Likeability

By Louis Avallone

Will Rogers is reported to have said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” While this is a most admirable quality, and healthy expectation in our relationships with one another, what priority do we place on “likability” when voting for a president?

Turns out, it’s almost at the top of the list. Historically, voters don’t elect presidents they don’t find very “likable”, despite a candidate’s obvious qualities of competency for the job, such as honesty, leadership, management skills, and moral integrity. For example, when you hear someone say that a particular candidate “looks presidential,” it’s most likely because of that candidate’s “likability” (and not because of their competency to be president).

In fact, the late political consultant Lee Atwater pointed out that Americans insist on a minimum level of likability in their president. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, declining consumer spending, plummeting home prices, record unemployment, and declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, it seems that “likability” may still be the full measure of a candidate, in today’s modern political arena.

Not sure about that? Well, let’s look at history: In 1984, Ronald Reagan overwhelmed Walter Mondale in likability, 42% to 26%. Reagan won 49 states, in that election. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated Bush 41 as president, and guess what? Clinton’s likability was 49% to Bush’s 32%. Four years later, Clinton trounced Bob Dole, for all intents and purposes. Here again, the winner’s likability is more than coincidental: Clinton’s likability was 62% to Dole’s 27%.

In 2000, Bush 43 narrowly won the election, but in terms of likability, the competition wasn’t really close: Bush’s likability was 50%, compared to Al Gore’s 43%. Predictably, in 2004, Bush bested John Kerry in likability, 44% to 36%.

Then, in 2008, Obama walloped John McCain in likability, 65% to 28%.

This brings us full circle to 2012. Even if only 25% of Americans strongly approve of Obama’s job performance, as recent tracking polls indicate, his likability still remains high: as much as 80 percent in an Associated Press poll last fall.

Contrast this with a CNN poll, from last month, where Romney was considered likable by only 30% of Republican voters, compared to 15% for Gingrich, 10% for Ron Paul and 5% for Rick Santorum. And this was a poll of Republicans only!

Consider, more importantly, that Romney’s likability among all adults, regardless of party affiliation, is at all-time low: 25%, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll in January. Worse yet, a recent Fox News poll, taken last month, reflects Gingrich’s unfavorability at 56%.

And even though this “likability” discussion sounds like we’re merely stating the obvious, I don’t think everyone gets it. And most surprisingly, it’s Gingrich that may be in denial.
For example, in a CNN interview recently, Gingrich commented on Obama, saying, “He’s likeable. I would never beat Obama in a personality contest…but the presidency is not about likeability. The presidency is about are you capable of doing the job?”

Speaker Gingrich, I’m not so sure about that. Yes, the presidency should be about one’s competency to do the job, but selecting a president is also one of the most personal choices we make in our democracy. As a result, it’s also an emotional one, not purely logical, but a blend of both.

Yes, we want to “like” our president. Which candidate would I like to have over most for dinner with my family? Who would I most like to have a beer with? For better or worse, America’s answers to those questions, which are questions of likability, may likely foretell the future, regarding the November election, if history is any indication.

I mean, as Americans, we watch an average of 4.5 hours of television each day, not to mention the time spent watching online videos, and videos on mobile devices. Could it be that most Americans are, subconsciously, evaluating a candidate’s likability based on how they might appear in high definition, or being streamed over the Internet to our iPhones and iPads for the next four years?

Do most Americans prefer to watch Obama sing Al Green’s, “Let’s Stay to Together”, or Romney’s a-capella singing of “The National Anthem”? Having heard both, I’m inclined to go with Al Green on this one.

But while “liking” our president is important, and hearing him sing “Let’s Stay Together”, or watching him walk around Hawaii in shorts and a t-shirt helps us identify with him, “liking” him must not be most important. This election, in particular, is too important to mess around with the psychology of a candidate’s likability. Instead, we should focus on “liking” their abilities, their accomplishments, and their potential to perform the job needed, so desperately now, for our nation.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “if you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” If the cost of likability in our president is the achievement of nothing, then what are we doing pretending to elect a leader in the first place?