It is subjective. Should an introvert never be in elected office because they are not the “life of the party?” What if they have the policies, negotiation abilities and skillset to get legislation passed through? Shouldn’t that be the goal?
Research confirms that factors like a leaders’ appearance, race and gender matter a lot for perceptions of charisma and should be reevaluated. In addition, the emphasis on electability, which many consider connected to charisma, often reinforces bias. Both the Republican and Democratic parties often use “electability” as a core decision maker as to which candidates and in which political races to financially invest.
It is true that voters are more likely to be persuaded by a charismatic leader’s message, and persuasive abilities are an important aspect of effective communication. So, there is a place for it, but should not be the number one reason a person casts their vote for a candidate. Talk without substance does not benefit the American public. We must focus on the content of a person’s speech and not just the way that they deliver it.
Voters have a civic duty to decide who to support based on issues. Voting is a right and great responsibility as it affects all of us. So, if a person decides to vote, they have a duty to vote well and based on facts – not who they would like to join for dinner.
ประเทศไทย ข่าวล่าสุด, ประเทศไทย หัวข้อข่าว
Similar News:คุณยังสามารถอ่านข่าวที่คล้ายกันนี้ซึ่งเรารวบรวมจากแหล่งข่าวอื่น ๆ ได้
แหล่ง: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 อ่านเพิ่มเติม »
แหล่ง: DCist - 🏆 518. / 51 อ่านเพิ่มเติม »