In Other Words

A book's cover

I’m sure all of you have thought about this at one point, but I think it is something that should be raised again now that the elections in America are going on. Its something that has bothered me about Democracy right from the moment I understood what it was all about. It was part of the very reason why the Greeks (who had the very first democracy oh so many years before 1 AD) used a lottery as part of the way some positions were filled.

Lets talk about Charm. Charm is essential in Democracy, it is something that gets you elected, or doesn’t get you elected. Your ability to connect with the people, make people like you, emotionally evoke responses, say what needs to be said, etc. are all dependent on Charm. Charm, in many ways, is the most important natural trait that a politician should possess.

Charm, of course, comes in many forms. Some people (like John Edwards) are very good at putting complicated things forth clearly and easily. Others, (Like Bush) manage to appeal through a down to earth, simple ‘I’m just like you’ feeling. Some people have it naturally, other people will never get it, but what ever you want to say it is essential to have some form of Charm if you want to have any sort of political life at all.

It plays a far more important role then most people realise. At one point there were elections for some small time official in England. There were the usual posters and TV debates between two people who both coveted the title. Eventually there was a vote and one won, the other lost (54% to 42%). A group of scientists then took all the posters, fliers, TV shows etc. and went to India. There they found a village where nobody spoke English (still possible even today) and they reran the entire campaign. They showed the people the fliers, the posters and the TV material.

Of course to the Indian people it made very little sense, but these men in white coats wanted it and the villagers were getting something out of it, so what the hey. Finally the Indians were allowed to vote as well. The difference? 1.5% from the first vote. That’s how much difference understanding to not understanding made.

Deciding who your leader is going to based on Charm is like deciding who your surgeon is going to be based on his Piano playing skill. It doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense.

Yes, a good Piano player might have very flexible fingers, which is a very useful skill for a surgeon, but that is far from the only thing that really matters. Why have we made a Leader’s ability to orate so important? Why do we think that people that can’t talk speak all that well can’t lead our country to success?

Its like deciding a student goes through to the next class based on only one course grade (I don’t care that he’s excellent in English, biology, theatre and French, he failed his math course so he’s going to have to do the year again! Those are the rules). I imagine I’ve given enough examples.

There should really be a better way to do things. A pretty face is something that is important for models, it shouldn’t matter for a future leader.

Remember Hitler was a great orator, that certainly didn’t make him a good person. Steven Hawkins, on the other hand, can only be understood by his nurse, yet he’s done massive amounts of good for all mankind.

Don’t judge a book by its cover, don’t judge a leader by his charm.

posted by Symbol @ 27.8.04