In an earlier article I rated the presidential candidates on whimsical criteria, mostly based on some common characteristics (not to be confused with character) that past presidents had. Today, I want to rate them using some different metrics: character traits. The president of the United States is the face of the American people that the world sees. He, or she, should be the best foot that we put forward in dealing with other nations. He, or she, should be the best of the best of the best.
Who would volunteer for the job of president? The weight of a large portion of the world rests on their shoulders, and at any point in their time in office, approximately half of the country (frequently much more) is gunning for them over one issue or another. Given what they have to go through to get it, and what is said or done to them while in office, you would think we would have to force someone to be president.
The president’s job can’t be described as easy, but in principle it is simple: sign or veto bills; command the armed forces; preside over the executive branch of the government; nominate high judges; and a few other mostly ceremonial duties. Sure, there is some detail behind this list, and I’m certainly not saying that just anyone could do the job, but no one is forcing it on them either. But let’s assume that a person with above average intelligence and a minimum of organizational capability could do the job. What other characteristics should they have?
There are some basic qualities that we should expect from any candidate for president, and I’m sure that you can come up with your own list. Here are some, stolen unashamedly from the Character Counts organization:
- Trustworthiness (T)
Being honest, don’t cheat, steal, or deceive
Being reliable, doing what you say, having the courage to do the right thing
Respect (Rs)
Being tolerant of others and accepting of differences
Dealing peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements
Responsibility (Rb)
Planning and perseverance, self-control and self-discipline
Accountability for your words and actions
Fairness (F)
Being open minded and listening
Don’t blame others for your faults
Caring (Cr)
Kindness, compassion, and forgiveness
Citizenship (Cz)
Obeying laws, protecting the environment
Voting and volunteering
Using these traits, and rating the current crop of GOP candidates, who stands out? For some there is more history to go on, less for others; some have hate blogs, and others love-me pages. I’m not going to go into a full analysis here, your opinion of what sources to use and how to analyze it is almost as valid as mine; do your own analysis. For developing the scores, I used their Wiki pages, PolitiFact, The Washington Post Congress Votes database, and Googling for specific facts. I’m giving a score of 1 -10 on each trait, with a highest total score of 60 possible.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
The trouble with these sorts of ratings is that they're so subjective. Something on a candidate's record that you think is admirable others might take a dimmer view of. That's why, for example, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R, AL) gets a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union and a 0% rating from the ACLU.
Your system, admittedly, is a bit less contentious because it ranks Republican presidential candidates and you are a conservative. Still, where you give Michelle Bachmann 10/10 on compassion because of all the foster kids, others might look at her opposition to gay marriage, to federal funding for the renovation of slum housing and to a law protecting whistleblowers as decidedly uncompassionate.
2 - One American's Rant
Doc,
Definitely subjective, which is why I suggest that people make up their own list and evaluate it. Seriously, I wouldn't think of voting based on something as simple as this.
I want for the voters to stop voting just on "gut feel", or who has the most air time, or the snappiest one-liners. I want people to THINK before voting.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
OAR -
One thing I've learned over the years is that when you choose someone to do a job, don't pay too much attention to their personal habits (as long as those habits aren't felonious). That's why I gave the examples of Eisenhower, JFK, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and Hitler.
I normally don't use foul language, but sometimes the best person for the job is an asshole...and such can certainly be found among our Founding Fathers, along with many and varied shortcomings.
When choosing a president, we need to choose one who is intelligent, courageous, determined, and pragmatic. We must NOT choose an ideologue - which (along with his stated tolerance of racism) is the source of my great opposition to Ron Paul. No ideologue of any stripe should be president - ever! - because such are too likely to put whatever their personal ideals above what the people who elected him want (and what his advisers tell him).
IMO all other personal non-felonious shortcomings should be ignored.
For instance, look at Gingrich. He's intelligent, he's got guts (jokes aside) (and panache in spades), he's certainly determined, and he's above all pragmatic...meaning that he's not afraid to change his mind if such is necessary. I think his personal life will doom his chances since half the voting population are women.
