Even though Romney came across as the more likable candidate in the debate the media is still portraying Romney as the mean candidate.
Watching the debate on Wednesday I truly cant imagine Barack Obama having come off as the more likeable candidate. Continuously glancing downwards perhaps looking for inspiration (I glance upwards myself) and often displaying an angry countenance he seemed stiff detached and petulant; in contrast Mitt Romney appeared energetic nimble-minded affable engaged and engaging. It was the Mind vs. the Unkind.
Nonetheless the left is still pushing the narrative of Mitt the Mean. CNN disseminated a poll showing that only 46 percent of debate viewers thought Romney was likeable (of course we have to consider the source) and the Democrat National Committee just cooked up an adshowing Romney interrupting moderator Jim Lehrerwhose thrust is that the governor was pushy and bullying. Lets understand however that as it was Romney was given 4 fewer minutes to speak; if hed been a nicer" guy it would have been 10. This brings me to my point.
Years ago a reader emailed me regarding a piece I wrote on Obamas predecessor and called him George the Nice." It was not a compliment. The idea was that President Bush often seemed more interested in getting along than getting things right. And whether you agree with this assessment or not isnt the issue. It is rather as I recently asked whats like" got to do with it?
Oh I understand that likeability" influences voters. This and the fact that polls have shown it to be Obamas strong suit with the electorate is of course why the left wants to perpetuate their Mean Mitt myth. And while I find Obama as likeable as poison ivy in private areas lets for arguments sake assume that he truly is the more likeable candidate. Is this meaningful in a leader? Could it even be a warning sign?
This point can be illustrated with a tale of two men both colleagues of mine at a former place of employment. One was a charming fellow who specialized in the schmooze; the other was a curmudgeonly stone-faced and sometimes gruff WWII veteran. Now its obvious who was more likeable and I cottoned to the charmer myself. If you got to know them however you learned that Mr. Charm was a Machiavellian operator with a Clintonesque attitude toward truth while the veteran was a trustworthy upstanding straight-talker.
Knowing this how could I like the charmer? Well what we like is determined by emotion or taste which generally has little acquaintance with reason. A person may like tobacco more than vegetables or chocolate more than exercise but few would call them wiser choices. In the same vein I never would have chosen the charmer if he had been running for office against the curmudgeon. For this is where we must lead with our heads not our hearts resist the urge to kowtow to our likes and not eat smoke or vote ourselves to death.
In fact its usually unwise to choose anyone based solely on likeability as theres little correlation between extreme likeability and virtue and competence (and some virtue such as conscientiousness is necessary for competence). One reason for this is that since all three qualities are relatively rare they arent often possessed by the same person. As an example I know a soft-spoken affable fellow who most anyone would call a nice guy but he couldnt figure out whether the kind of infanticide prohibited by BAIPA legislation was okay or not. As for competence if youd chosen a general based on likeability would you have picked George Patton? And if youd chosen a computer developer on likeability Steve Jobs wouldnt have been your man. So is it wise to choose a president based on likeability? If a man cant even stand up to an ossified debate moderator how will he fare locking horns with the Russians or Chinese? In fact we could use a variation on a famous saying here and wonder if the road to Hell isnt paved by nice guys.
More ominously likeability can actually be a red flag. Why? Because projecting it is the specialty of the con man. He will tell you exactly what you want to hear; the good person tells you what you need to hear. The con man will peddle seductive little lies to appear charmingat least until he doesnt need you anymore.
Of course a good persons likeability is also situational but for a different reason. You may generally be likeable but will you seem so violently wielding a sword on a battlefield? Similarly fighting on the moral/cultural battlefield can be messy business; thus if youre ever and always likeable amidst this fray youre doing it wrong. Just consider Ronald Reagan a man so affable he won even the hearts of many 80s Democrats. How likeable did he seem at the 1980 Nashua New Hampshire primary debate when he angrily shouted Im paying for this microphone Mr. Green"? He was playing hardball not Mr. Nice Guy but it was a defining moment that evoked cheers and helped pave his way to the presidency.
So whats like" got to do with it? It should be no more relevant to choosing a president than to choosing runners for the Olympic team. Unfortunately though mans nature wont change; just as we elevate intellectuals over wise men many will continue to choose likeability over virtue. Its why our government and culture become less likeable all the time.