Character Versus Image

In Media and Society class this week, we have been talking about image in politics. How the way a politician looks can affect the amount of votes he will receive. The first televised Presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon changed the way Americans voted. J.F.K. was more appealing visually than Nixon and it is believed that is part of the reason he won.

Still hard to believe?

As an example think of Abraham Lincoln- his character shined at the times America needed it to. But the belief nowadays is that if Lincoln ran for office in this day and age, he would not be elected. Why? The answer is actually embarrassing for me as an American, but it is believed he was not good-looking enough to be elected in this day and image obsessed age.



After looking at the picture of Lincoln, what do you think? Would you vote for him based on character or not based on appearance?

Now consider the last Presidential election in America. Do you think appearance played in to Barack Obama being elected instead of John McCain?









Take into account that at the time of the election, Obama was 48 and McCain was 73.
Now I would never say the only reason Obama was elected is related to his age or his appearance- but it poses an interesting question.
Are Americans more interested in someone who looks good than someone who could effectively do the job better?

To clarify- I am not trying to start a debate over who should have won. I am just asking a question.
Does appearance mean more to Americans than character?
Does it mean that America would elect anyone who looks good over true political skills?
I sincerely hope that as life goes on, even if appearance plays a part in elections that Americans will remember good character means much more.