by Ben Shapiro
FINAL SCORE: 23%
Romney looks good on paper—but he must show some fire if he wants to look anywhere near as good in reality. Romney’s low profile may make it easy for opponents to pillory him as a flip-flopper; the last Republican to win the presidency without significant name recognition entering the election cycle was Warren G. Harding in 1920. Romney also looks better without an opponent—Democrat star power could easily overwhelm Romney in a general election.
FRED THOMPSON: STARRING AS RONALD REAGAN, PART DEUX
Fred Thompson is famous not for his governmental experience—he was a rather obscure one-term senator from Tennessee—but for his acting chops. Thompson made himself a nationally-known face in the late 1980s and early 1990s by playing governmental authority figures in movies like Die Hard 2, The Hunt for Red October, and In the Line ofFire. After his Senatorial stint, he re-cultivated his celebrity status by joining the cast of Law & Order. He played President Ulysses S. Grant in 2007’s cable production Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee—but will he be able to move into the real White House come January 2009?
Suits vs. Boots: 4. Thompson has done a tremendous job of polishing his boots image. Thompson is a former lobbyist and actor, but during his 1994 Tennessee Senatorial race, he drove a red 1990 Chevy pick-up around the state, wearing blue jeans and—you guessed it—“shabby boots.”26 Thompson’s deep voice and slow, rumbling drawl only accentuate his cowboy image.
Height: 3. Thompson stands an imposing six-feet-five-inches. But will his massive height help him, as it did Lincoln, or hurt him, as it did Winfield Scott and John Kerry?
Age: –2. Thompson will turn 66 in 2008. He was diagnosed with lymphoma cancer in 2004; the cancer is now in remission. Nonetheless, when his increasing age and questionable health is paired with his naturally languid pace, Thompson seems older than his age. Without his Law & Order make-up, his campaign staffers should make sure there are no ultra-close-ups.
Hair: –1. Thompson habitually brushes back his thinning hair. Back in the early 1990s, there was more hair to brush.
Beer Buddy: 5. Thompson is a cigar-smoking, joke-telling good-ol’-boy. When Michael Moore challenged Thompson to a debate about healthcare, Thompson released a Youtube video. In it, Thompson puffs on a cigar, looks wryly into the camera, and drawls, “A mental institution, Michael—it might be something you ought to think about.” Conservatives went wild.
Military: 2. Thompson doesn’t have McCain’s military experience or Rudy’s high-profile terrorism-fighting skills. He does, however, act like a tough guy—and his image has benefited from his film roles as the tough but genial military man.
Spouse: –2. Thompson’s personal life isn’t as salacious as Rudy’s, but it’s still controversial material. Thompson has been divorced once, and he’s currently married to Jeri Khen, 24 years his junior. Jeri, who is not averse to donning low-cut outfits, has already been labeled a trophy wife by many pundits.
FINAL SCORE: 26%
Reagan was a far more seasoned politician in 1980 than Thompson is today. For Thompson’s Reagan impersonation to be successful, he must have a “Mr. Breen” moment—he must demonstrate that he’s capable of getting riled up. He must also move beyond nice-sounding platitudes and offer hard-hitting solutions.While Thompson’s supporters portray him as a bulldog, he must convince the rest of America that he’s not all bark.
9
Should Image Matter?
IMAGE MATTERS. But should it? Why should JFK’s hair convince us to vote for him over his more seasoned counterpart, Richard Nixon? Why should Gerald Ford’s baldness have anything to do with Jimmy Carter’s election? Why should Michael Dukakis’s bobblehead have any impact on whether we choose him over George H.W. Bush? Why should Al Gore’s patent inability to display any sort of spontaneity affect our decision to vote for George W. Bush?
We can make the question stronger. Doesn’t image lie? Wouldn’t we have been better off electing the older, unattractive, capable Winfield Scott rather than dashing, young, incompetent Franklin Pierce? Wouldn’t we have done better with shiny-headed, short, chubby, experienced Martin Van Buren than we did with manufactured war hero William Henry Harrison?
And if image truly matters, what happens when terrific image masks a darker agenda? Democracies are not infallible—dictators have risen to power on the strength of their charisma and charm. Shouldn’t we look, first and foremost, to policy?