The same metrics apply favorably to Huntsman, and IMO more so. Romney is still questionable when it comes to courage. I don't know about Johnson. The rest of the crop should be laughed off the ballot.
4 - One American's Rant
Glenn,
Then how can we know who is best for the job? Now, I'm all for throwing them in a cage with baseball bats to determine courage, but it's hard on the runners-up. Before, I said that I thought military service was a good indicator, and you opposed that. What would be a good indicator of courage?
As far as Gingrich goes, I'm worried that if he would use his Congressional position to make money, to the detriment of the country, what worse things might he do with even more power and access to info?
If you can swing a laugh anti-vote, let me know when and where.
5 - Dr Dreadful
These apparently, are the ISO specifications for US presidents:
Minimum power output: x + 1 (where x = locomotive)
Desired speed relative to other objects:
5. Tortoise
4. Airport baggage handler
3. Usain Bolt
2. Bullet
1. President
Can leap: Yes
Obstacles able to leap over: Buildings
Maximum obstacle height: None
Number of leaps required: 1
6 - Glenn Contrarian
OAR -
Don't get me wrong - I don't like Gingrich either. Of course, I am a significantly liberal Democrat.
All I was doing was giving a different view on how we should judge who is worthy of the presidency. I stand quite firm on the no-ideologue thing, which is why I'd never vote for the very liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich.
All of us have idealism to some extent, but those who let idealism rule their actions - as Ron Paul does - do not belong in a position of real power.
And that's why I like Obama. Yes, I can hear the BC conservatives' collective heads exploding, but when a man takes office in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Depression and with two wars to boot, who never got a 'honeymoon' from Congress as new presidents traditionally do, who was determined enough to face the most obstructionist Congress since the Civil War yet still got us officially out of the Great Recession (despite the GOP's ongoing efforts to keep us there), who had the pragmatism to accept the CBO's negative numbers when he submitted his first suggestion for universal health care, who had the courage to accept Republican suggestions for universal health care (that they had supported up until the year before Obama took office), and who has gotten us out of Iraq (finally!) and has been far more successful than Dubya in the 'War on Terror'...
...yeah, I like the guy. He's made significant mistakes - which I've written articles about - but considering the fustercluck he was handed on day one and the opposition he's faced from the get-go, yeah, he's done pretty doggone well.
7 - One American's Rant
Well said, Glenn. One of the things I hate about our bi-partisan system is that everyone piles on when things go bad. I too respect what Obama has done, especially given what he had to work with. The hard, right wingers don't seem to remember anything that W did wrong - selective memory, I guess.
8 - Cannonshop
Okay, I guess I'll take a stab at this.
In my opinion, the first thing desirable in a President, is the ability to admit it when he's screwed up, instead of parsing out blame and making excuses. It's the one feature we AIN'T seen with ANY of the candidates, OR the sitting POTUS, and it's a problem, because failure to admit responsibility generally means they'll repeat the same mistakes, only BIGGER, Louder, and Uncut.
The second feature, is genuine independence from the Party Brass-it's a tough one to achieve, and tougher yet to demonstrate.
Third is mission focus-if something will get done what you need done, it doesn't matter if you don't like how you're doing it. Clinton demonstrated this one in the second half of his first term, and the entirety of his second. Sometimes this means working with the opposition, sometimes it means going to the wall against them, but it's always about getting the job you're selected for done.
Fourth: Moral Limits. Acknowledging that there are lines that, no matter how much you desire a specific outcome, you're not going to cross, even when someone offers you the power to do so without consequence. One of the FEW things Bush got right in the 2000 campaign (and got wrong after 9/11) was "The president doesn't have that power." He was right in saying it about the abortion debate, but wrong in that he didn't apply it to the National Security issue. The idea of a moral limit basically breaks down to "Just because they want to GIVE you that power, doesn't mean you should TAKE it, even if you WANT it."
I guess what I want, is a presidency held by an ADULT-as we would commonly term it in relation to a citizen-someone who has both strong ideals and morals, AND the restraint to avoid forcing them onto others, the restraint to avoid grasping the easy, cheap, cosmetic solution, and the ability to think long-term and accept the possibility that one is not omnipotent, nor should one wish to BE omnipotent.
