OPINIONS |
|
Be sure to check out these other Opinion articles: |
|
Love: Factoring the equation |
Why nice guys finish last in American politicsBy Kyle Jones
The bad news: the American people don't usually go for that. Think that sounds too cynical? Consider this: Congressman Ron Paul is an advocate of immigration-law enforcement and of a border fence - 89% of Americans feel that illegal immigration is a serious problem and 68% are in favor of a fence over our southern border, according to a recent poll from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Paul has openly and passionately come out against the Iraq war. As president, he promises he would end the wasteful blunder, and pull our troops out of Iraq immediately - as indicated by a CNN/Opinion Research Poll, 63% of America opposes the Iraq debacle. Paul was recently named the Taxpayers' Best Friend by the National Taxpayers Union. He has never voted to raise taxes during his service in Congress. He has pledged to cut federal spending and slash taxes dramatically, thus providing Americans with more disposable income - all Americans would like to see more cash in their pockets. On paper, Paul looks too good to be true. But how can a person who is almost perfectly in tune with the collective sentiment of America, be the same person who is almost dead last in every national poll and state primary? The answer is "likeability." This is a term that has made its way into the political vernacular in recent years. It is the reason George H. W. Bush lost the presidency to Bill Clinton in 1992, and the reason John Kerry failed to unseat George W. Bush in 2004. In 2008, Paul finds himself facing this same hurdle. And oh, what a high one it is. One doesn't even have to sit through an entire debate to understand Paul's deficiencies in the likeability department. The man's presence leaves much to be desired. Paul lacks the slick, sharp tongue possessed by his contemporaries that impresses Americans, and his demeanor is unpolished and even quirky at times. This gives Paul a very low likeability factor and blinds voters to the content of his message. This is a sharp contrast to the articulate and smarmy candidates like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani. These candidates shamelessly lick their index fingers, hold them up to the wind and then adjust their "beliefs" accordingly. Unlike Paul, who stands on the same platform now as he did eighteen years ago. But again I ask why, in spite of all of this, has Paul failed to mount a serious push for the White House? It pains me to admit that likeability has superseded honesty and policy as the foremost quality that attracts votes. If voters were still actually concerned with the principals and integrity of a candidate, wouldn't Paul, with all the above mentioned commonalities he shares with the American people, be the favorite to win the election? Friends, it's true America has not been well served by her leaders in recent years. As citizens we have a right and a responsibility to criticize this administration for its ineptitude, but we must ask ourselves this: with such a shallow and short-sighted approach to voting, are we not getting exactly the kind of leadership we deserve? Personality should count for something. After all, we aren't electing a stack of policies and press releases for president. We're electing a living person, so it's necessary to a certain degree to take character and likeability into account. But voters please, consider substance over style when casting your ballot this year. |
The time for electing a new president is upon us. And friends, I have good news. We have a candidate on the ballot that, if given the chance, is more than capable of leading this nation through these most turbulent times. This candidate is honest, courageous and possesses integrity and fortitude unparalleled by any of his peers.