Politics as Popularity Contest

This is a great article from Jonah Goldberg on the future of the Republican party. I completely agree with him. Here's a little excerpt:

"I would love it if the GOP dedicated itself to cutting government by two-thirds, leaving only a minimal social safety net, a big honking military and a few other bells and whistles for promoting the general welfare. My ideal ticket in 2008 would have been Cheney-Gramm. That's right, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm: two old white guys who would crush our enemies and liberate our economy while shouting, "You kids get off my lawn!" at the filthy hippies who would inevitably accumulate outside the White House like so much bathroom fungus.

"But you know what? It's not about what I want. Gone are the days when a great but uncharismatic president like Calvin Coolidge could get elected because he promised to do as little as possible. My ideal platform may be right. (If I didn't think it was, it wouldn't be my ideal platform, now would it?) But it is surely not popular.

"And that, I fear, may be the key word: "popular." In my darker moods, I suspect that American politics, at least at the presidential level, is ultimately just a popularity contest. In the television age, the more personally charming guy wins -- or at minimum has a monumental advantage."

Since the election of President Obama I've had a creeping sense of unease with the direction of american politics, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. The article above has helped me realize why I'm so annoyed: Because now, more than ever in my memory, a leader's persona seems more important to voters than his personal and political philosophies. Don't get me wrong - I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that personal popularity plays a major role in choosing our leaders. A representative government couldn't function any other way. I just wish it wasn't the only consideration for so many.