I think the main problem with the Presidency is that people look to the candidates as if he (or she, in the case of Hillary) was the nation's savior. What ordinary civilians fail to catch on to is that they are in control of the nation's habits and outlook, not one man in the Oval Office. I think most people realize that politics is a machine in which only the most zealous can survive. A lot of normally qualified people don't have what it takes to survive as a politician. But the ones we do have cannot change the habits of a nation -- only the people themselves can do that. If they do, then they might get leaders they're happier with.

Nice piece Dan,

In answer to the question posed in the headline:

Because Americans don't have any other choice ...

Sometimes I think we're all fools to believe that we live in genuine representative democracies.

We kinda do, but we also kinda don't.

My answer to the question: money.

(All right, I know McCain supposedly doesn't have any, but you know what, he's still out there!)

Somewhat less flippantly, Dan, interesting point about Truman and humility. I just saw an item which no-one on BC - even Dave - appears to have picked up on, which is that a blogger in South Carolina claims to have seen McCain's VP shortlist. If true, it looks like a serious exercise in humility. Joe Lieberman's on it, even though he's already publicly ruled himself out. So is Charlie Crist. No surprises there. But the other three names aren't at all well-known nationally. No Romney, no Huckabee. (No JC Watts, either, I'm sure to Mr Nalle's chagrin.)

It sure doesn't look like a list of people who'd be the sort to casually call Office Max every few weeks and ask, "Hypothetically, do you have any comfy leather chairs that might look good in the Oval Office? Just hypothetically, of course..."

I should point out, though, that according to this blogger, McCain has selected Whoopi Goldberg as his running mate.

I leave it to you to decide which is the more reliable source.

Interesting DD,

I looked at your links in the above comment. The rest of you will actually have to click to the links to see what I'm talking about.

I agree that Lieberman would be a disaster. And Whoopi Goldberg is not Jewish.

I wouldn't expect much from somebody like Governor Tim Pawlenty; I remember him mouthing off in the Minnesota legislature as the chief GOP-nik there, and all of is weaknesses would be magnified in a national campaign. But compared to the rest of the country, Minnesota politics are relatively clean.

Dan,

Don't sell yourself short for actually remembering guys like Truman. Your country needs men with intelligence (saying "I was graduated from" rather than "I graduated from" is a sign of knowledge of more than Basic English, for example) and perspective, rather than young hustlers who think they have all the answers.

King Solomon was supposedly the wisest of men, and arrogant, to boot. But read through the work of his old age, Ecclesiastes, and you'll see a humble man with common sense. Humility combined with common sense are the prime qualities one needs to look for in a leader of a prosperous nation not on the skids.

That's the problem. America is on the skids and is no longer a prosperous nation. America needs a Roosevelt, a Lincoln or a Churchill, along with the wisdom of Solomon. Neither Obama or McCain fit any of these descriptions, and there is nothing to show that Obama might grow into such a man. The problem with McCain is that he is what he is and is not likely to grow in office.

Of those on the list, I think Haley Barbour would be an excellent choice, though he lacks some national name recognition.

He's a highly competent First Executive: witness Mississippi's speedy and thorough recovery from the ravages of Katrina; though less publicized, MS was harder hit than NO, and under Barbour's leadership, was digging itself out and rebuilding, literally within hours.

Barbour is also a bona fide conservative; his presence on the ticket would build cred for McCain with the conservative wing of the party.

^ What about draft-dodger/serial adulterer Newt Gingrich...?

Ruvy,

Thanks again for your very kind words.

Humility is not the sina que non of greatness, but it helps a lot; General MacArthur was a true military genius, but humility was hardly his most remarkable characteristic. If President Truman had not fired him soon after China came in full force into Korea not long after the Inchon invasion because we were getting uncomfortably close to the border with China and when the US (I mean UN) forces were spread out between the east and west, and China nearly defeated us, MacArthur might well have become the President instead of Eisenhower.

