More on the election

I recently heard about an interesting theory called the ‘halo effect’, which basically holds that we judge things more in terms of good and bad then in categories. So, if we consider something (or someone) good (or bad) in one category, we presume that evaluation holds for other, unrelated categories. For example, Australian cricketers are very good at hitting cricket balls, yet people also consider them good judges of the best mobile phone, fast food chain etc. Of course, they have no real authority on such subjects, and when we look into it we generally find that their opinion strangely coincides with whoever is paying them money. Or someone that looks real pretty, it is often assumed, will also be a good actor or singer, even when the evidence so very often suggests otherwise.

I think the influence of the halo effect was also very apparent in the last presidential election with the focus on personal histories. John McCain, it was alleged, would be a good president because he was a good soldier, whereas Obama would be a bad president because he goes to a weird church, has skinny legs, and his dad was from Kenya (which is kinda near where all those terrorists are from, right?). But perhaps McCain would be a bad president cause he is kinda old, and Obama and his family are much better looking. How about the number of Clinton voters who were purportedly anti-Obama, even though the two had almost identical policies. The big differences between the two: skin color and gender.

Of course it is important to elect a president who shows wisdom and courage in their actions away from the political scene, perhaps it is also important that they have charisma and represent the people, but surely the emphasis should remain on what is actually significant to their role as president. I didn't feel this was the case in an election which so often seemed about getting the first African American president/female vice.