PRESIDENTIAL CHARACTER
Ok, readers, let’s have a little conversation of the history of the “character” that counts or is of no consequence for our American Presidents.
How many past American Presidents had extramarital affairs, or children born out of wedlock, or had sexual intercourse (or “lesser” forms of sex) before marriage? I don’t have the slightest idea and don’t give a hoot either. I look only at their record as President in public, not what they did in their bedrooms. What do you look at in the history of good, bad or great Presidents?
How many Presidents drank too much or used whatever “drugs” to calm them down in history. I know one or two, Grant coming to mind in terms of his drinking habits, but not others. Ford we know had “two martinis” with his alcoholic wife each night, but did that affect his ability to govern? I doubt it. And for sure Betty did not seem to try to govern with all her martinis.
How many past Presidents were really rich men? I hear recently that one of our best Presidents, Washington, may well have been the richest man in America in his day simply because of the property that he owned. So what, I ask? Who was the poorest man to ever be our President? I have no idea and again, don’t care. It is what he did while governing that counts for me.
How about “empathy” and what kind of “empathy” really counts for our Presidents in the past? I know of no historical standard to measure the “empathy” of any past President, do you? Again, it is the policies of the Presidents that made them good, bad or great, is it not? No, I doubt that we have ever had a sociopath as a President, a man with NO empathy. But as far as levels of empathy, who really cares?
So what I ask is all this turmoil over “character” in our campaigns today? Is it personal character, like how a wife or wives are treated? You can certainly give Bill Clinton at least a couple of black marks on that count and JFK gets a whole page that is all black, as well. So what, again? Ronald Reagan was divorced but I never heard any arguments over his “character”. Sure lots of disagreements over his policies, but were such policies driven by how he treated his ex wife?
I believe character does count in all of our Presidents. But for sure it is not the type of behavior that is called a “character flaw” today in their private lives. I see Herb Cain with a man of very strong “presidential-like” character in terms of his resolve and forcefulness. But look what happened to him. I think we lost a good candidate over those other “character” debates.
I want a STRONG man to be my President and yours as well. I want to know where he really stands on matters that count, not some wishy washy politicians that stands all over the place depending on who he is talking to. If a man wants to form a “rainbow”, I want to know exactly which colors make up his “rainbow” and how he will UNITE all the colors therein to form a full spectrum of all the colors, not just his chosen ones.
And that “rainbow” consists of a lot more than “colors”. It should combine all the socio-economic, defense, entitlement (for exactly who) and a host of other things. Who as our next President will UNITE America, not further divide it? That is the kind of character that matters to me. Good character of the sort about which I speak is demonstrated in great LEADERSHIP, not what a man does in his bedroom.
Ike was a great wartime leader but he “fooled around” on Mamie during the war. So what? Had MLK lived a full life he MAY have been a great AMERICAN leader and not just one for a downtrodden slice. But we will never know that for sure, now.
The past President with the most “character” as we seem to want today may well have been Jimmy Carter. Do you want HIM back today? Heck, he admitted to depravity for reading (or looking at the pictures in) Penthouse magazine, for crying out loud. Had he spent all his time as President simply looking at pictures of naked women, he would have been a far better President, perhaps, than he was!!
Yes, character counts for any President, but we best decide which type of “character” we are looking for in our debates.
January 23, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
“All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.”
— Harry S Truman
January 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
Herb,
I never heard that quote before but I sure don’t like it either. If that is all our Presidents should be doing, then we don’t need a President.
A President MUST be a good leader to be a good President. And we have a perfect example of one right now that is a terrible leader and thus a terrible President, in my view.
Almost all Americans that read history can determine who was good, bad or great as Presidents in the past. Why are we having so much trouble doing so today?
Anson
January 23, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
In a way, I think that quote is correct. Obviously, Truman was overstating it for effect. But there is truth to it. Pardon what follows, as it rambles.
