Does a president have to be likable?

WASHINGTON -- "Likability" has emerged as a major factor in the presidential election. The question is: Why?

Translated another way, is style more important than substance in this election? Are people so fat and happy with the status quo that they are willing to cast their vote on the basis of the candidates' smiles?

In the likability department, the pollsters find that Texas Gov. George W. Bush is the more appealing. You hear so often he's the kind of guy you want to sit down and have a couple of beers with. If that is the standard for choosing a president, then why don't we elect Joe six-pack?

A good `ole boy who gives high fives and backslaps -- does that a president make? I think not.

Let's get real. In considering the qualities needed to be a good president, likability is low on the list. Not only is it relatively unimportant but it can conceal more important truths. Take President Reagan. He was viewed as "Mr. Nice Guy" even though he was the president who said homeless people liked to sleep on grates. That jaunty smile didn't tell us much about his capacity for compassion.

Presidents should be selected on other personal traits, such as trust, honesty, integrity and intelligence, for starters. It would also help to speak the English language properly. A dash of common sense doesn't hurt, either.

Bush says that he would deal with a tough foreign policy crisis by "relying on my advisers." Harry Truman, who proclaimed that "the buck stops here," would have laughed at that kind of dodge.

The Gallup Poll has asked voters whether a candidate's stand on the issues means more than leadership qualities and vision. Issues won out over leadership, 44 percent to 36 percent, among likely voters.

But last August, Gallup did not think it was superficial or too trivial to ask which candidate -- Gore or Bush -- was smarter; better looking; the better speaker; had the best sense of humor.

The same poll asked respondents which candidate would they like to have dinner with.

Gore beat out Bush as the smarter and the better looking. Bush and Gore almost tied on the question about going to dinner with one of the candidates. Bush scored over Gore as the better public speaker and the one with the better sense of humor.

Now I agree that a sense of humor is almost indispensable in running the country. But knowledge, intelligence and experience are more important.

I've seen too many presidents take over the White House with no knowledge of how Washington works. The result: They lose valuable time in learning such fundamentals about how to work with Congress, the Cabinet and the public.

Too often they trash Washington on the campaign trail, when they should be putting forth constructive ideas about how to make our system work better.

The new presidents who pride themselves on being "outsiders" also bring in their own teams, usually three top aides who paid their dues and are ready to grab power. But they, too, are flying blind, having had no experience in the federal government that they now are supposed to lead.

It's the American people who pay when their newly elected leaders make stupid mistakes during the amateur hour at the start of a new administration. The Bay of Pigs debacle at the start of the Kennedy era and the Waco catastrophe early in the Clinton administration are cases in point.

Every president, of course, wants to be liked, even loved. But a winning personality can go only so far in solving the nation's problems.

America's early leaders were respected for their depth of understanding of what was needed to build a new nation with freedom and equal opportunity for all. They were not selected because of their likability -- they were elected because of their ability.

Helen Thomas comments on Washington trends for Hearst Newspapers.

2000Copyright
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.