ONE WOULD like to think that the electorate in the richest, most developed nation on Earth would move beyond surface appeal. But it appears as though that is not the case. Because we still choose to live in the fantasy world where our leaders' dispositions play a paramount role in the political process. The net effect of this political cult of personalities is that we are cheating ourselves. Big time. Of all the factors that one should consider when choosing a president, or any other candidate - especially at the national level - personality should come in at the bottom or near to it.
But since American politics is more and more show business and less and less substance - Who needs it, right? - that is exactly what the major parties will try to give us.
|
In the end, we are the losers when we place more emphasis on style over substance, charm over competence. We are fortunate enough in our country to have the opportunity to freely elect the most powerful man in the world. We owe it to ourselves not to squander this chance over the most fleeting of traits.
No one should pretend that Vice President Gore is the more likeable of the candidates. I know Al Gore can be annoying. As others have pointed out, he comes across as the kid who, just before the bell rang, reminded the teacher that she had not assigned homework.
In the first debate Gore took extra care to make sure we knew that he could pronounce Slavic names properly ("Kostunica!"). In a four-way likeability contest between Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R), Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and Vice President Al Gore, the Vice President comes in fourth. Bush, with his "aw-shucks" demeanor and genuine air of concern for others is the most amicable of the four. Nader comes in second with his quick wit and his contagious passion for what he believes. Buchanan edges out Gore because, let's be honest, mental illness is funny. And bringing up the rear is our vice president, trying to catch up. To be fair, Gore has greatly improved in recent weeks by incorporating the phrase "I guaran-damn-tee it" into his speeches. And no, I'm not making that up.
But here's the thing: A candidate's personality should not make a damn bit of difference.
It is almost exclusively because television that we now attach such fundamental importance to the president's personality. Chances are good that few people reading this column will ever meet the president, to say nothing of actually having to work with him. The president's tone of voice and his demeanor on television will have a negligible impact on your life.
A president's policies, on the other hand, will have a monumental impact on the lives of every person reading this newspaper. It matters if we choose to eliminate the national debt by 2012. It matters if we choose to shore up Social Security now while we can, so you and I will not have to pay ever larger portions of our paychecks once our parents' generation retires over the next 20 years. It matters who will appoint the majority that will sit on the Supreme Court for most of our working lives. It matters if we have a president who recognizes the very real threat global warming poses to every living thing on the planet.
In the confines of the Oval Office, the next president will have to decide over all of these issues and countless others. Most of us will never see what the president's disposition is on the job, but we will feel the impact of these decisions every day and in every dollar we earn for at least the next four years. It is the policies born out of the next administration that will impact our lives beyond just the next four years.
Voting based all or in part on a candidate's personality is a scar on the face of our democracy. We deteriorate from a strong country to one easily manipulated by a nice smile and a gregarious nature. This election is not a contest to see who would make the best game show host or who will be our national prom king. It is all about who will stand watch over this country and make the best decisions in our interest.
Personality should never be the most important factor in a presidential election, given the importance of the issues and the fact that few voters will ever personally interact with the winner. In this presidential election, which features more important issues at stake than usual, it is that much more crucial to look at policy over style when deciding. The vice president is not the most likeable candidate; that we know. But as Time's Roger Rosenblatt so aptly wrote in this week's issue, "This is an election about who flies the plane," not who is joking with the passengers in coach. Vice President Gore is not the perfect candidate. That candidate does not exist. He is the only one that can guide our country in the proper direction. I guaran-damn-tee that.
(Timothy DuBoff's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | YesterdayA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
SULLIVAN: Gov. Youngkin purges integrity from voter registration process
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoYoungkin once again abandoned his duty to protect Virginian voters’ rights, setting a dangerous precedent for elections.
