ANOTHER "Family Values" REPUBLICAN, Caught with..

[Gilding the Lily]

Just imagine Abraham Lincoln running for office today = ZERO chance of our contemporary population ever electing such an "ugly"/non-photogenic, and moody man. "Mommy!..He's not cute...and I just don't like him!" "That Mr. Davis is waa-aay cuter, and more fun at parties Daddy!..and he wants "Change"..."Let's join the Confederacy instead!"..."Everything will be Great!"

East,

I agree with most of what you said, particularly regarding the statements of attempting to project the actions, efficiency and success of potential candidates. (I enjoyed the cheerleading illustration). I am fine with politicians taking the "high ground"; but the phrase "talk the talk, walk the walk" comes to mind.

I differ slightly, however, with your thoughts about candidates' stage presence. Yes, it is more unlikely that Lincoln would be elected in this modern era. Perhaps Lincoln would not have been as effective as a leader in the modern era. Like it or not, stage presence is an important trait for many leaders. The ability to communicate effectively -- both verbal and non-verbal communication -- is vital in today's society. Often, whether ill-advised or not, individuals are more inclined to jump on the bandwagon if the leader effectively communicates to the flock. Right or wrong, good looks and facial expressions are an important communication tool in our society. While you and I may prefer to be persuaded by clear logic, some are duped persuaded by looks.

While I place little emphasis on looks, I place enough to factor in the persuasion skills that good looks may have on certain members of the general population (including members of the executive, congress, and foreign constituencies). I place even more emphasis on another factor of stage presence: oratory skills. I am sure we can both agree that effective leadership is often (but not always) paired with effective verbal communication.

 

[EastUS]

East,

I agree with most of what you said, particularly regarding the statements of attempting to project the actions, efficiency and success of potential candidates. (I enjoyed the cheerleading illustration). I am fine with politicians taking the "high ground"; but the phrase "talk the talk, walk the walk" comes to mind.

I differ slightly, however, with your thoughts about candidates' stage presence.

Understood. We differ on our perceptions on the stage presence requirement though. I see such as more of a detriment to reasoned government than any asset. I see it as useful for getting elected, but otherwise?...It merely serves to effectly sell non-stop-BS to the "ignorant masses", who might be otherwise forced into actual, critical thought of some type... without the "ease" inherent in "going with the smile"/etc. I feel that the very media-driven process that allows for just a "winning smile" to become President's inherently flawed, and we might just as well simply elect the next winner of American Idol"..Hey!..maybe that's the ticket = A new "Reality Show"...."American President"...oops..we've already got pretty much exactly that....most unfortunately for our Nation and us all. I must also differ on the value of personal charisma on another level = negotiating with allies and/or enemies. It's my earnest belief that it's "the walk"/"the backup" that's ultimately, most convincing in any such issues. Some of the most notorious sociopaths in history have shown the "value" of personal charisma = Adolph Hitler was extremely well-loved throuought Germany for a goodly long time...etc. Heck..even the "Reverend" Jim Jones had very devout followers who thought him a wonderful guy...and the list is, very tragically, almost endless. Anytime people are willing to buy off on some charm, a smile, and acceptable-sounding, agreeable BS..rather than actually THINK...they'll inevitably obtain the "leadership" that they sadly "deserve".

I'm 100% with you on "talk the talk, walk the walk" being something we should, as citizens..DEMAND from our supposed "Leaders"...at any and all levels.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

It's my earnest belief that it's "the walk"/"the backup" that's ultimately, most convincing in any such issues. Some of the most notorious sociopaths in history have shown the "value" of personal charisma = Adolph Hitler was extremely well-loved throuought Germany for a goodly long time...etc. Heck..even the "Reverend" Jim Jones had very devout followers who thought him a wonderful guy...and the list is, very tragically, almost endless.

And some leaders have shown other "value" of good looks and charisma. Foreign leaders were charmed by the cowboy actor who became president. While most would suggest -- and I would agree -- that there was much more than good looks and charisma behind that cowboy hat, one would be naive to believe that it wasn't a factor at all. I happen to take that persuasion factor into account, albeit a slight factor.

Your reference to Adolph further proves the point. His charisma has been cited as very influential. He, obviously, used his influence in a destructive nature. That should not downplay the fact that charisma can be used sucessfully in an uplifting manner.

At the end of the day, we both agree... what is "behind the smile" is much much more important than smile itself.

 

[EastUS]

And some leaders have shown other "value" of good looks and charisma.

Point taken. As much as I hate to give ground whilst happily engaged in any idealistic rantings...I must agree. I guess my "problem" with the current trend is that "we" now tend to elect only generated "celebrities", rather than the best available people...many of whom, I'm sure are never even "seen" in the light of the media "day".