Who Cares About Likeability?
Sunday Morning commentator Mo Rocca wonders if the way we chose our president is effective.
The competition is underway: Candidates expected to demonstrate excellence, but also expected - and this crucial - to be likable. Eventually a winner will be selected.
Of course I'm speaking about "Dancing with the Stars." But I could also be talking about the presidential election.
Last year Emmitt Smith won "Dancing"; George Bush won his last two contests. Neither man demonstrated the best command of their issues: During the 2000 campaign Bush had trouble naming major world leaders; Smith's samba was simply not on par with Mario Lopez's paso doble. But both Bush and Smith were supremely likable.
And yet, in politics at least, are we a little "over" likeability? This time around, do we even want to see candidates bowl, clear brush, flip pancakes, happily devour Big Macs?
Bush was famously nice to the press that covered him in 2000. Being nice is, well, nice. Nothing more. It's not the same as strong character.
The emphasis on likeability, this cult of niceness, hasn't always hung over elections. It's hard to imagine Eisenhower riding a motorcycle onto the set of "The Tonight Show," or FDR playing dress-up with Regis.
Yes, I know that candidates have always tried to project the image of the common man - the manor-born William Henry Harrison telling voters he was raised in a log cabin. Candidates will do anything to convince us they're just like you and me. Well, they're not like you and me.
This election I'm going to do my best to focus and vote for excellence. In '08 I don't care so much about likeability. I want the candidate who's got something like ... ability.
Of course I wouldn't mind watching them all attempt the Argentine Tango.