Joe Ricketts, billionaire owner of the Chicago Cubs "baseball team," made news last week because of a since-abandoned plan to finance an ad campaign, in which voters were to have been reminded of connections between President Obama and incendiary preacher Jeremiah Wright. Outrage over this blatant race-baiting forced Ricketts to renounce this campaign. Smart move.
But who thought this was a good idea in the first place? Times Columnist Frank Bruni quotes a memo prepared for Ricketts, in which consultants who worked on the campaign express frustration that the American people "still aren't ready to hate this President." Bruni goes on to lament the incivility implicit in that memo, and the general scorched-earth nature of American politics, which demands personal demonization of one's enemies rather than mere disagreement with one's rival's policies.
With all due respect to Frank Bruni, though, Ricketts' consultants had exactly the right idea. We can lament this reality all we want, but the truth is that electoral politics truly is a popularity contest. I used to think this was glib oversimplification, but it occurred to me after reading Bruni's piece that, at least since television became a driving force in presidential politics, the more likable candidate has always won. The dashing Kennedy beat the dour Nixon. Affable Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter (likable enough, but kind of a dweeb) and Walter Mondale. Good ol' Bill Clinton beat Bush I and Bob Dole. And as much as I despise George W. Bush for what he did to this country, as much as I consider him arguably the wort President in American history, he was more personally "likable" than either the robotic Al Gore or the cadaverous John Kerry.
Exceptions? Well, it was before my time, but from what I understand, Lyndon Johnson was not exactly Mr. Warmth. Which to me just suggests how far beyond the pale Barry Goldwater must have been. Had he survived, does anyone seriously doubt that Bobby Kennedy would have beaten Rochard Nixon? And as for George H. W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis? Well, neither of them was exactly what you would call the life of the party.
Which brings us to Barack Obama. He was certainly more likable than crusty old John McCain. And even now, with the exception of lunatic-fringe, right-wing birthers, most people--even if they dislike Obama's policies or think he's done a lousy job--like and respect Barack Obama. Why wouldn't they? He's young(ish), attractive, cool, smart, and--to borrow a line from "Malcolm in the Middle"--I'm just gonna say it, he gets two points for being black.
For all I know, Mitt Romney may be a perfectly pleasant man at home. He may be the life of the wine-and-cheese party--well, except since he's a Mormon, it would be the grape-juice-and-cheese party--and see, that's what I mean! He's boring! Ultimately, Romney faces the unenviable task of trying to get Americans to accept wrong-headed, retrograde policies. The good news is, he probably won't succeed; the bad news is, if he were only a little more likable, he would.
No comments:
Post a Comment