The President is the CEO of the country, if we stick to the strict definition of “chief executive officer”. Yes, I know that political executive is somewhat different than corporate executive, but not entirely. So what exactly is the role of a corporate CEO? Do they do front line work? Do they invent the products their companies make? Do they collect the accounts payable? No. They often serve as the face of their organizations, however. (Think Steve Jobs or Bill Gates) They determine what the company is to do, but not necessarily how it is to be done. But they carry the spirit of the organization.
Now, a company can have a weak, milquetoast leader, an arrogant but ineffective leader, a quiet yet forceful leader, etc. The same thing can be said of the presidency. In Kennedy, we had a leader who was perceived as strong of character, even if in reality he was in a bit over his head and was a serial philanderer. The mood of the country reflected that. In LBJ, we had a sleazy, “say whatever you have to” president who couldn’t be trusted, and the mood of the country definitely reflected that. In Carter, you had nothing. No spine, no backbone, no sense of how to fix anything… nothing. Well, okay, there was something, I guess, if you count “an overwhelming sense of being overwhelmed” as something. He was incompetent, completely in over his head, unsure what to do or how to act, and that also was reflected in the mood of the country. The late ’70s were a terrible time.
Reagan, then, was the opposite of that. Regardless what one thought about him, he possessed a confidence, an optimism that we could figure out how to fix what was ailing us. Turns out after the Carter fiasco, that was exactly what was needed. Bush I had that “second banana who now gets to run things” aura (aka Barney Fife) that left people uneasy. Clinton, the “hey, who cares, it’s all good!” college frat party persona that makes people feel great, even though they know it isn’t going to last. After all, school has to start again at some point, and the bills come due. Bush II had the “yeah, guys, great party, but you know, we have to pay the bills on this and clean the place up” thing, while being blamed for trashing the place himself and generally stepping on the Clinton groovy vibe.
Which brings us to this guy we have now. I always say this is Carter’s second term, and I believe it. There is an exception, however. While Carter had the “I don’t know what to do” thing that had an impact, I get a “I have no idea what to do, so I’m going to do exactly the wrong thing and deride anyone who argues with me about it, because I am so much smarter than anyone else in the country” feeling from Obama, which makes him so much worse than even Carter. At least with Carter, the fix was simply “well geez, someone do something“, and that was it. Here, it’s “oh God, someone please stop him before he kills us all!”.
So I do think the Truman quote holds water. We look to the president to help us define who we are. Silly, perhaps, but true nonetheless, in my opinion. So where do we go from here? Our options are limited. We can stick with what we have for four more years, and commit national suicide. We can take Romney, with his plastic “just smile and fake it” aura. We can take Santorum and his “stick up his ***”, “I’ll tell you how you should behave!” thing. Or we can take Newt and his “Listen, I’m really important! I really, really am! So just do what I say and not what I do, okay?” thing. All of those are rather sad. And unfortunately, all of them rely on “let us do this, this, and this to fix it!” as their philosophy. Too bad there’s no one with a “we got you into this mess with our stupid policies, so we’ll just step out of the way, stop screwing it up, and let you fix it” guy.
January 24, 2012 at 10:42 am |
Nonny,
Interesting “rambling”. I sum it all up with the observation that a huge majority of Americans TRUSTED Ronald Reagan. He was a warm “father figure” leading the nation and spoke towards the nation’s inherrent strengths. “Tear down that wall” was as American as it gets. “A shinining beacon on a hill” is another one and reflects how Americans WANT to be viewed by the world.
Some people literally HATE Reagan for his policies, the EC being a prime example. But most Americans remember the smiling face telling us how good we all are and demeaning “gubmermit” while doing so.
American voters by and large have no understanding or really concerns about the nuances of Presidential policies or “directions” to the nation. But ALL Americans want a President that they TRUST to do the next right thing, day in and day out. Reagan survived Iran – Contra because Americans retained that simple trust that he was a “good man”.
And at the end of 8 years he did in fact “tear down that wall” and ended a long and very expensive Cold War. That is the makings of a GREAT president when viewed historically, and Americans want someone like that again.
