Use of the word like and its variants has really grown over the past years.
I could be referencing the valley-girl-inspired scourge of like still being thrown three-apiece into sentences. Or the now-normal liking of online videos, articles, and artifacts with the tap of a button.
But, I instead refer to a form of the word used when considering attributes of a politician that sways our vote – that of likeability.
Why the need to like political leaders?
Most of us would prefer to spend time with and be friends with someone we like at some level - particularly people with whom we have regular and personal contact. But the elevation of likeability - sometimes used synonymously with relatability - as a desirable trait in our political leaders is mystifying.
And this is no better exemplified than in the strange polling question often asked during election periods, “Which leader would you most want to have a beer with?”, suggesting that being likeable is a prerequisite for effective leadership.
Is our first thought whether we like our accountant or financial advisor enough to share a beer while talking hockey, or is personal sympatico a pleasant discovery after we’ve chosen them based on their ability to guide us skillfully through tax and investment planning?
Do we insist that our lawyer has an agreeable bonhomie and be a potentially stimulating dinner companion before engaging their services, or do we first ponder how they can navigate a ticklish legal issue?
How many seek a doctor first because we know them to be a fine family man, then hope they know the difference between a hernia and possible testicular cancer? Or do we prioritize medical competence and experience while welcoming a good bedside manner as a bonus?
Is it important that CEOs of companies we invest in are charming extroverts, or do we prioritize a track record of success?
If not, why then is likeability so important to people when considering a Prime Minister? (Though we don’t vote directly for a PM in Canada, many are swayed to vote for an MP/party based on their perspective of the party leader)
Survey says?
Most simple polls on candidate choices tend to ask questions about favourability, approval and sometimes trust – which often are interpreted by those same pollsters and press as proxies for, or derivatives of likeability.
Some polls go much further to analyze in-depth perceptions, as the September 2022 Ipsos Reid poll did in asking for responses to the following statements about each major party leader.
Some dig deep into candidate traits as in the September 2022 Angus Reid poll asking respondents to match words to the leaders – Trudeau (red), Poilievre (blue). (That Trudeau was highly rated as dishonest, corrupt and weak while scoring high marks for compassion is worthy of its own article.)
These detailed polls push deeper to the heart of voter choice and provide much more insight than the veneer of favourability and approval. But would it not be worthwhile if we explicitly ponder another important perception when considering our preference for PM, and ask which leader we most respect?
Justin, Jagmeet and Pierre
Justin Trudeau came into office with high likeability numbers, wading into crowds for selfies and fleetingly a darling of the international media. He was briefly liked, but few would argue he has earned respect - a critical currency. This deficit, among others, has seriously hurt us at home and abroad.
Jagmeet Singh has polled high for likeability over several years, but it would be hard for even his staunchest supporters to argue that he is respected. Witness the raucous laughter in the House last December when he began a statement with “When I’m Prime Minister…”.
Pierre Poilievre has a tricky road ahead as he shoots up in the national consciousness and polling. Some ink has been spilled over his image change the past year as he’s ditched the glasses, eased the hairdo and relaxed his dress code - presumably to help his relatability and likeability quotient. But should we care that he might be snugglier than his prior hardnosed behaviour over the years demonstrated? And do we want him to be?
For certain, he must demonstrate enough soft skills to effectively lead people, work across partisan lines when needed, and have an ability to navigate the challenging world of international diplomacy. But does the country need more empathy and compassion - or a strong fiscal backbone, the pragmatism to make challenging tradeoffs, and competence in the hard work of governing rather than seeming to do things?
And does this require likeability, or flintier traits that may challenge our desire for someone who we personally like?
Tread carefully, Pierre
If Pierre Poilievre is slowly winning over some who need to see in him in the role of son, husband, father, or friend to earn their vote, so be it. But it won’t make him a better Prime Minister, and I caution him against reaching too far for the transient qualities of likeability and relatability.
In The Deception of Civility in Parliament I propose that a lack of substance in our current governing politicians is indictable for much of Canada’s recent ills. I will push that idea further and propose that respect in politics is the currency earned through being an individual of substance. And that the trust people seek in their leaders stems first from a need to respect them – and not necessarily to like them.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me. [Aretha Franklin]
If, as Prime Minister, Pierre Poilievre can stop runaway spending, balance the budget, bolster our sovereignty, incentivize productivity, roll back some of the most egregious DEI policies of the past few years, and trim the destructive climate and energy related policies that have weakened us at home and abroad – then he will earn this Pragmatic Canadian’s respect.
I may even come to like him one day…not that it matters.
Stay tuned and stay pragmatic.
I wholeheartedly agree with this piece. The summary in the last paragraph says it all.
I just want simple effective governance which can demonstrably be seen to be implemented for all Canadians.
The one real thing that has bothered me the most about our current head clown and circus, is their obvious attention to one part of Canada over another. Sucking up to the Maritimes, having a live fest with Quebec and snubbing large parts of the west is simply unforgivable.
If Pierre and the CPC can
1. Reverse Bill C 75, Bill C 18,
2. Manage drug addictions through healthcare and rehabilitation, enforcement,
3. Remove Canada involvement with WEF, WHO and the UN, and their propaganda,
3. Energy self sufficiency
alone the forgoing actions will return safety, morality, freedom, integrity, economy, Canada, “God keep our land, glorious and free”
I can like a Politician if they are working for the people and not the billionaire cabals who rule the world.
Merry Christmas,
Michael