In a comment posted to another article, a reader asked what most of us really want in a president. I responded to the question as follows:
I think most us want a reliable father figure: someone whom we can really trust, who doesn't stray too far from our ideological norms, remains constant and doesn't make vague promises we somehow don't quite believe. At the same time, most of us probably want someone who does not treat us as naive children.According to Wikipedia,
A Father Figure is usually considered to be an older man, often one in a position of power or influence, who arouses emotions usually felt for a person's father and with whom a person identifies psychologically.The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that this is precisely what most of us want, even though many who do would probably reject use of the term "father figure." A person whom I would characterize as a "liberal," in rejecting that term, recently told me that sheIn more general use, it means an adult male who is recognized as the authoritative senior of another (usually younger) male (or female), sometimes expressed by the use of the address forms father vis son (as between a clergyman and a layman, irrespective of age).
wants someone whom we can trust to make rational decisions that are in our country’s long term best interest (based, of course, on our views of long term best interest); a leader who is stronger (intellectually), braver (willing to think), and smarter than the average man. It really bothers me that people would vote for someone because they would like to have a beer with him or he is "one of us." He isn’t "one of us" but his decisions will impact "us" for a long time. Do not give me anyone who makes decisions based on his "gut." Please give me a president who is intellectually and morally superior and at the same time smart enough to outwit the rascals who would like to do us harm, be they foreign or domestic.I think that's pretty much right on, and that we were saying pretty much the same thing. We certainly want a president with whom we can feel comfortable and whom we can trust to do "the right thing." Whether we could enjoy a beer together seems irrelevant, and mere "gut" thinking is obviously undesirable. Since our notions of what is right usually derive from our ideological perceptions, trust that a president will do the right thing suggests that he should be ideologically compatible. Those of voting age and therefore "adult" presumably don't want to be humored, coddled and otherwise dealt with as naive children incapable of understanding reality, making their own decisions or expressing disagreement with an excessively miserly, indulgent or overbearing "father." Nor do we want some vituperative, grumpy old fart, whom we suspect of being senile, however reasonably he, when younger, may have been viewed as a father figure. By the time he reaches that stage we are more likely to feel a need to nurture him in his old age, rather than to rely upon him. Nor do we want as a father figure some young whippersnapper who hasn't matured sufficiently to be adequately versed in the ways of the world to be deserving of the the role.
Article comments
1 - Lee Richards
Very interesting and thoughtful analysis, Dan.
For one thing, Truman read history and tried to learn from it. Today's politicians read polls and seem to think they have nothing to learn.
2 - Baritone
Dan,
What moves anyone to seek high political office is, I think, a mixed bag of much that you considered in your article. For each candidate (or wanna-be candidate) there are a variety of things that push them toward the dais. Ego is certainly a biggie. One must possess extreme self confidence and a high level of personal vanity, I think, to consider themselves as being presidential (or senatorial, or gubernatorial, etc. Why would anyone want to be a guber?)
But for most, especially those who achieve some level of success in the political world, along with that confidnece there has to be a desire to lead and perhaps a personal vision of what one could achieve. While power or the desire for it is the supposed motivator of aspiring pols, it is, I think, too abstract to be at the center of those aspirations. At a certain point power may take over as a motivator, often as a means to stay alive. Saddam Hussein HAD to stay in power to survive. Once he lost power, he was a dead man. Of course those who wind up in such circumstances usually do so via the abuse of power.
I think that at the heart of our constitutional system its most brilliant aspect is how it limits power and disperses it amongst a relatively large number of people in a variety of institutions. It's not particularly efficient, but it is far more desirable than any available alternatives. Most of the Founding Fathers understood the inherent evil of absolute power. When some stood up and stated their desire to declare George Washington king, those with more considered judgment quickly stemmed that tide, including Washington himself.
Russell was a great thinker, writer and orator. I'd say that his passages you quoted above are pretty accurate.
I only know that I would never aspire to that kind of power and responsibility. At one level, I agree with you that anyone who wants to be president, shouldn't be. Alas, our system, as good as it is, is far from perfect. For the present at any rate, we are stuck with a long lasting and long winded electoral process that only rarely produces a truly great leader.
B
3 - Baronius
A long time ago, William Safire wrote a novel called Full Disclosure. It was a fictionalization of a presidency collapsing, and it was drawn from Safire's experiences during Watergate, but the fictional crisis revolves around a sex scandal, so the book ends up with a Lewinsky-era feel.
Anyway, at one point, a political advisor talks about the presidency in terms of a jockey trying to ride a horse representing power. The first jockey can't ride but needs to ride, and the horse throws him right away. The second jockey can ride and needs to. The horse will tolerate him as long as he stays in control. The next jockey can't ride, but doesn't need to. The horse will allow him to sit on his back and maybe he'll trot around a little. The last jockey knows how to ride and doesn't need to. The horse will obey his every command and let him ride forever.
I think we can all agree that Hillary would have been the first jockey. Giuliani would definitely have been the second. Maybe Huckabee would be jockey #3, and Richardson #4. (I'm trying to be non-partisan here.)
I'm not saying that the horse race analogy is the end-all of political analysis, but it does illuminate a lot about what we want and what candidates offer. It also provides an explanation for why we don't trust politicians who run for high office.
