This post is actually more about first impressions than it is about politics. But unfortunately, I’m afraid that first impressions, and gut responses are what a many people rely on when they choose to like, or vote for, another person.
Now, even if you haven’t seen my previous Huckabee-bashing post, if you know anything about me you would think I’ve lost my marbles when you read what I’m about to say:
If I was at a party and met all of the presidential candidates for the first time without having known anything about who they were, my first impression would be that Mike Huckabee was one of the most likeable people in the room. Really. I’m afraid it’s the truth. If I don’t listen to what he says, but how he says it, he comes off as charming, sincere, sensitive, well-spoken and intelligent. And, maybe it’s just because he’s a 2nd tier candidate that I haven't heard the same kind of snarky swipes and smarmy remarks from him as we have heard from the other candidates. One final note: and I promise I will only mention this once: as if this mattered in politics, I even think he’s one of the better-looking candidates. (Excuse me, I think there’s a little something in my throat.. a little piece of barf, perhaps?)
But these things do matter in politics. And it’s scary to think people choose to trust people because of a certain twinkle in their eye. People like to think they can detect sincerity. But there is scientific evidence correlating deceptive behavior with leadership qualities. A 1993 study by Colgate University psychologist Caroline Keating found that the best liars among pre-school children emerge as leaders during play periods. With adults she found that ‘leaders are the best misleaders.’
So does that mean we should worry about Huckabee coming up from behind and winning the election simply because he charmed the pants off of a lot of voters?
Well y’all can breath a big collective sigh of relief, ‘cause here comes Chuck Norris!
Ok, so I think there’s nothing wrong with celebrities endorsing political candidates. They have opinions and they should be free to voice them just like anybody else. Doing so may affect their fan base; but I think they know that and have considered it. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
But this is not Oprah Winfrey we’re talking about. She is a talk show host with millions of viewers who see her as some kind of guru of wisdom. She’s a celebrity almost entirely because of her thoughts and opinions. When she endorsed Barack Obama everyone took note. A lot of people criticized her, but I’m sure a lot more were impressed because they value her opinion, whether it is well-guided or not.
Chuck Norris, on the other hand, is a forgotten star who’s most recent role before this has been selling exercise equipment on late night TV. All that most people know about him is a 2-dimensional karate-choppin’ action hero persona and fitness nut. What kind of credibility does this lend to a presidential candidate?
What’s more, Oprah’s endorsement, as far as I know, was more of an offered opinion. Chuck Norris, on the other hand, is on the campaign trail with Mike Huckabee, appearing in his commercials (“I’m Chuck Norris, and I approve of this message!”) and at his side like some kind of consultant:
Now, even if you haven’t seen my previous Huckabee-bashing post, if you know anything about me you would think I’ve lost my marbles when you read what I’m about to say:
If I was at a party and met all of the presidential candidates for the first time without having known anything about who they were, my first impression would be that Mike Huckabee was one of the most likeable people in the room. Really. I’m afraid it’s the truth. If I don’t listen to what he says, but how he says it, he comes off as charming, sincere, sensitive, well-spoken and intelligent. And, maybe it’s just because he’s a 2nd tier candidate that I haven't heard the same kind of snarky swipes and smarmy remarks from him as we have heard from the other candidates. One final note: and I promise I will only mention this once: as if this mattered in politics, I even think he’s one of the better-looking candidates. (Excuse me, I think there’s a little something in my throat.. a little piece of barf, perhaps?)
But these things do matter in politics. And it’s scary to think people choose to trust people because of a certain twinkle in their eye. People like to think they can detect sincerity. But there is scientific evidence correlating deceptive behavior with leadership qualities. A 1993 study by Colgate University psychologist Caroline Keating found that the best liars among pre-school children emerge as leaders during play periods. With adults she found that ‘leaders are the best misleaders.’
So does that mean we should worry about Huckabee coming up from behind and winning the election simply because he charmed the pants off of a lot of voters?
Well y’all can breath a big collective sigh of relief, ‘cause here comes Chuck Norris!
Ok, so I think there’s nothing wrong with celebrities endorsing political candidates. They have opinions and they should be free to voice them just like anybody else. Doing so may affect their fan base; but I think they know that and have considered it. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
But this is not Oprah Winfrey we’re talking about. She is a talk show host with millions of viewers who see her as some kind of guru of wisdom. She’s a celebrity almost entirely because of her thoughts and opinions. When she endorsed Barack Obama everyone took note. A lot of people criticized her, but I’m sure a lot more were impressed because they value her opinion, whether it is well-guided or not.
Chuck Norris, on the other hand, is a forgotten star who’s most recent role before this has been selling exercise equipment on late night TV. All that most people know about him is a 2-dimensional karate-choppin’ action hero persona and fitness nut. What kind of credibility does this lend to a presidential candidate?
What’s more, Oprah’s endorsement, as far as I know, was more of an offered opinion. Chuck Norris, on the other hand, is on the campaign trail with Mike Huckabee, appearing in his commercials (“I’m Chuck Norris, and I approve of this message!”) and at his side like some kind of consultant:
… or puppy.
What part of the Huckabee team thought this was a good idea? Do they think this will attract votes outside of the Chuck Norris fan base? And how large is that fan base these days anyway?
Well I suppose at least Huckabee must be a Norris fan. And when he too becomes a footnote in history (and quite soon, it would appear), Huck and Chuck will at least have each other...
3 comments:
Well, personally, I think Dan Savage is much cuter.
I agree!
I didn't think of this until later; but if, by some wicked and unlikely twist of fate, Mike Huckabee were to win the Republican nomination; would Chuck Norris be chosen as his running mate?
Post a Comment