No. Policy matters—but character matters more.
Politicians can say—and often do say—whatever is most politically convenient. They are motivated to do so by our republican system of government. Politics is a business of falsity—a politician may make a pledge for immediate political benefit, then renege. Just because a politician pledges to do something doesn’t mean he’ll do it. Electoral politics is about pleasing the people—until they vote. Afterward, who knows?
When we vote, then, we want to make sure that we know what we’re getting after the ballots are counted.We want to know that our elected officials have the character to uphold their promises. That’s why an AP-Ipsos poll showed 55 percent of Americans citing “honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.”1 Only one-third cited policy positions. As Ken Mehlman, former chairman of the George W. Bush 2004 reelection campaign, explained, “Voters only look at policies as a lens into what type of person the candidate is.”2
Which is why image matters. We judge politicians’ honesty, integrity, and leadership quality the same way we judge everyone else’s: by looking at them. Sometimes our eyes mislead us. In the vast majority of cases, however, the American people tend to be excellent judges of character.Whenever America has entered tempestuous waters, the American people have selected leaders to guide them through safely. We have spotted demagogues and blowhards, budding tyrants and weaklings—and, for the most part, we have done a remarkable job of weeding them out.
This isn’t to say that image is the be-all end-all for voters. On rare occasions, policy trumps image. When Americans elected Nixon in 1968 and 1972, we knew what we were getting—an unscrupulous politician. As early as 1960, Democrats plastered the country with posters containing a caricature of Nixon, unshaven and greasy, accompanied by the slogan: “Would you buy a used car from this man?”3 Still, in 1968, we chose a conservative who was short on character over a liberal backed by radicals. In 1972, we reelected Nixon amidst early allegations about Watergate—better a corrupt statesman, we thought, than an honest nut.
But Nixon’s election is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the time, we vote based on our perception of the politician as a complete person—a mesh of issues and image. Voting for the candidate rather than the policies he or she publicly espouses is a time-honored tradition. It is a tradition that has its roots in the basic philosophy of republican representation.
Upon his election to Parliament in 1774, Edmund Burke stated:
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs, —and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, —no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.4
When we elect candidates, we elect people, not agglomerations of policy positions. And people are not angels, as the founders were so quick to remind us.5 People are susceptible t
o outside pressures; people are susceptible to passions; people’s minds change. American voters have always understood that when they elect presidents, they elect complete individuals.
And that means that we worry about hair. We think about height.We contemplate whether a candidate is a suit or a boot.We ponder over candidates’ military images.We worry about youth and inexperience, and we worry about age and decrepitude.We wonder about candidates’ spouses.We ask ourselves whether the candidates are beer buddies or stiffs.
It all seems so trivial. It isn’t.We turn the candidates inside out, handle them, inspect them for flaws and strengths.We want to get a complete picture of the men and women vying for the most powerful job on earth. The more we know about the candidates, the better our decisions will be.
So before we decry the nature of our politics, let us remember that we, the voters, are the deciders in chief. We are ultimately responsible for the decisions our leaders make—after all, we elect them.We have the obligation to consider every detail. Even details as seemingly insignificant as a single $1,000 haircut.
Notes
Introduction
1. Matt Drudge, “$1000 Haircut? Kerry Flies in Hairdresser for Touch-up Before ‘Meet the Press,’ ” Drudgereport.com, 27 April 2004 12:59:04, http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/04/27/20040427_175803_rcig.htm.
2. Brit Hume, James Rosen, and Brian Wilson, “Political Grapevine: Senator Kerry Has His Hair Styled by the Same Stylist As Senator Clinton,” Fox Special Report with Brit Hume on Fox News Network, 28 April 2004.
3. Alan Murray, “Late-Night TV Hosts Comment on the News,” Capital Report (7:00 p.m. ET) on CNBC, 21 May 2004.
4. “Unsubstantiated Drudge Rumor Echoed Through Media,” Media Matters, 30 April 2004, http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020004.
5. Daniel Kurtzman, “John Kerry Jokes: Late-Night Jokes About John Kerry,” About.com, http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljohnkerryjokes.htm.
