Ever since YouTube caught on to our secret that refreshing the page allowed us to skip their ads (too smart for their own good), I’ve had to sit through commercials for everything from cell phones to senators when all I want is to watch Willow Smith whip her hair back and forth.
It was during one of these forced viewing periods that I noticed Carly Fiorina’s ad, encouraging Californians to support her in a now-failed bid for U.S. Senate. For those of you who haven’t had to sit through the longest 30 seconds of your life, it goes like this:
Fifty-six-year-old Fiorina, impeccably coiffed and with glowingly flawless skin, makes steady (and sparkling) eye contact with the viewer as she tells him or her a simple message: Vote for me. I can change.
The thing that struck me about this ad — especially when faced with the results of a Google image search — is that the Fiorina I know doesn’t look like the 30-year-old Neutrogena model on my screen. Fiorina, actually looks like she could be my grandmother. She has the wrinkles that befit someone her age — here she went through a lot of trouble, probably including postproduction airbrushing and several layers of coverup, not to show them.
Of course, she’s not the first to go to extreme lengths to clean up for television. The bright lights and media scrutiny of the modern age — as well as the Hollywood standards of attractiveness that people hold for anyone who appears on a TV screen — mean stepping up your visual game if you want to stay ahead. Politicians have drawn huge criticism for spending thousands of dollars pruning and preening themselves.
Sarah Palin may have gotten in trouble for paying almost $33,000 for her makeup and hair over the course of her vice presidential campaign, and let’s not forget, John McCain spent $5,500 on makeup during the 2008 campaign season, John Edwards’ infamous $1,250 haircut; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spent £1800, — $2,888, for those non-UK among us — on makeup.
But before we grill our world leaders for being shallow or poke fun at them for wearing a three-inch-thick matte non-shine mask, we should remember that harsh TV studio lighting, combined with the pore magnifying effect of high definition, can make any swan look like an ugly duckling.
Research from the Journal of Public Economics showed that voters are subconsciously swayed by better looking candidates. Subjects in the study were asked to rank the attractiveness of politicians along with their perceived intellect, competence, credibility and friendliness. The results showed that a point increase in a candidates’s perceived attractiveness correlated with significant increases in his or her perceived leadership qualities.
A famous incident that proved that voters were more inclined to side with the better-looking candidate was during the first televised presidential debates between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. People who listened to the radio thought that gaunt Nixon won the debate; people who watched on television thought suave Kennedy did.
The difference was in the details: Nixon sweated profusely, refused to wear makeup, his suit was too light and baggy and he looked generally uncomfortable. Kennedy, on the other hand, wore makeup and a fitted suit.
The bottom line, whether we admit it or not, is that the way our politicians look does affect how we vote. But it shouldn’t. Instead of focusing on how shiny their hair is in the latest campaign ad, we should be focusing on their policies and platforms. Politicians’ policies will be the same whether they’re wearing sweats and a muscle-tee or a tailored suit. It’s counterproductive to rank appearance over policy.
With that said, I understand that looking one’s best is a part of the political job description. But though I’ve accepted that my national leaders wear more coverup than my yearly paycheck can afford, I can’t help but hope that Fiorina will someday trade in her makeup artist for a new campaign manager (have you seen her demon sheep commercial?).
