Our
View: Sexy people winning all elections
unlikely
A rather haphazard study by a University of Texas economics professor, Daniel
Hamermesh, revealed handsome male candidates had a 56 percent chance of winning
an election. Other less attractive candidates had a 44 percent chance, according
to his study.
The state of Texas should be ashamed its public institutions are spending money
on such ridiculous so-called studies.
The research was based off the election of officers for the American Economic
Association, a professional group, from 1996 to 2004. Hamermesh used photographs
from ballot candidates, showed them to subjects, found their preference, and
consequently found the better-looking candidates were the ones who usually got
elected.
In short, this study’s assumption is invalid for many reasons and should
not be taken seriously. The blanket statement of saying good-looking men (or
women) have a better chance of getting elected defies solid methods of political
inquiry and real United States election results, both old and modern.
If any researcher wishes to make a study valid, he or she should conduct research
in a believable and credible manner. Why did the study only include mail ballot
elections? Why did it not include other types of elections? Why did this research
not consider other mannerisms in campaigns that help candidates formulate an
image outside of looks or just a picture?
Why did the study only look at an economist association, which for an economics
professor is convenient but is an otherwise another bad source for political
theories?
For that matter, why did this study leave out a lot of things?
Because this research disregards so many variables and details, it is hard to
believe. It does not take a Ph.D. in political science to know voting for a politician
is not based on looks alone. And though it can be a factor, physical attractiveness
probably is not a large enough one to be accurately qualitatively or quantitatively
measured.
This type of “junk research” is comparable to other efforts to prove
the strength of good looks in society. There have been equally unsubstantiated
studies done hypothesizing that better-looking candidates, both male and female,
were more likely to receive job offers following interviews.
The only problem with some of this research was it appeared very rigged and exaggerated
to prove a point even before the point was made. The good-looking interviewees
were made to look extra good while the less attractive people were made to look
extra bad.
It seems unlikely anyone would go into an interview purposefully trying to look
worse than normal with a horrible sense of fashion and an uncouth exterior. Anyone
can be cleaned up to look presentable and professional despite life’s differences
of appearance.
Studies like this only accentuate and embellish our nation’s superficial
nature to even larger unrealistic degrees.
The second thing wrong with the assumption that better people get elected is
it does not take into consideration our own election results. A lot of politicians
are not especially good looking and could never be models.
Does anyone honestly think Sen. Ted Kennedy can grace Sears catalogs or Sen.
Barbara Boxer can make the cover of Cosmo? How about President George W. Bush
and Sen. John Kerry as shirtless Abercrombie models? Maybe former president Abraham
Lincoln modeling for Calvin Klein, top hat and thick sideburns included?
Clearly then, our nation’s most attractive men and women were not politicians.
It takes more than good looks alone to get someone elected to office.
However, there have been instances where a strong image helped a candidate get
elected. In the John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon televised presidential debate
of 1960, Kennedy had the upper hand over his Republican opponent.
Kennedy appeared cool and confident in front of the camera. He spoke to the metal
box with authority and looked straight at the TV audience.
Nixon, on the other hand, had issues. Though never known for his public relations
skills, his sweating and ragged appearance compared to Kennedy made him look
like a nervous and weakened candidate.
One could argue this famous televised debate helped Kennedy eventually win that
election. But the fact remains: if Kennedy had been weak in other areas concerning
his image, his face alone probably would not have helped him win.
Good looks can help men and women get elected into office, but if public speaking
abilities are weak or nonexistent, a political career can be doomed for a short
end. A good-looking idiot may work in Hollywood, but in the prickly political
arena, it takes more than a winning smile to dance on Capitol Hill with the Potomac
two-step.
Politics is about perception. With that perception comes more than just looks.
The study should go back to the drawing board and take more into consideration
before making such transparently unsubstantiated claims.
|
