Childish Democrats need to stop pretending that likability is a sexist myth

Saturday Night Live, the US comedy show, returned this week after its usual winter break and one of its first targets was Senator Elizabeth Warren. She was played by the endlessly wonderful Kate McKinnon but even her ability to nail characters – Hillary, Jeff Sessions, and most recently, Rudy Giuliani – could do nothing to salvage the sketch. Or perhaps she simply did the job too well. McKinnon has everything needed to play the senator from Massachusetts to perfection so, naturally, her impression came across as insipid and lacking spark. Just like the real Elizabeth Warren…

Now, if you think that sounds sexist, you’re hardly the first. It’s become a staple of commentary on American politics that any criticism of Warren’s character is termed sexist. A debate was sparked in recent weeks after Politico published an article in which it claimed that Warren isn’t likable. Soon the topic of “likability” lit up American news networks. In GQ, Luke Darby summed up the argument, when he wrote:

“It’s hard to ignore the sexist angle to this, whether it’s intentional or not. Even when we talk or write about the personalities of male politicians, the word likable never comes up.”

Except, of course, “likability” has been a cornerstone of modern politics for decades and, arguably, for as long as human beings have been electing people based on personality.

The OED first attribute the word to Robert Southey, quoted in 1850 (“My civilities to them are regulated […] a little more perhaps by their likability) but the term seems to have taken a while to become overtly political. In 1968, Michael Foot was writing to The Times to complain about “the tomfoolery of testing the popularity of party leaders by public opinion polls”. He wrote: “A man’s character and intelligence – even politicians – are matters of infinite complexity. […] Disraeli would not pass on any of these tests, except, to women, on likability; but he had courage and imagination, neither of which qualities – I would suppose, the two greatest – figures on the list.”

By the eighties, the term “likability” was being used in the American press to reflect the growing science of measuring candidates by these abstract qualities. Arnold Sawislak, UPI Senior Editor, described how “Reagan got a respectable 72 per cent’ likability’ rating from women in the Democratic poll, only 3 points less than his rating in this category by men.” Godfrey Sperling Jr, writing for The Christian Science Monitor, assessed that “Reagan’s likability [is] a great asset for him politically and part of his ability to be able to ”walk away” from negative public reaction that would have damaged other presidents”.

A few years later, George H.W. Bush struggled with likability as he faced his rivals for the Republican nomination. Here’s Ron Miller’s reflection for The Mercury News in 1987:

“Among the Republicans, Bush was the best of a sorry lot. Though he lacked the poise of Dukakis or even Robertson, his words had the stamp of authority. His only rival in both likability and ideas: Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, who stayed furthest from the ideological cracks in the earth the other GOP candidates seemed always about to fall into.”

Or here’s Larry Eichel of The Philadelphia Inquirer on September 26, 1988:

“American voters base decisions for president on far different criteria than they do for mayors, congressmen or governors. The presidential decision is strongly influenced by gut feelings — trust, likability, credibility and character. And there’s the commander-in-chief factor.”

What about Bill Clinton? Well, let’s go back to 1991 before he’d even entered the race. The Atlanta Journal described how the choice of candidates “is from fey to obscure, though if Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton jumps in – and he is trembling at poolside like a man who can hardly hold himself back – he will bring great likability and a record of very solid accomplishment.”

Meanwhile, George W. Bush was described by a Republican strategist, quoted in The Houston Chronicle, April 6th, 1997: “He has the likability part of politics with the ability to bring people together, without the patrician kind of stigma”.

Obama? Here’s The New York Post, 25th December 2006:

“The public’s harsh perception of Clinton’s persona contrasts with Obama’s reputation for candor and open expressions of faith, said consultant Karl Struble. “She is often thought out there to be strident, cold, calculating, hard-nosed and ideological, and political. I think that we want to like our presidents, and I think that’s the likability factor that Obama has right now,” Struble said.”

Let’s also not overlook the elephant in the room. Donald Trump, maligned now and seemingly a parody of himself, won large parts of America because he brought crudity and rule-breaking to the political arena. What wasn’t new, however, was the way people were questioning his likability. We were having that debate when he announced his candidacy. Again, The New York Post, July 23rd, 2015, described Hillary as having a “likability problem” with women voters and went on to describe Trump as having “numbers […] as bad as Clinton”. He “registered a 32-percent-to-57 per cent favorable-to-unfavorable ratio in Iowa and equally distressing numbers in the other states.”

The point, here, isn’t that one can cherry-pick a few quotes. “Likability” has been discussed at least since Reagan’s time in office and, sporadically, long before that. Critics defend Warren by claiming that she’s being held up to a different measure than other candidates, but it is they who want us to change the metrics. If we can’t measure Warren by those qualities that we’ve used to measure previous candidates, there is clearly something else going on.

The answer, perhaps, lies in the response that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made to the screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, over the weekend. Sorkin had appeared on CNN and lamented the character of many young Democrats. “I really like the new crop of young people who were just elected to Congress”, he began but then launched into a point-perfect critique:

“They now need to stop acting like young people, OK? It’s time to do that. I think that there’s a great opportunity here, now more than ever, for Democrats to be the non-stupid party. To point out the difference, that it’s not just about transgender bathrooms. That’s a Republican talking point they’re trying to distract you with. That we haven’t forgotten the economic anxiety of the middle class, but we’re going to be smart about this. We’re not going to be mean about it.”

The response from Ocasio-Cortez was telling. On Twitter she wrote:

“Let’s dig into “gravitas,” [because] it’s an ambiguous word, selectively applied. Ever wonder how expression that’s feminine, working-class, queer, or poc isn’t deemed as having “gravitas,” but talking like an Aaron Sorkin character does? Men have “gravitas,” women get “likeable.”

Again, we’re seeing the same argument offered as though it’s an established truth. A line is being drawn through two data points – Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren – and projected through to Ocasio-Cortez and others. Two flawed candidates are being used to create a myth about likability that simply doesn’t stand scrutiny.

Conveniently, it’s never mentioned that the issue of likability plagued Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, or, to a lesser extent, the campaigns of Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, and even, to a lesser extent, Jeb Bush. It’s also inconvenient to mention that many of the criticisms levelled against Ocasio-Cortez can also be levelled against Beto O’Rourke, who, only in the last week, did a live Snapchat of his dental examination. Also inconvenient is that the Democrats are blessed with candidates to whom questions of likability don’t appear to be a factor. Senators Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand will be strong candidates heading into the nomination process and it would be unsurprising if at least one of them doesn’t appear somewhere on the final ballot.

If candidates wish to ignore advice, then they will be unable to ignore the electorate which sometimes finds trivial reasons not to vote for a candidate. Some of this isn’t difficult for politicians to get right, although Ocasio-Cortez should look to the example of Congressman Eric Swalwell who is apparently considering a run in 2020. Pathologically ever-present on cable networks – there hardly seems a night or show he doesn’t pop up to offer his opinion – Swalwell will find it hard to generate enthusiasm from an electorate who might have already heard more than enough from him. If Ocasio-Cortez has serious expectations, she should ensure her light doesn’t burn as brightly as it has done in the first few weeks of the new Congress.

Warren is older and wiser. She is a serious candidate and has many great virtues, not least being the relative infrequency with which she appears in the media. She might well position herself as the rational and sensible candidate to oppose Trump. None of that will mean that she will automatically win over a swing electorate and, more importantly, get them out to vote for her. There’s nothing sexist or trivial about highlighting that, for all her good qualities, Warren needs to project something more than soft-spoken sincerity. She needs to project likability and there’s no point in her Democratic supporters pretending otherwise.