Watch Out, Republicans, for the Personality Trap : Politics: Voter smarts and Clinton’s excessive geniality will sink charm as a factor in the 1996 campaign.

Uh-oh, are the 1996 elections over before they have started? With Colin Powell’s decision not to compete, political columnists, commentators and consultants have taken notice of one of the defining aspects of next year’s presidential race: the personality factor. Are the Republicans fated to lose simply because Clinton is, well, friendlier?

Although it is noncandidate Newt Gingrich who has brought the matter to the forefront with his abysmal poll ratings, the issue involves virtually all of the Republican contenders. Just look at Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas, Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas (my choice) and former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander. Dole is seen as the practical calculating politician; Gramm, the stern economic rationalist; Alexander, the studied marketing machine. Even the next tier of hopefuls--commentator Pat Buchanan, businessman Steve Forbes and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana--are not exactly warm and cuddly.

Is this personality deficit for real? Is it an issue for the GOP? Do we Republicans have to worry about the “P-factor”? Even if we accept, for a moment, the premise that the Republican team is not quite as cheerful as Bill Clinton, the P-factor will not be a negative next year for the Republican nominee, for three reasons.

First, voters know the difference between being liked and being respected. Margaret Thatcher was respected but not necessarily liked. John Major is liked but not particularly respected. All things being equal, voters would probably want a president who is both liked and respected. But all things aren’t equal. Thatcher was viewed--even by her political opponents--as an enormously successful political leader. Major is viewed as a bit short of the mark. More than looking for a new friend, I suspect voters are looking for someone who can do the job.

Second, this personality criticism is frequently merely an alibi for political opponents. People who don’t like the Republicans anyhow now have one more “reason” to invoke in their dislike. House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Whip David E. Bonior of Michigan might call the Republicans mean-spirited, but let’s face it, they wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee if he were Mr. Rogers.

Interestingly, a line of criticism against President Reagan was that he was affable. His relentlessly pleasant personality meant to some people that he was a simpleton. (This was before “Forrest Gump,” when being a simpleton was a bad thing.)

President Bush suffered similar criticism. His even-tempered personality--no rough edges--was viewed by some as a personality defect. He couldn’t be tough. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Seems Republicans can’t win. It doesn’t help to be friendly, and it doesn’t help to be serious.

But the main reason the P-factor won’t hurt Republicans is President Clinton. Whatever his shortcomings, Clinton is generally regarded as an utterly genial sort. Virtually all who meet with him view the encounters as pleasant. If there is one thing he knows, it is how to please the other person. Yet if there were ever walking, talking proof that an engaging, smiling, chatty president isn’t necessarily the best kind of president, it’s Clinton.

Napoleon said it was better to be feared than loved. Actually, Americans should prefer neither. Political support based on fear is dangerous. But political support based on an emotional attachment and not on sound policy is also an enormous liability. It masks serious policy debate. After all, Clinton is not campaigning for therapist in chief but for commander in chief.

One could say that Clinton’s geniality might merely reflect a certain opportunism. He’s been a salesman from day one. Voters will be reminded of a simple truth in 1996: More troubling than politicians who rarely smile are politicians who always smile.