In the landmark obscenity case Jacobellis v. Ohio, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously refused to define which level of “hard-core pornography” passed the point of constitutional protection.
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so,” Stewart wrote. “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
Likability mirrors obscenity in this sense. It doesn’t manifest itself in the same way across candidates, but you know it when you see it.
Hillary Clinton was not likable. It cost her the 2008 presidential primary, where she lost to one of the most annoyingly likable and charming candidates in modern American political history.
Elizabeth Warren is not likable. Her political passion looks earnest, especially based on her personal background and foray into public life, but from her “goin’ get her a beer” and hackneyed selfie videos, every stunt the Massachusetts senator and presidential hopeful pulls feels like a came straight of a can, packaged by a focus group.
Employing a lazy feminist trope, Annie Linskey and David Weigel at the Washington Post have chalked up the anti-Warren sentiment to sexism.
“But even as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was elected House speaker on Wednesday, the women looking at White House campaigns continue to shoulder gendered criticism and demands not placed on their male counterparts,” the pair write. “To be strong but not too tough; to be assertive without being pushy, lest voters turn away for reasons that they may not acknowledge are sexist but that researchers say are.”
Needless to say, this is hogwash for two main reasons.
First off, likability has plagued male politicians as long as America has existed. Aaron Burr found himself increasingly alienated almost solely due to his perceived opportunism and lack of likability. Most of the 2016 Republican primary centered around personality rather than policy.
Just as former President Barack Obama’s likability covered for his unique lack of experience, Sen. Ted Cruz’s lack of likability possibly cost him the 2016 presidential primary. In a piece titled “Anyone but Ted Cruz,” New York Times columnist Frank Bruni explicitly cited the fact that on a personal level colleagues “dislike him” as a boon against his presidential candidacy. And so long as politics rely on representatives to vote on the behalf of the people, personal charisma, apparent integrity, and likability will always play a key role in elections.
Second, if anti-Warren animus could be solely attributed to sexism, then how could you possibly explain the number of Democratic women whose celebrity has exploded overnight?
Take Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., whose resume is arguably even more “tough,” “pushy,” and opportunistic than Warren’s. Klobuchar cut her teeth in corporate law and has spent over a decade in the Senate. She’s just as white as Warren and doesn’t hold back on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But she has the “it” factor. She’s likable. She might be the only Democrat who improved her political capital during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
And how about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.? She may tout idiotic and catastrophic economic policies, but she’s also likable. Likability doesn’t manifest itself the same way in different people. It’s why, when Ocasio-Cortez puts out an Instagram live video, she seems like the kind of millennial you might actually want to brunch with. When Warren does it, you can’t help but cringe.
You can’t define or quantify it, or develop a one-size-fits all model, or pull it out of thin air. But you know likability when you see it. Warren ain’t it, and it isn’t because she’s a woman.