Like I said, we don't have one of those at the moment, in either party, and it's unlikely we'll GET one either.
9 - Clavos
We must NOT choose an ideologue
Too late.
10 - Deano
Just out of curiosity Clavos, to whom are you referring?
I can guess, but I would rather not jump to conclusions...
11 - Igor
6-Glenn:
I hate to admit it, but I agree with you; Obama has done a far better job than we had any right to expect, given the fustercluck he was handed on day one and the irrational incessant nitpicking opposition from the republicans.
12 - Baronius
A lot depends on how you define "ideologue". I would expect a president to have consistent thought, an underlying approach that he applies to all problems.
Three caveats to that: I'd expect him to comprehend the merits of his opponents' ideology, to be willing to compromise when politically necessary, and to correctly perceive those situations where his ideology may not apply. Otherwise, I want someone who has a specific system of thought and sticks with it.
13 - One American's Rant
Cannonshop,
I guess then, that we are stuck living with the least of the evils, which in '08 WAS Obama.
Who fits that definition for '12?
Who is the least ideological while still having morals and ethics that we can live with?
14 - Dr Dreadful
Very few politicians ever own up to making mistakes, because they're afraid it will cost them votes.
They're right about that, but what they forget is that it won't cost them nearly as many as when it later turns out they did make a huge mistake and didn't come clean about it.
If Arnie had owned up to diddling his housekeeper, for example, California might still have a Republican governor now.
15 - Tommy Mack
Harry S. Truman said, “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.” I wish I had said that.
Tommy
16 - Dr Dreadful
I wish I had said that.
You will, Tommy, you will.
17 - roger nowosielski
Good ole Tommy, a patriot to the end, forever espousing the virtues of the republic, partisan to the core, cheering himself besides about the prospects of Democrat victory while the entire nation is about to go in flames.
I really wish I had an ounce of your optimism, Tommy. But then again, on second thought, please spare me. I think drugs would be better.
When will anyone here ever dare look stark reality in the face?
18 - One American's Rant
Roger,
What, in your opinion (I almost hate to ask), does the face of stark reality look like?
19 - roger nowosielski
We're going down the drain.
20 - REMF(MCH)
I think fidelity should rank up there pretty high. If a guy or gal can't keep his vows to his own spouse...well, integrity starts at home.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Not a good reason to impeach somebody, though, REMF. That was pure malice, and fortunately enough Republican senators felt the same way.
22 - One American's Rant
REMF, I agree, It goes towards general trustworthiness.
Doc, what if all of the senators felt the way I do; that they should ALL be held to a higher standard.
Now, that said, we don't do a very good job a choosing them, and that's on us.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
REMF -
Just to point something out that I just posted recently on another thread, Eisenhower, JFK, FDR, and Thomas Jefferson were all quite unfaithful to their spouses, whereas Hitler was quite faithful to his lover...and so was Dubya, as far as I know....
So...while that by no means indicates that womanizers make better presidents, it just shows that marital fidelity or the lack thereof has no bearing on one's ability to govern well.
24 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Things are getting worse...but "down the drain"? No. Not only is the world not going down the drain, but (global warming notwithstanding) it's going to get better. The world is already more peaceful (relative to population) now than during any decade of which I'm aware in all of human history...
...so that tells me that overall (meaning the whole human race), we're doing better than we ever have...
and THAT tells me that while pessimism is an important tool, we should by no means be pessimistic about the future.
Once you finish gagging, Roger, then tell me exactly why it is that you think the nation is about to "go down in flames" when humanity is more peaceful than ever before?
25 - Dr Dreadful
Marital infidelity for men of Jefferson's era was practically expected. The society in which FDR, DDE and JFK moved frowned on it, but turned a blind eye: what a president did with his trousers down wasn't considered to have any bearing on his ability to govern.
That's changed in the modern era, and now anything that can conceivably be used by political enemies and by the media to attack a president is considered fair game. The problem is that this nurtures a public expectation that the "leader of the free world" should be morally infallible, while we all know know full well that it's an impossible standard.