How about a "mother figure?" I haven't been able to find much enlightenment on what the term connotes. The following is the best I was able to do: "somebody resembling mother: a woman who embodies the qualities traditionally associated with a mother, especially support, advice and affection." Pretty damn circular. Whatever the term means, I am unpersuaded that most voters want one as President. Nor can I think of one who has ever become a respected president, or the equivalent. It would take a big stretch of the imagination to consider Golda Meir , the first woman in the world to hold the office of Prime Minister without any prior family connection and referred to by David Ben-Gurion as "the best man in the government" in that light. It would be equally difficult, as well, to imagine Margaret Thatcher in that light. "Among other things, she defiantly opposed the Soviet Union, and her tough-talking rhetoric gained her the nickname the Iron Lady." She also led the fight against Argentina in the Falkland Islands war. Motherly simply is not a term I would use to characterize either Mrs. Meir or Mrs. Thatcher in her public life. Whatever maternal characteristics either may have displayed in private life, such was not the public persona of either.
Although I have no empirical basis for the assertion, it seems that Senator Clinton in her political activities lacks the "qualities traditionally associated with a mother, especially support, advice and affection," none of which her campaign displayed in remarkable abundance. Nor did she come across as a father figure; to have tried to do so would likely have diminished her support among those who seemingly want a woman president — just about any woman. It might well have been difficult in other respects.
Let's assume, simply for the sake of discussion, that the majority of the voters want a father figure as president. What are the motivations of people who seek high office, particularly the presidency, and how do they mesh with this popular desire? Stereotyping is dangerous and often unproductive. Nevertheless, it can occasionally be a useful exercise.
In 1950, Bertrand Russell accepted the Nobel Prize in Literature and delivered a speech entitled What Desires Are Politically Important? There, he listed several politically powerful desires under the subhead of acquisitiveness, which he then dissected: rivalry, vanity, and love of power. As to rivalry, he offered:
Over and over again in Mohammedan history, dynasties have come to grief because the sons of a sultan by different mothers could not agree, and in the resulting civil war universal ruin resulted. The same sort of thing happens in modern Europe. When the British Government very unwisely allowed the Kaiser to be present at a naval review at Spithead, the thought which arose in his mind was not the one which we had intended. What he thought was, I must have a Navy as good as Grandmamma's.As to vanity, Russell commented,
It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the influence of vanity throughout the range of human life, from the child of three to the potentate at whose frown the world trembles. Mankind have even committed the impiety of attributing similar desires to the Deity, whom they imagine avid for continual praise.As to love of power, Russell said,
But great as is the influence of the motives we have been considering, there is one which outweighs them all. I mean the love of power. Love of power is closely akin to vanity, but it is not by any means the same thing. What vanity needs for its satisfaction is glory, and it is easy to have glory without power. The people who enjoy the greatest glory in the United States are film stars, but they can be put in their place by the Committee for Un-American Activities, which enjoys no glory whatever. In England, the King has more glory than the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has more power than the King. Many people prefer glory to power, but on the whole these people have less effect upon the course of events than those who prefer power to glory.
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.