6. “RNC Unveils New Kerryopoly Web Game,” U.S. Newswire, 1 June 2004.
7. Richard B. Cheney and Lynne Cheney, “Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks Following a Victory 2004 Debate Watch Party,” Congressional Quarterly Transcriptions, 13 October 2004.
8. Deborah McGregor, “Edwards Brings Energy to Help Fire Up Kerry on the Campaign Trail,” Financial Times (London, England), 9 July 2004.
9. “Let Them Eat Ketchup,” New York Post, 4 August 2004.
10.. “Late Night Political Humor,” Frontrunner, 9 August 2004.
11. Dana Milbank, “Steak Raises Stakes for Kerry in Philly,” Washington Post, 13 August 2004.
12. James Kuhnhenn, “Kerry Displays His Athletic Prowess in New Hampshire,” Ventura County Star, 26 January 2004.
13. Kate Zernike, “Who Among Us Does Not Love Windsurfing?” New York Times, 5 September 2004.
14. Eric Wargo, “How Many Seconds to a First Impression?” Association for Psychological Science Observer, Volume 19, Number 7, July 2006, http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/19/7/first_impression.
15. Lee Dye, “Study: First Impressions Really Matter,” ABCNews.com, 22 September 2004, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=69942.
16. Roger Ailes with Jon Kraushar, You Are the Message: Secrets of the Master Communicators (Dow Jones-Irwin, 1988), 22.
17. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising (Oxford University Press, 1996), 407.
18. Dave Barry, “What’s Another Word for Donkey?” Washington Post, 21 September 2003.
19. James Carville, “Swamp Fever,” Salon.com, 23 September 1996, http://www.salon.com/weekly/ carville960923.html.
20. Bob Dole, Great Presidential Wit . . . I Wish I Was in the Book: A Collection of Humorous Anecdotes and Quotations (Scribner, 2001), 14.(Scribner, 2001),
21. Ailes, supra note 16 at 20.
22. Eric Sevareid, ed., Candidates 1960: Behind the Headlines in the Presidential Race (Basic Books, Inc., 1959), 11.
Chapter One
1. William Nisbet Chambers, “Election of 1840” in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ed., History of American Presidential Elections 1789-1968: Volume I (Chelsea House Publishers, 1971), 644.
2. Robert Gray Gunderson, The Log-Cabin Campaign (University of Kentucky Press, 1957), 73.The Log
3. Chambers, supra note 1 at 665.
4. “Biography of Martin Van Buren,” WhiteHouse.gov, http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presi-dents/ mb8.html.
5. Joel H. Silbey, “Election of 1836” in Schlesinger, supra note 1 at 580.
6. Chambers, supra note 1 at 659.
7. Gunderson, supra note 2 at 74.
8. Ibid., 76.
9. Ibid., 76–77.
10. Gunderson, supra note 2 at 167–171.
11. “The Speech That Toppled a President,” AmericanHeritage.com, http://www.americanheritage.com/ articles/magazine/ah/1964/5/1964_5_108.shtml.
12. Paul F. Boller, Presidential Campaigns (Oxford University Press, 1996), 69.
13. Gunderson, supra note 2 at 114.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 121.
16. Boller, supra note 12 at 73.
17. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Packaging the Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising (Oxford University Press, 1996), 11.(Oxford University Press,
18. Gunderson, supra note 2 at 106.
19. Ibid., 266–273.
20. John Ferling, Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Oxford University Press, 2004), 71–72.
21. Ibid., 140.
22. Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., “Election of 1800” in Schlesinger, supra note 1 at 123.
23. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
24. Robert V. Remini, The Life of Andrew Jackson (Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2001), 8.
25. “Declaration of Support for General Andrew Jackson: Philadelphia, October, 1823” in Schlesinger, supra note 1 at 399.
26. Boller, supra note 12 at 35.
27. “Jackson Delegate Ticket” (1828) in Bernard F. Reilly, Jr., American Political Prints, 1766–1866: Catalog of the Collection in the Library of Congress, http://loc.harpweek.com/LCPoliticalCartoons/ DisplayCartoonMedium.asp?MaxID=25&UniqueID=14&Year=1828&YearMark=182.