Unfortunately I do not see that “someone” on our national stage now and thus I have my hand near my nose at the moment as I watch all the goings on, politically. And for sure tonight, I will be holding my nose very hard and maybe putting some toes in my ears as I watch and listen to the SOTU address. Reaganisc, no way. It is not in his DNA.
Anson
January 24, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
Allow me to ramble some more, then!
Well, that’s why I stress that I’m speaking in spite of what one thought of their policies. Jesus Christ himself had people who hated Him and what He stood for (and still does), so no one is going to have a 100% approval rating. Shallow mouth-breathing fools will hate certain politicians, even in retrospect, simply because of whether they have a (D) or and (R) after their name. It isn’t their policies that define the national mood, although they play a significant role. It’s how they, as leaders, make people feel. That’s crucial, since our economy is based almost solely on confidence (e.g. if people think it’s strong, then it IS strong, and vice versa). Reagan did elicit that trust, that feeling that “hey, it’s bad now, but it’s not going to stay bad forever”. And he was correct, in spite of how much the rabid leftist haters love to credit others for all Reagan accomplished (Gorbachev won the Cold War by trashing his own economy? Seriously?). Because he made us believe it would be, it came to be. Contrast that with the current guy, who makes us believe that we suck as a people, there’s nothing at all exceptional about us as a nation, we owe the world an apology for just about everything, and unless we stop being greedy and wanting to hold onto what we earn and instead become a nation dependent upon our government for every single thing, we’ll never get better. Golly, I cannot understand how that attitude could possibly have a negative impact on the overall mood of the nation, can you? 8-|
So again, that plays a big part in what we want out of a president, whether we admit it or not. We need that confidence, that leader who tells us we can do it (and not “just sit back, shut up, and give everything to us, and we’ll fix it for you, you incompetent, greedy, bitter, clingy fools!) But like corporate CEOs, the presidency isn’t autocratic (thank God). Congress is more like the middle management, the ones who actually accomplish things. Not nearly as much exposure or glamor, but much of the real power. After all, who is the Director of Development for the Central Region for Microsoft? Who report directly to him or her? Exactly. Yet people pay scant attention to those congressional races. They’ll scream and shout about how their choice for president is the only rational choice, then vote for the same old tired shyster in their congressional race(s). Then they’ll whine and moan about how nothing ever really changes. Well duh! Even if you replace the tombstone with a fancier version that you like better, the person underneath it is still dead. Or if you’d prefer, changing the sign out front while keeping the same staff means your service still sucks.
Another interesting (in my opinion) parallel between Carter and Obama. Neither were elected because people thought they were the best person for the job. With Carter, people were (rightly) incensed about Watergate, and specifically the coverup. Throw in the all-too-quick (even if eventually necessary) pardon of Nixon, and there was no way a Republican was winning in 1976, and even then it was electorally close (297 – 240, with just over a million and a half vote difference in the popular vote). Carter was just fortunate to be, ahem, “ready” to run at that time, and was fortunate to have as opponents Governor Moonbeam, Mo Udall, and the racist Wallace. In 2008, the people were tired of the wars (forgetting that we were attacked), and saw the economy slipping (which it didn’t start to do until the elected a Democrat House in 2006, but ignore that inconvenient fact), and there was no way a Republican was winning. Plus, they thought they could get the party atmosphere of Clinton’s terms back if they elected another Democrat. The only decision was whether they wanted the “other” Clinton and her nowhere near as party-like demeanor, or a really cool black dude who promised all this hopey-changey stuff. We know which way they went. Frankly, I doubt many people cared about either Carter’s or Obama’s lack of experience (although at least Carter had some executive experience in Georgia, whereas Obama had absolutely zero, zip, zilch, nada). In the end, what we got both times was a completely and utterly incompetent leader, elected not for their leadership, not for who they were but because of who they were not (and in Obama’s case, add in a good deal of the cult of personality, too).
