There's a fallacy that good looking people make fine Presidents. In reality physical appearance comes far behind ability as a predictor of success as a political leader. But most campaigns are about image and people form a judgement on what they have seen.
Consider two recentish Labour leaders. Jeremy Corbyn had an attractive (to some people) manifesto but he looked old and scruffy. He didn't win the General Election for Labour.
Tony Blair had charisma, but left an awful legacy we still struggle with. In the recent documentary someone said (an older quote for a different politician) that Tony Blair has a first class temperament but a second class intelligence. In my opinion he won elections but left before his failings became overwhelming.
So don't pick pretty people for President or Prime Minister unless it is backed up by a first class intelligence.
"a second class intelligence." A wild over-estimate. Or maybe it means a second class intelligence by the slack standards of the House of Commons. I've always assumed that part of Brown's bitterness towards Blair was because Blair was a dim wee bugger but Brown had been an able youth.
DJ - maybe Jeremy Corbyn adopted the scruffy look because he has always wanted to look like the student he never was.
Yes, physical appearance is not a guide to ability but as we know, it is more important than it should be. It is better to be taller than average, presentable and with a good voice rather than short and scruffy with poor diction.
I'm sure Blair is an extreme example of something, but what that might be is not so clear. A natural persuader of course, yet he didn't persuade Brown.
dearieme - yes Blair was a dim wee bugger, maybe those around him had all the intelligence and all he had was the charm. Perhaps Labour was so astounded that they had attracted someone presentable with the gift of projecting charm that they pushed him all the way and ignored the consequences.
3 comments:
There's a fallacy that good looking people make fine Presidents. In reality physical appearance comes far behind ability as a predictor of success as a political leader. But most campaigns are about image and people form a judgement on what they have seen.
Consider two recentish Labour leaders. Jeremy Corbyn had an attractive (to some people) manifesto but he looked old and scruffy. He didn't win the General Election for Labour.
Tony Blair had charisma, but left an awful legacy we still struggle with. In the recent documentary someone said (an older quote for a different politician) that Tony Blair has a first class temperament but a second class intelligence. In my opinion he won elections but left before his failings became overwhelming.
So don't pick pretty people for President or Prime Minister unless it is backed up by a first class intelligence.
"a second class intelligence." A wild over-estimate. Or maybe it means a second class intelligence by the slack standards of the House of Commons. I've always assumed that part of Brown's bitterness towards Blair was because Blair was a dim wee bugger but Brown had been an able youth.
DJ - maybe Jeremy Corbyn adopted the scruffy look because he has always wanted to look like the student he never was.
Yes, physical appearance is not a guide to ability but as we know, it is more important than it should be. It is better to be taller than average, presentable and with a good voice rather than short and scruffy with poor diction.
I'm sure Blair is an extreme example of something, but what that might be is not so clear. A natural persuader of course, yet he didn't persuade Brown.
dearieme - yes Blair was a dim wee bugger, maybe those around him had all the intelligence and all he had was the charm. Perhaps Labour was so astounded that they had attracted someone presentable with the gift of projecting charm that they pushed him all the way and ignored the consequences.
Post a Comment