Judging a book by its cover. Putting lipstick on a pig. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. The emperor has no clothes. The snake oil salesman. Whatever you want to call it, we as a society are guilty of valuing form over substance. Style over content. Perhaps social media is to blame. But a reckoning is in order because Judgment Day is less than a month away.
Management scholars developed theories of charismatic leadership several decades ago. They concluded that charismatic leaders inspire followers to enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty, commitment and devotion to such leaders and the causes they represent. They also claim that charisma can cause emotional manipulation and lead followers to distort reality, thereby hindering sound judgment.
Speeches and debates offer cases in point. Martin Luther King motivated his followers to call for social change. Hitler motivated his followers to commit evil acts.
Remember the Kennedy/Nixon debate when Kennedy reportedly asked for the heat to be turned up on debate night because he knew Nixon was prone to sweat? In contrast, Kennedy came off cool as a cucumber.
And then there was the charm and charisma of Ronald Reagan in his debate against Mondale when he quipped, “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth, and inexperience.”
Romney pummeled Obama in their first debate of that election cycle because it was clear that Obama assumed he could just show up and win the day. Romney was confident and self-assured and was declared the victor by all who watched the debate even though, with a closer look, it was clear that Romney spewed forth a pile of lies about inflation, the national debt, and more.
Many critics claim that Vance won last week’s debate against Walz because of his smooth and slick delivery. NPR fact-checked Vance’s statements and claimed that he lied about guns, healthcare, taxes, China, and immigration.
Donald Trump reportedly selected Mike Pence as his running mate because he thought he looked the part. He also likes the Lincolnesque looks of J.D. Vance. So, another part in this form-over-substance issue is optics.
Social scientists say our brains process emotions more quickly than thoughts or facts. We receive input and then attach an emotion to it before we actually think through the information.
In business, social science experts advise organizations to “avoid the charisma or optics trap.” Instead, they urge organizations to use unbiased assessment tools.
When judging candidates, the League of Women Voters stresses the importance of looking past the superficial optics or “form” and asks voters to do the challenging work of uncovering the facts. The League suggests that voters do a deep dive on the positions that candidates take. It encourages voters to use voter guides and sample ballots to learn as much as possible about the candidates. It suggests voters assess candidates’ takes on critical issues and then assess each candidate’s honesty, integrity, and intelligence. The League encourages voters to recognize distortion tactics such as name-calling, rumormongering, and loaded statements. It also asks voters to spot phony issues such as passing the blame and promising the sky. Finally, the League encourages voters to make democracy work and get involved in the process.
The political philosopher Edmund Burke once said, “Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.” Something to think about.
Maria Grant was the principal-in-charge of the Federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, piano, and nature.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.