I think that a candidate’s appearance holds much more sway over the average voter than their platform. The vast majority of voters merely go based off of name association: they are more familiar with a name and that name follows with their party, so they vote. Simple as that. People are a lot more likely to speak favorably of the young and attractive candidate than the old and decrepit one. A modern example would be Democratic Candidate Pete Buttigieg. By all historical standards he has absolutely no place on the podium for presidential candidacy, and yet there he stands, neck-and-neck with seasoned politicians such as Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom are much more qualified. Buttigieg is a unique candidate with his own views, as are they all, but he is not so unique to have garnered as much support as he has over most other candidates. I would argue that his relative youth and good looks has helped a great deal in keeping him on the public stage. We are okay with him remaining in front of us because he is not displeasing to look at. This argument is essentially a derivative of Postman’s statement about President Taft, who may have been immediately been thrown out of a modern election due to his own appearance being too grotesque for the American public to stomach on television.
Questions that I have: Is the average voter’s higher emphasis on appearance something that we need to consider immoral and abolish from society? Would it not be better, in that case, to only air political news over the radio to keep the voting more cerebral?