Completely off topic and without regard to any of the above or anything else, I have a very good friend and contemporary who is actively involved with international, national and local Israel based organizations and would welcome an opportunity to chat with you. He gets to Israel a couple of times a year. One of his sons lived in Israel with his wife and returned with her to the States to get advanced degrees; both work for an international Jewish organization and plan to return to Israel. I don't want to post his contact information here, or mine, and have no way to get yours. I think you two might find much in common. Perhaps Clavos might be willing to give you mine, and then I can put you in contact with him.

I just spoke with him on the phone, and think that you two would get along very well and that you might enjoy sharing insights.

Best

Dan,

Just press on the URL near my name. That gets you to a blogspot that does have my e-mail address if you look for it. It also has some old articles (I can't get in to post do to problems with a Google ID), but in any event just use the e-mail address you see there.

Blessings from Samaria,
Reuven

Dan - I've got a theory for you.

The last two administrations didn't cultivate talent. They didn't develop the great staff that would become great leaders. The last president's political successor is his wife. Albright has a good reputation, and Cuomo has a solid last name, but otherwise he didn't groom future leaders.

The current president has been just as bad in this area. The Miers nomination sums up his thinking: no one knows her, but I trust her. By all accounts, Bush trusts Cheney because he know Cheney's not running for anything. Now, I understand the benefit of having a staff that puts you first, but you need people who are ready, willing, and able to step up to a challenge.

Why hasn't Congress produced great leaders recently? I'll have to think about that one.

Baronious,

'Why hasn't Congress produced great leaders recently? I'll have to think about that one."

Me too; and perhaps a lot of others should do so as well. I have some guesses, but that's all they are.

Leaders are very few, and great leaders are in even shorter supply. Sometimes, we look to the past and find many, but that's probably because history goes back quite a ways and because the followers and the mediocre leaders don't gain a significant place in history; generally, such places are reserved for the "great" ones. Those are the ones about whom we know and to whom we compare unfavorably the current crop.

Some great leaders have simply emerged due to what was happening at the time. Perhaps great needs produce great leaders. For a long time, the U.S. has been prosperous and comfortable -- or at least swimmers in the pool from which great leaders can be expected to emerge have usually been prospers and comfortable.

It might be interesting to compile a list of "great" leaders between perhaps, 1900 and 1950, and another list of those between 1951 and 2001 to determine which list is the longer, and why.

To do this, it would be necessary to define some terms. Under some definitions, folks like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Kim Il Sung would have to be included as "great" leaders. Any useful definition would most likely exclude them, because I think the question you are really asking is whether we are producing leaders capable of becoming great Presidents of the U.S. and, if not, why not.

I a going to think about the question you pose, and if I come up with something marginally worth submitting will do so. I hope that you will consider doing the same.

Thanks.

Dan

Dan, that's a good point.

Are the current crop of candidates really such poor characters, or are the modern media and the public at large (including the internet and us bloggers) just less polite?

We look wistfully back at the great leaders of history, and overlook that interposed between them were many more mediocre figures. Of just the 18 presidents since 1900, how many can truly be considered 'great'? Certainly the two Roosevelts; most people would include Kennedy; and depending on your political perspective possibly Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan or Clinton.

That leaves a considerable number of nobodies, most of whom were probably considered decent enough chaps by the majority of Americans at the time, or you wouldn't have elected them.

Ruvy and Baronious,

Perhaps I am getting soft in the head, but in doing a little bit of research for a subsequent article suggested by Baronious, I came upon the this.

It is about Cincinnatus, the Roman general who was given dictatorial powers to deal with a terrible situation back in ancient times and then, when the crisis was over sixteen days later, resigned his dictatorial powers and went back to his farm, where he again took up his plow.

The story may be mere legend, but even if it is, it is inspiring. Although I was familiar with the story, it was difficult to read because my glasses kept getting fogged up.

Dan

Haley Barbour? that political hack and servant of the lobbyists? It is to laugh.

Barbour managed to divert $3billion of federal rebuilding funds away from the individual homeowners it was intended for (who only got about a million TOTAL) to his friends, including a new $600 port project.

He's a bum.

Dan - Great link. It reminds me of General Schwarzkopf. There's another guy who helped win a war, retired, and walked away from power. (I suppose the main thing that Schwarzkopf and Powell have in common is that neither of them care about preserving Schwarzkopf's reputation.) I'm interested to see what General Petraeus does with his life.

