Presidential Beauty

The Effect of Television on American Presidential Voting

 

 

Mike Steinhilber

 

 

 

                Every four years in this country, we are faced with the daunting responsibility and the awesome privilege of voting for the person we want to be the leader of the free world, our president. We take in all the information about each candidate and use that vast knowledge to cast our vote for the one we believe to be the best for the job. We read newspapers, we listen to pundits on the radio, we talk among our friends. And since the 1950’s, we watch television.

Along with the invention of television came the ability see things magically unfold in front of our eyes. Before then one had to listen to a story or news on a radio or read a book or newspaper and use your mind’s eye to form the picture. With TV, all you have to do is watch. Unfortunately, I believe it also has made us focus more of our attention on the aesthetic appeal of each candidate and less on the content of their messages. This can be seen quite prevalently in presidential elections over the past few decades.

            Let’s take a short look back in time. Most of the gentlemen elected to the highest office in this country were not the most attractive men, at least not by today’s standards. Many people didn’t know too much about the way they really looked other than grainy images in a newspaper. Abraham Lincoln is a prime example. He would probably be considered by most to be a relatively unattractive man. As a matter of fact, he’s probably lucky that radio wasn’t available when he ran in 1860. His high-pitched voice may have been a turn off to many voters of the day. What might our country, or even the world, look like today if he had not been elected?

                Before television came along the message put forth by a given candidate was the key, not his appearance. After TV became part of the mix, that all changed.

 

Don’t Sweat

Probably the first time this became evident was in the first televised debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon in 1960. Kennedy wisely wore makeup during the telecast, while Nixon refused to do so. Kennedy appeared calm and in control, while Nixon came off as pasty-skinned and nervous. At one point during the debate, with cameras close on his face, Nixon started to perspire and the election was essentially lost right there. Theresa DiDonato wrote that “there is reason to believe that Nixon’s arguments were superior: radio listeners thought he won the debate. The estimated 70 million TV viewers, however, overwhelmingly preferred Kennedy.”

            While some might say this was an isolated event caused by the naiveté of early television, I believe it was just the beginning of a much larger phenomenon.  If you talk to many young potential voters on the street, you may we hear someone say, “I like ______. He just looks more like a president,” or “I don’t like ________. His eyes are just too close together.” Are these and other judgments based solely on appearance upon which our elections are now based? I hope not, but I fear it may be so.

 

The Daily Show Effect

            In the American Politics Research Journal (May 2006), Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris write about the effect of television’s use of political humor in forming public opinion, referred to as “The Daily Show Effect” after the popular news-based comedy program starring Jon Stewart. While these shows may generate more interest among a less aware public, they tend to “focus more on drama, sensationalism, human interest themes, and personalities.” They also are purely entertainment-based, so they usually go for the humorous, negative topics such as a candidate stuttering during a speech or forgetting a host’s name, rather than discussing the serious issues of the day. This is especially true if said candidate is on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

            While research shows that candidates’ popularity tends to go up when they appear on these shows, it also shows a decline when jokes are made at their expense without their presence. Unfortunately, the latter is the more common of the two.

 

Go Negative

            Negative campaign ads have been around for centuries. They’ve probably been around as long as there was print media and the freedom to express them. Adding photographs certainly created more of an impression than the ads before them. But there is something about the magic of television, with its lifelike moving images flashing on a screen accompanied by audio that makes much more of an impression. It’s even sent to us right in our living rooms!

            I think, at least on some level, we tend to believe the things sent to us through the “boob tube.” Radio can present the same audio, but when you add the realism of video it seems to chip away a little of our skeptic wall. We tend to take what it gives us as gospel and any attempts to clarify or correct mistakes just fall on deaf ears.

            Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford because Ford was linked to Nixon, who was linked to Watergate. Carter was defeated in the following election primarily because of an abysmal economy, but also by a charismatic actor named Ronald Reagan.

Reagan served two terms and was followed by his second-in-command George H.W. Bush. Bush served just one term and then was defeated not by one opponent, but two – William J. Clinton and an entertaining millionaire named Ross Perot. With a 3-way split in the voting, Clinton came out on top due to his southern charm and somewhat youthful appearance. Clinton served two terms, although surrounded by scandal (suspicious land deals, past affairs, and an intern-al affair).

