McCain, as Maverick eluded to.

I sometimes turn on 560am which is staunchly conservative political talk. I try to catch some of Dennis Miller, but turn it off long before Michael Savage comes on. Anyhow, there is universal hatred directed towards McCain. The far right conservative hate machine started its engines long ago with him in its sites.

[Icefrisco]

People around the world choose a president based on looks but it seems much more common in America. For instance many British prime ministers(though not elected by the people) are widely liked even though they have horrible personalities or looked bad. I do not think it is coincidence that the popular U.S. presidents are the ones with the best looks and personalities.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Name the last president that looked better than a European prime minister.

Besides, where else have you lived, Icefrisco?

[jankren]

Im sure all the ladies voted for Bill Clinton or John F Kennedy. LOL

[Cyphon88]

I agree but I don't believe this is a uniquely American trait.

The only reason this thread focussed on America is:
A) Because the American Elections are on now and thus there is more media attention on it because
B) American elections affect the whole world, rather than just america.

For instance many British prime ministers(though not elected by the people) are widely liked even though they have horrible personalities or looked bad. I do not think it is coincidence that the popular U.S. presidents are the ones with the best looks and personalities.

ok, the only two GB PM's to be enplaced without election are John Major and Gordon Brown. Neither i would say were well liked, and most likely will fade into the background. Both we partially emplaced because of the weakness of the opposition (major) and well brown we havent seen enough of him to completely label his approval as PM, hes got a nice big fat recession to deal with first.

And also the idea of good looks and personality is largely down to individual's perception. And of course all candidates need charm, because their job is to swing the voters with anything they can if the people don't agree with their policies. To say this is a more active factor in US politics, to another democratic politics is unfair and inaccurate.