If I had to guess, the only memory we’ll have of Graham Platner in a year is as the punchline to a bad joke. A belated accusation is likely to be the rape that broke the camel’s back, because Totenkopf tat and sexting while married, etc., weren’t red flaggy enough. After all, as the millennial pixie argues, he had what young passionate Democrats were seeking in a senatorial candidate who had never before served in any public office.

Also liable for this disaster are the progressive operatives who recruited Platner and were so infatuated with his identity — a gruff, handsome oysterman with social democratic politics — that they failed to do their due diligence. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Platner’s top strategist, Dan Moraff, didn’t want to spring for a thorough background check, which can take weeks and cost around $20,000. “Moraff asked for an expedited, cheaper review to be done within days,” The Journal said.

Michelle Golberg bigly blames herself as well, for having come under Platner’s spell.

While I’m assigning blame, I shouldn’t leave out myself. Last October, when stories about Platner’s tattoo and Reddit posts first broke, I went to Maine to write about him. I tried to convey what I saw: a campaign that was electrifying angry Maine voters. But I deeply regret that, impressed by Platner’s political charisma, I wrote that he was “nothing like the edgelord caricature I encountered online.” If anything, he seems to be significantly worse.

Like many others, both within and without politics, Goldberg endorsed Platner for his authenticity and charisma. People were angry. Goldberg was angry. Platner was angry. And he was neither a geriatric nor an establishment bore. As an aside, the fact that the latest accusation against Platner involved a “credible” accusation of rape may well have accomplished what other accusations, such as being an anti-Semite, would not. Some faults are more equal than others in the progressive scheme of things.

But we’ve seen this happen more than a few times now, where authentic and charismatic candidates are embraced by voters. We saw it with Obama. We saw it with AOC, and later Mamdani. We saw it with Platner and, much as you might not want to think of it this way, with Trump, who makes no pretense of hiding the real Donald, spewing his special brand of authentic idiocy whenever possible and without restraint. He’s nothing if not authentic, perpetual lying notwithstanding.

And it’s not entirely out of the question that authentic and charismatic candidates are better electoral choices than phony and boring candidates. The problem is that, as enticing as these candidates may be, authentic and charismatic isn’t good enough. They also need to be virtuous. They also need to be wise. Therein lies the rub. It’s not that people reject this concept, but that they just don’t care enough about it to let it get in the way.

Meet the team who vetted Graham Platner.

Their reaction after the interviewer asks about the Nazi tattoo speaks volumes. pic.twitter.com/usfbqLzt5y

— Joshua Reed Eakle 🗽 (@JoshEakle) July 8, 2026

By virtuous, I don’t mean holds the right positions on a political issue. I mean people who are principled and honest. I mean people who view themselves as public servants, not political leaders. I mean people who put the best interest of the people ahead of their own interests.

By wise, I don’t mean people with whom I agree, but people who are capable of serious thought, consideration of differing views, rational vetting of the opposing factors so that the conclusion they reach, whether I agree with it or not, is sound and justifiable.

This is not to say that phony and boring is any more likely to be virtuous and wise than authentic and charismatic. Both suffer from the same potential to be dishonorable and disingenuous, with the latter being more fashionable to voters than the former these days. And there is nothing wrong with wanting a candidate who is authentic and charismatic.

These certainly aren’t bad things, and clearly help a candidate connect to a public angry and dissatisfied with the political establishment. It’s just not good enough. In fact, it can be every bit as bad as the alternative with one additional factor that might present a more insidious problem. These authentic and charismatic candidates are pretty damn likeable, as opposed to being smarmy duds, thus making voters more inclined to ignore or excuse their flaws. We tend to give people we like far greater latitude than those we don’t, so even when their flaws hit us smack between the eyes, we shut them and conjure up images of unicorns prancing on rainbows so we can maintain our belief in our guy.

If there is a lesson to be taken away from the joke named Graham Platner, it’s that this isn’t good enough. Authenticity and charisma without virtue and wisdom is a toxic combination. Don’t let it suck you in.