Dan, I think Truman started out as the third jockey, and grew into #4.
4 - Dan Miller
Baronius,
Interesting analogy. I like it, even though it doesn't quite mesh with my experiences with horses. Leaving aside riding school horses, most of which seem resigned to dealing with people who don't know what they are doing, a decent horse can almost immediately sense the situation; depending on his mood and his sense of the rider's ability, he will be cooperative or not. With an unknown rider, many will try to test their limits and pretty quickly determine what they are. And, like the rest of us, their moods vary from time to time.
Dan
5 - Baronius
Dan, Safire is no expert on horses, but the man does have insights into politics. That analogy has always stuck with me because it covers some things that I don't know how else to think about. Like why Bill Clinton left the presidency needing it more than when he was first elected. Or what happened to Fred Thompson's campaign. (You'll never see another candidate who cared as little about power as Fred.)
Maybe part of being a father figure is looking like you don't need anything. Dads don't have to show off their authority. I think that Obama's "above the fray" attitude is his way of looking like he doesn't need power. I can't imagine that he'll be able to handle it. McCain may be a natural at controlling power. He either really needs it or really doesn't, and I'm not sure which. I suspect he just really needs to stand in front of the GOP Convention as the winner. The rest is gravy.
The past two years, or maybe 30 years, of Hillary Clinton's life have revolved around filling some very peculiar need. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democratic Convention end with five people on the stage: the Obamas, the second couple, and Hillary waving and grinning and standing slightly in front of the others.
6 - Dave Nalle
I fear that while the traditional scenario is as Dan describes - people looking for a warm and fuzzy father figure - there's also a movement to look for a messiah, for the next JFK or FDR who will save us from all the evils of the world whether we want it or not, including the evil of being responsible for our own lives.
Dave
7 - Condor
"vituperative" - insert applause here.
Dan, Thanks for adding yet another word to my vocabulary.
I would like to suggest a book for everyone to read.
"The Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacevich
Check out Amazon for a good editorial review.
Bacevich is an author who probably should be read, especially if you are disgruntled with our Presidents from JFK onward... with the exception of Carter, who, although trashed by the corporate establishment, did not seek an imperialistic goal, which after reading this great piece of work, you will understand better.
Congress is not helping along the governing process by advocating only their party and its agenda, and in fact have given the reins of power almost exclusively to the Presidents.
Great book, I highly recommend it. It is time for a change. Sadly, what is being presented to us as choice, doesn't fit the bill.
8 - Ruvy
Dan,
I didn't read this article - yet - but from the title, I's say it was written about 30 months too late to be of any good for the next four years.
You (and by extension, the rest of us) are already stuck with one of two idiots who supposedly will succeed to power in America.
Hopefully, after the hoopla of this American silly season is over, someone will look intelligently at your ruminations. Hopefully someone with some ability to actually accomplish something will be interested in them. I'm sure, that these ruminations, if they are like your others that I've read here, will have enough merit to them for serious people to seriously consider them.
9 - Condor
"Hopefully, after the hoopla of this American silly season is over" Ruvy
Don't bet on it Ruvy, the Media is very good at what they do, and keep their collective heads to the grind stone as their livelihoods require the advertizing dollars to keep their machine rolling. So its continued hype and BS until the American voters make yet another in a long line of stupid nonchoices.
10 - Condor
Dan, and all...
Here's a link to the Andrew Bacevich interview which is being broadcast this week.
Highly recommended.
11 - Dan Miller
In comment #6, Dave opines that I was suggesting that people [are] looking for a warm and fuzzy father figure (emphasis added). I wasn't. I used a full page attempting to define the term as used, trying to avoid exactly that sort of connotation.
As used, I don't quite understand how "warm and fuzzy" fit. They are perhaps defining characteristics of the Easter Bunny or a pet hamster, but I have heard no serious suggestion, at least thus far, that the Easter Bunny or a pet hamster would make a popularly admired president*, whether viewed contemporaneously or from the perspective of history. Nor did I mean to suggest that many of us want a "father figure" who would turn over the keys to Marine One on Saturday night to dazzle a date, or bail us out of jail when we get drunk and disorderly, or do any of that sort of thing.
We often refer to George Washington as the Father of our Country, and sometimes to Thomas Jefferson as the Father of the Declaration of Independence. It seems unlike that the Easter Bunny, a pet hamster, or someone bouncing his cute daughter on his knee comes to mind when we do so.
I stand by the definition attempted on the first page of the article.
*Now that I think about it, however, perhaps either would be a competitive choice vis a vis the current crop of candidates.
Dan
12 - Condor
Dan,
and it was a good definition. Here's another from (Andrew Bachevich, THE LIMITS OF POWER: THE END OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, 2008): "Beginning with the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, "the occupant of the White House has become a combination of demigod, father figure and, inevitably, the betrayer of inflated hopes. Pope. Pop star. Scold. Scapegoat. Crisis manager. Commander in Chief. Agenda settler. Moral philosopher. Interpreter of the nation's charisma. Object of veneration. And the butt of jokes. All rolled into one."
Regards//c
13 - Baronius
Condor, you could apply the same definition to Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts, off the top of my head. That doesn't seem like a post-JFK trend at all.