Male and Female Candidates are Judged on Likability — to Everyone’s Detriment
In the era of reality show politics, it’s not going away
In any high-profile political race featuring a female candidate, there’s a discussion whether the female candidate faces some standard not applicable to men.
In some cases, it’s fair to say women face harsher criticisms and greater demands than men. But in the case of likability, the notion that it is a “gendered criticism” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It is a standard that has roots going back to the Kennedy/Nixon election and is just as applicable to men as it is to women.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s announcement of a 2020 exploratory committee and subsequent visit to Iowa laid the groundwork for an official run for president. Politico responded with a piece about Warren’s likability, and for whatever reason, that didn’t sit well with some who believed such an observation wouldn’t apply to a male counterpart.
In The Washington Post, Dave Weigel and Annie Linkskey wrote:
It was the question often asked of female candidates and rarely of men: Is she “likable” enough to be president?
Ashton Pittman in a piece for NBC News writes:
There are many reasons why likability is a flawed metric for political candidates, men and women alike. But there is something particularly pernicious about the recent trend of evaluating women this way.
Having been involved in politics for over 25 years, as a writer, outside observer, and campaign volunteer, I find it astonishing that people think there’s a premium of likability questions applied to women vs. men.
Google “Ted Cruz likable” and you’ll get over 90,000 results. Cruz’s campaign for president and Senate re-election campaign was tied almost entirely to the fact that he’s universally considered unlikable. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s current chief of staff, suggested Beto O’Rourke might defeat Cruz, saying: “How likable is a candidate? That still counts.”
Even people who agree with Cruz on issues and policy have been known to express their dislike. During the 2016 presidential primaries, Senator Lindsey Graham quipped “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”
Neal Dewing — a friend, and former writer for The Federalist — is as conservative as Cruz, but has a running list of insults he keeps in a document about the Texas Senator including, “When Ted Cruz smiles it looks like his soul is trying to escape.”
The term “likable” wasn’t around during the 1960 presidential race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, but it was applicable. Pundits and historians debate the impact the first televised debates had on the outcome of the election, but no one questions who came off as more appealing.
Kennedy was tanned and lively, wearing an impeccably tailored dark suit. Nixon, on the other hand, just out of the hospital for knee surgery, looked dour, wearing a gray suit that fit poorly due to post-surgery weight loss.
In future elections, iconic likability moments include Reagan’s age zinger in his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, the poor decision by the Dukakis campaign to have him photographed riding in a tank, and Bill Clinton playing the saxophone on Arsenio Hall. The question, “Who would you rather have a beer with?” goes back to the 2004 campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry.
With the advent of social media, candidates have ramped up their attempts to appear as “real” as possible — a.k.a., likable — and have started utilizing Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to send out cost-free ads to the masses. Possible 2020 candidates Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris have published videos of themselves preparing meals, and Elizabeth Warren released a video of her swigging a bottle of beer.
Many see the videos, appearances on late-night television shows, and SNL guests spots as trivial and unbecoming of people seeking the highest office in the land. While there’s some truth to that, the candidates have little choice.
Over the last 20 years, the press decided it was less important to cover essential aspects of policy and the candidate’s ideas in favor of more coverage of optics and the political horse-race. Debates became less about long-form discussions and more about soundbites, with moderators spending more time on news of the day and fomenting verbal spats among candidates than having them comprehensively discuss issues.
Who can forget during the 2012 campaign when Phil Rucker of The Washington Post yelled to Mitt Romney during a visit to Poland, “What about your gaffes?” or when CNN’s Candi Crowley questionably “fact checked” Romney in the middle of a debate with President Obama?
Any slip-up by a candidate becomes instant fodder on cable news for days. It’s no wonder Beto O’Rourke sent out video of himself preparing brisket instead of holding press conferences.
The question of likability will follow all Democratic candidates as the 2020 campaign slowly kicks into gear. It won’t just be Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, or Amy Klobuchar. Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown and Michael Bloomberg will all face scrutiny about likability, just like their female counterparts.
The American public would be much better off if the question of likability was off the table, replaced by a greater focus on policies, ideas, and vision for the country. Unfortunately, we exist in an era of reality-television politics and have an electorate consumed by cults of personality.
Perhaps it will change over time. But for now, the likability of our presidential candidates — both male and female — will be front and center.
