"Lookism"....

[commanding]

I use the term "lookism" to refer to people who are elected to political office, in which their "looks" or photogenic assets, tend to push them to the top of the heap.
I believe this started early, when photography was invented, and the masses in distant parts of the country could see what a person actually looked like. However it has progressed in importance with the introduction of television, and the internet. In other words, the persons ideas became secondary to how pretty they were on television.
Some examples in my opinion: JFK, Teddy Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, B. Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Palin, our pretty TX gov. Rick Perry, etc., many more...
Some examples of people who did NOT get elected on their looks: ex Tx gov. Ann Richards, Richard Nixon, Ike, FDR, and a couple of other guys who are as ugly as a mud fence, but I can't recall their names now. One guy looks like a freakin pig face monkey.

Do you believe the persons looks, make a huge difference the actual votes they get at the polls? I do. It is almost like a high school popularity contest and it makes me ill. Elect people on what they stand for, their ideas, and their "track record".

[2495]

Problem is Commanding, its not the looks they get elected on, but the 'pliability' factor their handlers and money men have molded to suit their own needs.

Thats what gets the seat of power, nothing else in todays world.

[Behan]

Of course people should be voted on substance and not their looks.

Unless they are really hot. Hot people make excellent leaders.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I don’t know about other schools but my poly sci curricula included, among all the philosophy, analysis, history, economics, statistics, law, marketing and psychology, several courses on image handling (power dressing, body language), dramatic speaking and acting. Yes, image is a huge part of getting elected in the US.

Computers and modern statistical sampling techniques combined with the mass media, a disintegrating education system and the displacement of individual responsibility via the government is fostering a culture of clueless, hypnotized childlike marks just ripe for the con. Today’s campaigning politician is nothing more than a cheap product, the large font, red letter packaging set at eye level containing as little product as the manufacturer can get away with for the most voters to buy. It’s all looks great, less filling. Just take a gander at the Executive and the Hill to see it all in action.

At my place of employment, during the election, all the twenty/thirty something women were simply swooning over Obama’s demeanor. No amount of reason, picking apart his speeches or bombarding them with fact could dissuade their delusion. My god, one lady even admitted during lunch “I don’t care what he’s saying, I just want him. He’s so hot” followed by clucking agreement by a dozen other brainless, delusional hens.

Image is everything, substance is meaningless and it will take the looting of the nation by these cons to wake up millions of American marks to shake the people out of this hypnotic, clueless funk they’re in.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think it's a very real phenomenon, especially since women started voting.

Oh yeah that's right, I went there.

[Clear_blues]

of course looks count in the political game, that's why they drop $400 on a new hair cut, and many zeros on new clothes. Americans don't want to be lead by plain Jane or Stinky Steve, it reminds us of how fat and crappy we look.

[Daft Ego]

There's no doubt that lookism and ******ity is a very important factor in every aspect of our society. Anyone who has ever turned on the TV realizes this as a fact. Simply put, *** (lookism) sells.

[LineDoggie]

I think it's a very real phenomenon, especially since women started voting.

Oh yeah that's right, I went there.

QFT
Last year I heard female family members gushing over the "O" and who knowing a thing about his platform. They did the same for Clinton in 92, and John Edwards. Lately a version I call Richism has appeared- the appeal of Bloomberg being a Billionaire must mean he should run NYC forever.

[ronnieraygun]

I think it's a very real phenomenon, especially since women started voting.

Oh yeah that's right, I went there.


Yes. Sad, but supposedly true if talking heads/various researchers/pollsters are to be believed.

Commanding, interesting idea for a thread, but historically, I bet we could find countless examples of the better-looking, more symmetrically-faced candidate winning since ancient times. To put things in a more modern context, I would say the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy sealed the deal. There was no going back from that point on.

[commanding]

examples of 2 "ugly as a mud fence" politicians who got elected, and beat the lookism system:
Phil Gramm and Henry Waxman
http://i34.tinypic.com/minndi.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/dxzb51.jpg