While vice-presidents usually have an edge, Al Gore (VP during Clinton administration) was defeated by George W. Bush (son of the former Bush). Many believe that run was decided during the final debate. Bush was speaking and Gore stepped forward and appeared to loom over Bush’s shoulder. In a humorous moment, Bush stopped speaking and looked at Gore and said simply, “Hello.” Bush went on to serve two terms.

            Bush’s VP, Dick Cheney, decided not to run. With the field wide open, it came down to John McCain, a decorated war veteran and former POW, and Barrack Obama, a relatively unknown newcomer with less than one term in the U.S. Senate and one in the Illinois Senate. While Americans generally love military veterans for this high office, McCain had a few things going against him. First, he was a long-time Senator with a history of being very moderate in his voting. This put a wedge between himself and the Republican conservative base. Many conservative voters just chose to stay at home on Election Day. Second, McCain decided to “take the high road.” He didn’t want to win based on negative campaign ads. He even said at several points that his opponent was a “good man” and talked highly of his family. He all but endorsed him publicly! He essentially doomed himself. Remember, negative works in politics.

There is a third element that doomed the McCain campaign – appearance. McCain, because of his experience as a POW has an arm that hangs to his side a bit un-naturally. He also had a rather grandfatherly appearance with a round face and white hair thinning on top.

Obama, on the other hand, appears more youthful and angular in his features. He is a charismatic speaker, even if his talking points change depending on his audience. He stands tall and proud, even though he has little experience to back it all up. And it has to be noted that Barrack Hussein Obama is black. I know it’s not politically correct  to talk about, but I believe it’s part of what got him elected. Americans were enamored with the idea of an African-American President (although his heritage is a bit more cluttered than that). Again, it comes down to appearance.

In the latest election, Obama defeated GOP hopeful Mitt Romney. In many ways, it was a repeat of Obama-McCain. Even with a struggling economy (Blame Bush), Obama came away victorious. While it was a slim margin and Congress remains divided, he did win. Negative campaigning again had an impact, portraying Romney as a rich businessman who didn’t care about the common-folk. The Republican candidate again tried to play softball and focus on his plans (although somewhat vague). Negative ads and race paid off for the incumbent, Obama.

My Hope

I can only hope that looks and general appearance aren’t the only things that influence voters in America. We must take a very close look at our economic picture and figure out the best ways to fix it, not just for this generation but the next and the one following. We have to look at all the things that are funded by tax dollars and ascertain what can be cut or eliminated altogether. Raising taxes will do nothing but slow an already anemic economic recovery. After these 4 years, I hope we all can take a clear look at the real needs of our country and establish a better vision for our future. And yes, I said “look” and “vision,” but I definitely am not referring to the appearance of the candidates. I, for one, will gladly take the ugliest person who has a good plan and the leadership skills to implement it every time.

 

Works Cited

Baumgartner, Jody, and Jonathan S. Morris. "The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations,." American Politics Research 34.3 (2006): 341-67. May 2006. Web.

DiDonato, Theresa. "The Surprising Effect of Facial Appearance on Political Decision-Making." In-mind.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://beta.in-mind.org/issue-8/surprising-effect-facial-appearance-political-decision-making>.

"The Effects of Television News Media on Political Participation and Awareness in American Presidential Elections." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://voices.yahoo.com/the-effects-television-news-media-political-2353205.html>.

Lenz, Gabrel S., and Chappell Lawson. "Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance." American Journal of Political Science 55.3 (2011): 574-89. Web.

"The Psychology of Beauty." Media Influence. N.p., 13 June 2010. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://psychologyofbeauty.wordpress.com/category/media-influence/>.

Rosenburg, Shawn W., Lisa Bohan, Patrick McCafferty, and Kevin Harris. American Journal of Political Science 30.1 (n.d.): 108-27. Midwest Political Science Association. Feb. 1986. Web.

Shaw, Daren R. "The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide Presidential Votes, 1988-96." American Political Science Review (1999): n. pag. Web.

Sipe, Corey. "Televised Presidential Debates and Its Influence on Voters." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., 30 Aug. 2006. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://voices.yahoo.com/televised-presidential-debates-its-influence-on-68403.html?cat=37>.

"Strategies: The Changing Face of Political Campaigns." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00103/strategies.htm>.

Wilcox, Tatum. "Media Influence on Politics and Government." Helium. Helium, 12 Dec. 2007. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://www.helium.com/items/745081-media-influence-on-politics-and-government>.