What Bare Minimum Qualities Should We Look for in a Presidential Candidate?
Did you know that the word “presidentiality” isn’t actually considered a word in any reputable dictionaries? Fools. But at least now I can get credit for it. Anyway, watching this year’s candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination, I’m finding that a fair number of people are taken with former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) because he “looks” and “sounds” presidential. Well, duh. But what does it take to be presidential? I’ll give you my list, but spoiler alert: Romney exhibits few to none of these qualities.
Know about stuff. And it has to be the right stuff. You want a president who is uniquely qualified to meet national challenges of the time; in this year’s case, how to deal with China properly, how to create American jobs and how to make the defense budget more cost-effective. Or you could be like former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who has an enormous storehouse of knowledge, little more relevant to the Oval Office than the first stand on the Jeopardy! set. Or you could be like Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who knows about shooting.
Have principles. You don’t need to be tethered to your party line for the rest of your life; in fact, this hurts more than it helps, since it largely precludes independent thought. But you do need to hold some basic beliefs about the role of the government, the role of America in the world, etc., to guide your decision-making. Otherwise, you come off as the sort of person who stands for nothing and falls for everything, which will almost automatically disqualify you from credibility on the world stage.
Be flexible. However, there are times when you may find yourself having to compromise on some of the above principles for the sake of American interests. There is a line between intractable ideologue and “soft kitty,” and a person wishing to be presidential must stand on it. One of the best ways to prove this is to have more policy people around you, as opposed to political people.
Put country first at all times. I could not have been more overjoyed at this moment, in which former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) finally got one over Romney by explaining to him that some of us care more about serving the president, whoever he or she is, than advancing an agenda, however much one prefers it over that of the president. Sorry, that was a hell of a run-on sentence. My point is, you have to live up to your own sense of what it means to be a patriot in order to be presidential.
Have brains and balls. There are times to be tactful and to be blunt, and a presidential person must know how to distinguish between them. A complex geopolitical issue requires more delicacy than an opponent insulting your patriotism. Know how to speak effectively under both circumstances.
–
See more of Jess’ work at The Future American
That’s because dictionary usage panels tend to the resist the popular penchant for turning adjectives into nouns by adding a latinate suffix. We already have the word “presidential” and it’s not that much effort to simply use that word.
What makes a candidate presidential? Hard to argue it’s not in the eye of the beholder. I wonder how much commonality we would see on such a list if many Americans could rank adjectives as to how well they fit with the concept of presidential. And then I wonder how vague the most highly ranked words would be. For example, people love to evoke common sense. But try and get people to agree on the exact nature of common sense and it’s a gunfight. Then there are all those virtues no one is against, like intelligence, toughness, moral character, leadership, poise, and so on.
One last point. Suppose that voters do perform a test of presidential fitness. IMO, it’s a pass/fail thing. IOW, folks aren’t that likely to choose A over B because seems a little bit more Presidential. Instead, each possible choice either passes the sniff test or does not. I like to close my eyes and imagine each guy giving the SOTU address and asking myself how it makes me feel. What could be more subjective than that?
My criteria, just 4.
1. Obeys the US Constitution
Doesn’t try to perform end runs, and never places himself in a position where his actions are not clearly justifiable by the Constitution. On any item where there is a large degree of disagreement he should be able to explain easily and concisely why his actions are Constitutionally justified without resorting to loads of legalese and case history over minutia.
2. Actually be able to lead.
This includes the ability to get stuff done with folks of all different beliefs, you have to lead with vision and sell your ideas by doing your homework not by just demonizing anyone who doesn’t agree with you. It also includes being able to manage as an executive, choosing the right people for the right jobs, replacing those who don’t work out, promoting those with proven ability, and managing conflicts between various executive branch interests. It also includes not waiting for others to take the initiative and waiting to see where the partisan chips lie. This also includes someone who can listen to advice and ideas they might not like at times.
3. I’ll borrow Jess’s criteria of putting the country first.
Although it might shock some this comes behind the second criteria which is actually more important more often than this one. Of course you put US interests above say China, but that is not and will not ever really be an issue. If a president, however, puts their party of special interests first at the expense of the nation, that is more tolerable most of the time than a president who cannot lead with competence. I’d rather have an asshole who could be a successful manager than a Mr. Nice guy but with no real management skills.
4. Efficiency
A president who knows how to prioritize, not waste a lot of time on the trivial, not get caught up in themselves or policies that they have put effort into but which are not working out. A president who can define the agenda and the issues and not be washed away by the insignificant but keeps his eye on the ball and isn’t scared to ignore the popular items of the day if he has more important things to do after giving those items a proper evaluation as to their importance.
I would add – listens to the people and tells the people the truth. Now I don’t mean chases every opinion poll, but I don’t like being ignored by the President or Congress. If we want a tax cut, for example, listen to us, but also tell us how it is. If we have a $1.6 trillion deficit, don’t tell us you want to balance the budget, and then with the other side of your split tongue, promise a tax cut anytime soon. Don’t tell us you won’t cut 1 penny of SS benefits, or raise the age by even a year, when you can plainly see that people are living longer and having less children. Being a leader means listening to the people, but making the hard decisions. That’s what we need.
Adding that to your list, I don’t think there is a single candidate right now who fits that description. Some of the No-labels people do, but I don’t see them running for President. I would mention Ron Paul, but his rigid libertarian ideology doesn’t fit your flexibility item. We need another Eisenhower!
So, how does one person lead 535 people, when half of them refuse to go your way?
With compromises on some issues.
“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.
“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.
“I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’
“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”
–Ronald Reagan