February 05, 2004
The Politics of Appearance
Recently there was an outcry that John Kerry used Botox to improve his looks for his presidential run. Faced with this momentous accusation, one which would leave Rene Zellweger staggered, Kerry strongly denied the allegations. Reminiscent of Clinton, he could have defiantly declared: “I did not inject”. Whatever the truth about this silly rumor, what is really being “covered-up” here is the hypocrisy of presidential politics. Why is John Kerry in the commanding lead of the democratic nomination process today? Sure his war record is impressive, but the major reason is that he looks presidential (and why is John Edwards in second place…) Lets not fool ourselves, an ugly person will not be elected president- people want a leader who projects the persona they imagine as a leader. That is why he got Botox.. or did he? Does it matter?
The momentous debate between JFK and Nixon ushered in the TV era of politics in 1960. Nixon looked like he had his 5-oclock shadow, while JFK looked young and vigorous (ironic, since JFK was perhaps the most sickly president we have ever had, as detailed by Chris Matthew’s excellent book on Kennedy and Nixon, which I recommend to anyone). JFK “won” that debate based upon his appearance (those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won), and went on to take the election.
Before this, our president didn’t have to look a particular way. Howard Taft was rotund. FDR was in a wheelchair. A Colonel once declared that Abraham Lincoln was the “ugliest man I have ever laid eyes upon”. It is not so these days. From the heart-throb JFK, to the movie star Ronald Reagan, to the smooth talking and slick Clinton- the image and appearance matters a lot to the electorate, whether they want to admit it or not.
A convincing signal of this is the amount of time candidates spend practicing their posture, gestures, appearance with highly paid consultants. From Clinton’s “I feel your pain” thumbs up to George W. Bush’s defiant posture to John Kerry’s funny looking “arms raised in the air like giant man”- they all play on the electorates views of what is “presidential”. They also spend tons of time on their looks, making sure they project the right appearance, because they know the momentous decision of who will become the leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world can turn on them looking stressed or tired or unpresidential in some other way. They know the imagine will be played over and over again on TV, and that will be it for them.
And yet, when a candidate is suspected of using some sort of chemical injection to make themselves look better, less wrinkled, more presidential- we are outraged (shocked, shocked- to quote Casablanca), the candidate denies it, and we all feel good about ourselves. But the better questions to ask are: (1) say he did use Botox- wouldn’t that make him more likely to win? (who wants a president who looks “old”- isn’t that what really did Bob Dole in..) and (2) what does that say about us?
In the end, we get the candidates and president we deserve. If we wanted the most brilliant thinkers in our nation leading us, I would be flying out Milton Friedman airport on my way from D.C. on spring break. If we wanted those who have the most experience and expertise, Joseph Biden, Bob Dole, Orin Hatch and Joe Lieberman would be our presidents, not slick “outsider” politicians like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
So while Kerry and the congenial looking John Edwards are using either Botox or more “conventional” methods of making themselves look more appealing to us, perhaps we need to take a long look at ourselves in the mirror instead.
Wow. This is some riveting insight. I can’t believe we tend to support a presidential candidate who, gasp, looks like a strong leader. Its only been going on through the entire course of recorded history. Off the top of my head I seem to remember something about the Israelites choosing Saul as thier King b/c he was big, strong, good looking, and generally gave off the aura of someone they could trust for their protection.
Short people who appear to have trouble turning just their head, instead needing to use their entire neck and upper torso to look around, need not apply.
Posted by: Lukin at February 5, 2004 10:27 AMLufkin, what about Golda Meier (sp?), Margaret Thatcher, or how about 60% of the members of the House of Representatives, or 50% of the Senate? How about Ted Kennedy? Not exactly Hollywood material, but, voted in nonetheless. How about Nixon, can’t imagine him gracing any runway, yet, he won.
It is not a black and white issue, it is a subjective factor, but, hardly the main criterion.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2004 02:07 PMJust pointing out that it is no shocker that huge masses of people put great weight on the appearance of their leaders when sizing them up for the position. I’m not claiming there are no ugly people in positions of power, just saying that it is a complete non-story that the more presidential-looking candidates are doing better.
Posted by: Lukin at February 5, 2004 05:08 PMI am not sure if I didnt make my point clearly, but what I was expressing was not surprize that a presidential-looking candiate is in the lead, but rather, pointing out the hypocricy of people who get all upsett cause he may have used Botox, when in reality, his looks are his real appeal.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 5, 2004 05:18 PMHi Misha!
I tell ya, something’s gotta explain Kerry’s rise. He was toast until only a week or two before Iowa.
While it’s unfortunate, it seems all too true that our nation cares for style as much, if not more than, substance. While I think political spin doctors and power brokers care about the looks issue too much, it unfortunately seems too true that Abraham Lincoln would have a heckuva hard time becoming president today…
I don’t think physical attractiveness is the first thing people are thinking about when they elect a president. Look at our last four presidents! They weren’t that ugly, but they weren’t exactly magazine models either.
I think the image-consciousness has more to do with demographics and spin than it has to do with physical appearance. If we want to do anything good about the state of the nation, our question should not be, “Has Kerry had Botox?” but “Can I see myself voting for a guy with this kind of overall record, even if it doesn’t fully conform to my agenda, and he isn’t part of my demographic?”
When we start thinking in depth about our candidates,and allowing ourselves the luxury of reaching tentative decisions on candidate rather than writing it in stone, we’ll be better off than if we’re worried about that tabloid bull-hockey.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 6, 2004 12:22 PMHas the presidential election really come down to who looks good? Or for that matter whether Kerrey used botox or not? What about Clinton having dodged the draft? That rates higher on my scale than the use of beauty enhancers. Perhaps Kerrey is just responding to the demands that the media and the public put on people that are in the media spotlight. And seriously if we were under that kind of scrutiny wouldn’t a lot of us be tempted to do the same thing?
Posted by: Kristin Possavino at February 11, 2004 06:56 PM