So this time, I do hope people wake up and realize that A) it does matter who we elect as president, both personality wise and policy wise, and it helps if they aren’t completely and utterly incompetent, power hungry oafs, B) electing the “cool” guy is great for a fraternity, not so great for the country, and C) it is critical to pay attention to congressional races. We do need a good leader in the White House, and someone who will project a confidence that we can fix this. (Having them not be socialist would help a great deal, too!)
Again, sorry for the ramble. Much as last night, I’m multitasking as I write this, so there are about three different subjects going on at once there. I usually pride myself on writing a tad better than that, but I think you get what I mean.
January 24, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Ramble all you like, Nonny. It makes sense to me.
I just posted a new one on Income Inequality. I was rambling as well as I tried to anticipate what we will hear tonight. Yuk!
Anson
January 24, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
Anson,
Some call it Character, some call it Management, and some call it Leadership, But all of those attributes, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Ask 100 people and you’ll get 300 answers, all swearing theirs are right. That’s why I found Truman’s quote so interesting; he downplayed his abilities to handle world affairs, the post-war rejiggering of the economy, and civil rights.
Here was a guy who had the guts to use nuclear weapons to save a million lives or more while putting Stalin on notice that we had “the bomb.” He participated in the founding of the United Nations, replacing the beleaguered League of Nations. He promoted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, came up with the Truman Doctrine to contain communism, not to mention his support for the Berlin Airlift, the creation of NATO, the founding of Israel, and the Korean War. He even had the courage to fire the great MacArthur, whose judgement was becoming more and more impaired by age and who had the audacity to disobey a direct order from his Commander-in-Chief. Of course, Truman also integrated the military, was involved in the newly created CIA, and what would become the Department of Defense.
But Truman’s liberal side stuck out like a sore thumb on the home front. He faced many issues in the economy, including the renewal of labor-management conflicts that had lain dormant during the war years, severe shortages in housing and consumer products, and widespread inflation, which at one point hit 6% in a single month. He used his executive authority at times to nationalize both the railroads and the steel industry over labor disputes; the latter was overturned by the Supremes.
He did almost all of this with a Republican Congress, which came in during the mid-term elections of 1946. And as he said, “I didn’t give ‘em hell, I gave ‘em the truth and they think it’s hell.” I don’t know of any president before or since who can even come close to Truman’s long list of accomplishments. Love him or hate him, he certainly had the character, the management ability, and the leadership skills that should place him in the pantheon of our greatest presidents. Yet, as the quote above demonstrates, he did it all with humility and grace. And, like Lincoln, his record before becoming president shows him to be totally unqualified for that high office.
Of course, there’s the rub. You don’t know how someone will perform when the weight of history falls on his or her head. Character assassination notwithstanding, we can only guess.
Herb
January 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
Herb,
No way do I denigrate Truman, a good if not great President. Your list above speaks for itself.
My point in the blog of course is all this “stuff” about “personal character” or how someone acts(ed) in private life. Is there a direct link to presidential ability. I don’t see it historically. But I doubt that most of us, liberal or conservative would have much disagreement over who the really GREAT ones were in the distant past.
However as we approach to “modern day” and for sure presidents in our lifetimes, the disagreements become more clear and wider apart, FDR being a big example.
From FDR moving to today, almost everyone would put Carter at the bottom of the list, except extreme liberals who probably put Bush II in that place. I would put Reagan or Truman at the top of the list, but if pushed Reagan would be my choice. He ended what Truman started, the Cold War.
Ike was OK, but certainly not great. JFK was not around long enough to really rank. Bush I and LBJ, I put LBJ lower down the list for Vietnam and the Great Society. Doing little is better than harming the country, both of which LBJ did.
Clinton and Bush II are closely ranked in my book, and not far from the top of the list, but certainly not at the top.
Obama is competing with Carter for the bottom on my list.
And guess what, Herb? I believe the next president, Obama or GOP may win the absolute bottom of the future list, given the almost insolvable problems before us politically. The next guy may well be the one driving the bus when it goes over the cliff.
Anson