Dan,

I think what matters in a President is having what is needed for that time.

Regan's platitudes worked for that time because the boomers were just becoming mature and feeling nostalgic for the world of their childhood.

Regan did not provide common sense. Far from it. A lot of his ideas were reckless and we are still paying for them today.

However....


I do think all three candidates do possess a common sense to varying degrees. McCain's' centrist position speaks for itself. A person who can develop solutions based on feasibility instead of ideology would probably be considered to have common sense. Obama resonates because of his practicality (common sense). Now we are challenged with Hillary... I think Hillary knows to act as if she has common sense. I think she is propelled more by a need to "get her chance". Because she is intelligent, she knows to reflect common sense. I am not sure if she possesses it naturally.

Obama resonates because of his practicality?!?? I don't know what that means, but I'm almost sure to disagree with it. Zedd, since Clinton has very little hope of the nomination, and you've already signed off on McCain's common sense, please flesh out the signs of Obama's common sense.

Baronius,

I am certain that you have not listen to Obama's speeches.

Starting a conversation with you on his positions and why they convey his practicality is useless, right? You wouldn't know what you are talking about, just jabbering.

Also, where do you read that I have signed off on Mccain's common sense??

I watched a McCain speech and he said that what he'd do about the mortgage crisis is to write down loans of 'deserving' borrowers and guarantee loans made by lenders. He didn't qualify the lenders as 'deserving'. Why not? If he's reluctant to copper the debts of homeowners why copper the loans of, say, Countrywide?

One needs must conclude from this that Bear Stearns is a 'deserving' company.

Is the moral qualification of 'deserving' to be applied only to individual citizens and not to corporations?

Zedd,

As someone once said, Sincerity is the most important of virtues; if you can fake it, you've got it made.

Perhaps sincerity can be faked; I don't think that common sense can be, and fear that your attempt to meet the challenge of finding it in Senator Clinton is doomed to failure. Her campaign is, and has from the git go been, prime, and overwhelming, evidence of her lack of common sense.

Good try, though.

Dan

Dan,


I have to say (sigh) you are right on Hillary.

I tried.

One needs must conclude from this that Bear Stearns is a 'deserving' company.

Since it wasn't McCain who bailed out Bare Sterns (or who authorized it), I fail to see how you can conclude that.

McCain said that he would write down loans of 'deserving' borrowers and guarantee loans made by lenders.

It may be a bit of a job to find the "deserving" borrowers; realistically, it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, and actually qualifying someone as deserving -- and disqualifying others as undeserving -- could mandate a new and costly bureaucracy. It could also result in quite a bit of fraud, appeals from adverse decisions and, of course, more work for attorneys. Perhaps Diogenes and his lantern could be resurrected for a new and exciting mission.

As to whether the lenders are "deserving" is a different matter. Deserving or not, Federally guaranteed loans would probably encourage banks to make more of them. That could possibly ease the housing "crisis," help to stimulate the economy, and thereby obviate the need to foreclose on some existing loans.

Having said that, bank regulation in the U.S. is and has long been a morass. Forty years ago, on summer break from law school, I worked as a summer intern at the Federal Reserve in D.C. I asked the then General Counsel to write an article for the Virginia Law Review on the then (and, I fear, now) confusing bank regulation. He did so. The thrust of the article, as I recall it, was that regulation was a chaotic mess because of the way the laws had evolved for regulation of federal banks, state banks covered by FDIC, and others.

Now, there are various intermediaries between lenders and borrowers. Loan brokers come to mind. They seem to be minimally regulated, and sometimes are less than candid with their customers.

There are lots of problems, and it is generally better in the long run to seek solutions to the root causes of problems instead of to the symptoms of those problems. That is a very difficult task, and even were a candidate capable of discussing the root causes instead of pounding on the symptoms, it would not make a very inspiring presentation.

It is sort of like the lawyers' idea: if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if neither is on your side, pound on the table.

The poor table keeps getting beat to death.

Dan