28. Robert V. Remini, “Election of 1828” in Schlesinger, supra note 1 at 426–428.
29. Boller, supra note 12 at 48.
30. Robert V. Remini, “Election of 1832” in Schlesinger, supra note 1 at 511.
31. Gunderson, supra note 2 at 212.
32. Ibid., 214.
33. Boller, supra note 12 at 103.
34. Ibid., 103–104.
35. “ ‘Taking the Stump’ or Stephen in Search of His Mother” in Reilly, supra note 27, http://loc.harp-week. com/LCPoliticalCartoons/DisplayCartoonMedium.asp?MaxID=44&UniqueID=1&Year=1 860&YearMark=1860.
36. “ ‘Uncle Sam’ Making New Arrangements” in Ibid., http://loc.harpweek.com/LCPoliticalCartoons/ DisplayCartoonMedium.asp?MaxID=44&UniqueID=5&Year=1860&YearMark=1860.
37. “The Rail Candidate” in Ibid., http://loc.harpweek.com/LCPoliticalCartoons/ DisplayCartoonMedium.asp?MaxID=44&UniqueID=38&Year=1860&YearMark=1860.DisplayCartoonMedium.asp?MaxID=
38. Boller, supra note 12 at 189–190.
39. Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (Modern Library, 2002), 172–173.
40. Ibid., 174.
41. Edward J. Lordan, Politics, Ink: How America’s Cartoonists Skewer Politicians, from King George III to George Dubya (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006), 57.
42. Morris, supra note 39 at 174.
43. Bob Dole, Great Presidential Wit . . . I Wish I Was in the Book: A Collection of Humorous Anecdotes and Quotations (Scribner, 2001), 113.
44. Edward Windsor Kemble, “It Takes Grit to Remove Grime,” Harper’s Weekly, 11 November 1911, http://elections.harpweek.com/1912/cartoon-1912-Medium.asp?UniqueID=2&Year=1912.
45. Edward Windsor Kemble, “The New Rider,” Harper’s Weekly, 13 July, 1912, http://elections.harp-week. com/1912/cartoon-1912-Medium.asp?UniqueID=19&Year=1912.
46. George E. Mowry, “Election of 1912” in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ed., History of American Presidential Elections 1789–1968: Volume III (Chelsea House Publishers, 1971), 2155.
47. Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson: The Essential Political Writings (Lexington Books, 2005), 18.
48. Alistair Cooke, ed., The Vintage Mencken (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1955), 119.
49. Richard S. Kirkendall, “Election of 1948” in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ed., History of American Presidential Elections 1789-1968: Volume IV (Chelsea House Publishers, 1971), 3125–3127.
50. “Acceptance Speech by President Harry S. Truman at the Democratic National Convention: Philadelphia, July 15, 1948” in Ibid., 3191.
51. “Speech by President Harry S. Truman: Dexter, Iowa, September 18, 1948” in Ibid., 3198.
52. Ibid., 3198–3204.
53. David McCullough, Truman (Simon & Schuster, 1993), 590.
54. Ibid., 679.
55. Boller, supra note 12 at 276.
56. Jamieson, supra note 17 at 67.
57. McCullough, supra note 53 at 679.
58. Boller, supra note 12 at 272.
59. McCullough, supra note 53 at 669.
60. Boller, supra note 12 at 279.
61. Ibid., 286.
62. Susan Ratcliffe, ed., People on People: The Oxford Dictionary of Biographical Quotations (Oxford University Press, 2001), 119.
63. Gerald Gardner, The Mocking of the President (Wayne State University Press, 1988), 216.
64. Jamieson, supra note 17 at 61.
65. Schlesinger, supra note 1 at 3250.
66. “Acceptance Speech by Governor Adlai E. Stevenson” in Schlesinger, supra note 49 at 3295.
67. Ibid.
68. Mary McGrory, “Uneasy Politican: Adlai E. Stevenson” in Eric Sevareid, ed., Candidates 1960: Behind the Headlines in the Presidential Race (Basic Books, Inc., 1959), 232.
