“Lookism” is a term deployed mostly by the feminist left designed to impose social control. Like the notion we can’t raise religious arguments in matters of public policy, it is supposed to render some aspects of the total person that people care about as illegitimate and irrational, while elevating others as legitimate and reasonable. Of course, “looks aren’t everything,” and, to me at least, hardly matter in making a political choice. On the other hand, we have a deeply rooted evolutionary based set of prejudices about looks. Some people look honest, like leaders, and others creepy, shifty, etc. And people to some extent grow into their looks; if you spend a lifetime engaged in deceit, you end up looking like Hillary Clinton. And if you look like Ted Cruz, you may have a cloying personality like Ted Cruz. Finally, didn’t Mitt Romney just look like he should be president!
Further, good looking people are often more secure, confident, and various genetic goods–smarts, health, looks–tend to run together.
Finally, the anti-lookism stuff is part of a broader degradation of standards. Not only are we not to make judgments based on looks, we’re supposed to pretend everyone is equally good looking, which is ridiculous. This is what the anti-body-shaming stuff is all about; we’re supposed to feel badly and second-guess or lie about about about our hard-wired notions of attractive and unattractive. And we’re supposed to pretend all the health harms of obesity do not exist, even as we know science makes them pretty plain.
So, I don’t care much about looks in politicians, but I do care about the idea we will all be shamed into not caring about looks and how some people will make a big show of how we’re not supposed to care. It’s part of a war on standards in all areas of life. And in this case an expression of the resentment at the heart of the left, a thin-skinned, envious resentment that aims to discredit and take down all forms of success.