That was almost sixty years ago, and things have, of course changed.
Or have they?
What motivated Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barrak Obama to seek the Presidency of the United States?
TR, FDR and JFK had family fortunes and neither needed nor (I assume) felt a need for more money than they already had. Although money confers power, they most likely did not view the presidency as a ladder to greater fortune — power, yes but money, no. LBJ, who had begun his political career as a school teacher, not exactly poor but certainly not wealthy, amassed riches as a successful politician well before he became President. John McCain, while not poor, is hardly rich in his own right. The Clintons, although not affluent before President Clinton ascended to the presidency, have become so following (and due) to his presidency. Senator Obama, perhaps the least affluent, does not seem to desire the Presidency as a ladder to financial prosperity.
Rivalry was probably an important element for all seven in the decision to seek high political office. TR and FDR were certainly motivated by substantial senses of rivalry, as their respective biographies suggest. They, perhaps accurately, considered themselves far better able to serve their country than their rivals. Senator Clinton's picture should appear in dictionaries under a definition of rivalry, along with a picture of her husband; both seem delighted to attack their rivals. JFK? I don't know. He had substantial family pressure to succeed in politics after the death of his brother Joe, who had been appointed by the Kennedy family to become President, but I don't think rivalry with his deceased sibling was his primary motivation. I don't really think that rivalry is the primary motivation for either Senator McCain or Senator Obama. Their campaigns have not, thus far, suggested that it is. I submit that, rather like LBJ, they (although political novices compared to LBJ) are primarily driven by love of power, accompanied, as it normally is, by a desire for glory and for the ability to accomplish the objectives which power and glory confer. As Russell observed, it is possible to have glory without power or power without glory, but it is unusual. Even movie stars have substantial glory and (in recent years, significant political power as well).
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.