Is she likable? Is she/he charismatic?
My plea to the American electorate and the responsible media is to discard this question when evaluating the electability of possible presidential candidates.
The first reason to avoid this line of questioning is that it immediately puts female candidates at a disadvantage. It is a Catch-22 that if a woman leader is deemed “likable” or “charismatic,” she probably won’t have the “strength” characteristics that voters require. “Likable” in female candidates almost always includes physical characteristics and soft personality traits that are truly irrelevant to top political leaders.
“Charismatic” is perhaps more relevant in evaluating male candidates, because it seems to mean being a dynamic speaker and having a forceful personality. But it is dangerous to put too much emphasis on “personality” instead of on a candidate’s qualifications and experience, whether the candidate is male or female.
A common question being posed in relation to the 2020 presidential election is whether the country is ready to elect a female candidate. My answer is no, if the first question is whether she is “likable.”
Evidence I offer in my case for dropping the “likable” question is that I can’t think of a single female world leader, past or present, whom I would describe as “likable.” Yet there are many who have been, and are, truly great and respected leaders. How about Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, Angela Merkel? Any of those women “likable” or even “attractive”?
How do some of the most powerful women (so far) in our own country measure on the likability scale? People like Eleanor Roosevelt, Madeleine Albright, Geraldine Ferraro, Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? You be the judge, pun intended.
In a recent conversation about the possibility of a woman winning the election, a female friend said that to be electable a candidate would have to have “charisma” and be “likable.” When I asked her what she means by “likable” in a woman candidate, she said she would have to be “nice.” Really?! “Nice” gals don’t even finish.
I submit that in order to reasonably decide if you “like” someone, you have to know them. We may think we do, but we never really “know” our presidential candidates. The only rational way to determine a public figure’s likability is to ask people who do know them.
On that more intimate level, likability is about qualities like loyalty, generosity, sense of humor, humility. We do need this kind of character testimonial for potential leaders. So I would challenge the responsible media who are covering the beginnings of the 2020 campaign to change the way they cover the “likability” issue. Instead of asking voters if, for example, Elizabeth Warren is likable, ask the people she has lived with and worked with.
On the “charisma” question, whether appraising a male or female candidate, here’s another caution. Stop and think about even the origins of the word “charismatic.” It came from the religious sphere. Think Jim Jones and his ilk. You didn’t hear it used in the political world until probably the Kennedy era.
I looked up the definition of “charismatic,” and the second definition is “relating to the charismatic movement in the Christian church.” The first is even scarier: “exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.” Maybe this is OK in the religious realm, but in the political sphere, we should be “devoted” to our political system, not to a “dear leader.”
We will be ready to elect a female president only when we stop asking is she likable. We’re not there yet.
Jeanette Rusk Sefcik
Jeanette Rusk Sefcik, Glendale, is a retired newspaper reporter and editor, having worked at newspapers including the Tucson Citizen, Daily Spectrum in St. George, Southern Utah News in Kanab and Lake Powell Chronicle in Page, Ariz. She has a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Arizona.
