Examiner columnist Meghan Cox Gurdon looks at the fawning, sycophantic behavior by lefties towards Fidel Castro when she had a chance meeting with him at a UN conference:

My companions seemed to be jolted by electricity and then knocked by a wave of emotion as they took in the spectacle of the celebrated revolutionary, all 6-feet-3 of him, resplendent in green fatigues (this was before his geriatric tracksuit phase), standing right there!

An instant later, they surged around him, thrusting out hands and gazing with amazed adoration at the famous bearded face. Castro was less enchanted; he had a meeting to make, and soon effected his escape. The room when he left was practically vibrating with endorphins.

"Wow! I can't believe it!" gushed a relief worker who five minutes earlier had been chatting dispassionately about her work in Kosovo. She looked at her hand and laughed: "I'll never wash it again!"

None of the Westerners who mobbed him at that U.N. conference, or at any of the other gatherings where for years he's been received with rapture, could be under any illusion about the true nature of this striking figure.

Of course, Castro's anti-Americanism has been part of his appeal. Flouting the regional hegemon has always been an excellent way to lure foolish moths to socialist flames.

But anti-Americanism does not begin to explain the deep and almost erotic attachment outsiders have had to Fidel (or to the beret-wearing, long-dead Che). Nikita Khrushchev, for instance, was plenty anti-American, and you don't see co-eds wearing his face on their bosoms. Why? Because Khrushchev was fat and bald.

We all know that people respond to beauty and dash. In a democracy -- ours, say -- voters can choose politicians for any reason they like, even the relatively frivolous reason of preferring a candidate's appearance.

I mean, should George Clooney be president because he is handsome? There are people who would think so. I think his looks should count against him, because power entails responsibility, and urgent situations are not solved by appearances.

Castro ruined Cuba's economy, murdered or imprisoned tens of thousands of his countrymen, drove the most productive people into exile, all the while mugging for the camera. He was a master of appearances, but not even the most carefully contrived appearances could make Cuba thrive. The very fact that he had to use his superficial image to prop up a failed system highlights the bogus nature of socialism, and the fact that people were persuaded by his good looks highlights their denial of reality.

I'd never say that handsome people suck, because that's just as irrational as saying that handsome people should rule. However, people who have made it on their looks tend to be lacking in humility, and the results can be catastrophic. The adulation they receive only prolongs and exacerbates the problem -- Castro being a perfect example.

Many pundits have observed that some of America's best presidents would be unelectable today because they are not handsome enough. It's a shame, and I think a lot of it is a result of mass media iconology. (Aided, abetted, and aggravated by what I've called "imageism.")

Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about it. The elevation of appearances over substance is one of the tragedies of the human condition.