The Porcupine Tribune

On Thursday, while a video (released Wednesday by an apparently extraordinarily misguided QAnon-affiliated Twitter account) of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing as a high schooler reenacting the famous dance scene from The Breakfast Club went viral, a slew of articles (here, here, here, and here, but there are many more) arrived with more or less the same thesis: the concept of “likability” is sexist and that the term “unlikable” is reserved for competent and qualified female candidates, rarely applied to their male counterparts, largely written in response to Politico article from Monday discussing Elizabeth Warren’s ability to overcome “likability” concerns (here).

It is true that “likability” should not be a major consideration in determining whether a candidate should be President of the United States; Article II of the Constitution says nothing about “likability” (frankly, much of the modern presidential role is absent from Article II as well, but that’s a different discussion). But elections are decided by the more activated base and/or the swing votes. Is the party loyalist who doesn’t always vote going to be more likely to be energized by charisma or by a bore? Will the not very political, undecided voter who votes with the gut be swayed by the drone or the inspired? Should is nice, but my should president is Silent Cal, and the man would be unelectable today.

The results of this can be seen when looking at almost any modern presidential election, going back at least to Richard Nixon sweating next to the charismatic, handsome, and youthful John F. Kennedy in the 1960 Presidential Debate. Consider Bubba playing sax on The Arsenio Hall Show vs. the older, prudent Bush 41. Consider Dubya, the man everyone wanted to drink a beer with, who met Laura in a backyard barbecue and, love at first site, married her three months later vs. the robot or the smug guy who married into a ketchup fortune. How about the young and effortlessly cool, gifted orator and community organizer from humble beginnings?

At the risk of writing what could be construed as a puff piece about a politician whose politics I absolutely abhor, here are some subjective statements that are about as inarguable as opinion can be: the aforementioned viral video of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is absolutely endearing. Beyond the video, she is charismatic and charming. She is relatable, with her down-to-Earth, mixed bag childhood and adolescence, her leaked bartending pictures, and her finger-on-the-Millennial-pulse tweets. She has moxie. She is, in a word, likeable.

Another subjective, but inarguable statement: Hillary Clinton could not be more different. Her speeches are tortuous. The various affectations she accrues to pander to this crowd or that reek of inauthenticity. She can’t seem to help coming off as condescending and arrogant, even to her supporters. Her entire demeanor is that of someone who feels entitled to the Presidency and is expecting coronation. Of course, Hillary and Trump were both historically disliked, but as concisely as can be stated, Hillary was disliked in the wrong places and that is why she lost (the most accurate assessment of why she lost was actually written before she lost by, of all people Michael Moore. There is much to take issue with in the assessment, but it is certainly more accurate of an assessment than anything in Clinton’s full book of excuses, which is incidentally the type of book an unlikable person writes).

It is unfortunate that the first major female candidate for president was someone as utterly unlikeable as Hillary Clinton. But while “likability” is unlikely to be a good metric by which to judge a presidency, it is certainly a good metric, if a bit intangible, for predicting the winner of a presidential election. And this is why “likability” is worth talking about.

The Elizabeth Warren defenders behind the barrage of “likability is sexist” articles would have perhaps made better use of their time making the case for Warren’s likability, rather than jumping to bias accusations. Warren is certainly more likeable than Clinton (a low bar, but she clears it easily), though she isn’t AOC-level likable. Warren’s main problems are her disastrous genetic test reveal, her “Pocahontas” nickname (easily the best Trump has devised), and her extremely radical left-wing policy stances. But as far as likability goes, she has a backstory (if she can get away from the Native American stuff), can give a decent speech, and comes across as an actual human person. In the words of Obama in 2008, she’s “likeable enough”.

- John Dos Passos Dos