2003-01-13 - 10:14 a.m.

Choosing a President

People tend to vote for the man who runs the best campaign or the one who raises the most money, rather than the one who will do the best job. One way to describe presidents is to divide them into three basic patterns.

One of the most successful kinds of president is the “people’s favorite,” a popular, admirable person, a find role model, who performs well in ceremonial duties but leaves the day-to-day running of the country to other people. Examples of these are President Eisenhower and President Reagan.

A successful working president is usually a Washington insider. That is, someone who is well known by congressmen and senators and who has plenty of friends among the powers behind the scene as well. Insiders can usually find allies to support their programs. Some examples of this kind of president are Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Barry Goldwater might have been another such president, if only he had been able to convince enough people to vote for him.

The third kind of president is the bright outsider who promises to sweep in like a new broom, only to find that what he thought was just dust is really cement – immovable. No matter how experienced or intelligent these presidents may be, most of their projects are doomed from the start because they can’t get the support of the insiders. Consider Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and, yes, even Bill Clinton. They were experienced administrators and well educated, even brilliant, proposing far-reaching programs; but they were frustrated over and over again by the Congress.

Logic might suggest that a successful state governor or mayor of a large city, with a record of management experience, would be well equipped to run the country. But they are still outsiders, not “one of the guys.” The last state governor to be a successful working president was Franklin Roosevelt, and there are still people criticizing him more than fifty years later. His achievements were made possible by the crises of the times – first the Great Depression and then World War II – and many of his solutions would not be allowed in today’s political climate. (Not to mention his relationship with his wife’s social secretary, which would have even outraged a lot of people who didn’t like Eleanor Roosevelt.)

A really smart person is the candidate that really appeals to me, but I will never vote for one again. Their great programs will never get off the ground, and I will be almost as frustrated as they. Brilliant people are mistrusted by the old boys network.

Compare the candidates who ran in 2000 to the three types I’ve described. Mr. Gore, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. McCain best fit the description of the insider. Perhaps Mrs. Dole has the attributes of a Washington insider, but I wonder if she can ever be one of the “boys.” Mr. Bradley and Mr. McCain also have elements of the hero about them – Mr. McCain for his military record and Mr. Bradley as a sports hero. But is Mr. Bradley really a Washington insider, despite his time in the Senate? He may well be too smart and too idealistic ever to achieve an effective working relationship with the Congress.

Mr. Bush – Dubya, that is – is more like the figurehead, trying to walk in his father’s shoes. He’ll try his darnedest to come across as a good ol’ boy. He’ll never upset the image by knowing too much. It has always seemed that, no matter who the president was, he rose to the occasion when crisis loomed. My greatest fear is that Dubya doesn’t know one crisis from another, and the Congress won’t be able to stop him from becoming his own “weapon of mass destruction.”

Party affiliation doesn’t seem to matter, and even liberal and conservative labels have blurred. Forget the Reform party, the independents, the glamour candidates. I dread to think how they will spend their time in office. Impeachment might become a regular part of the Congressional Record.

Campaigns are getting longer and longer, and we have plenty of time to consider all candidates. Will it make any difference if we don’t make an informed choice this time? Over the past thirty years or so, we have survived crooks, sleazebags and plain old fools. It seems the U.S. Constitution is set up to protect us against our own mistakes, whatever they may be.

I wrote this a couple of years ago, but the subject is suddenly current. I need to say a word or two about Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who is also stepping into the race. His announcement comes from Stamford High School, “where his dreams began.” You see, I also graduated from Stamford High, but we’ve known Joe even longer – from synagogue, from Sunday school. His father’s store was a block from our house. Quoting my mother, my brother says “…Mrs. Lieberman’s son is going to law school. My son is going into the army.” (Please insert a facial expression of disgust.) I never was a bosom buddy, though we have close friends in common. But like so many of our neighbors, we feel a kinship.

Father figure, insider, or too smart for the old boys’ network? I don’t know. He’s been an effective senator for more than ten years. He has a lot of friends in Washington. He’s generally a little more conservative than I am; which way are we swinging these days? He acquitted himself surprisingly well in the Gore campaign, so his name and face are familiar. Is there such a thing as peaking too early?

Does it really matter who you vote for? I have no answers here. It’s just food for thought over the next twenty-two months.

Current Reading:
Good Diary Today:
From the Old Folks' Radio:

previous - next

Pretty Clever, Huh? - 2008-12-08
Deja Vu... - 2008-12-07
Morally Wrong - 2008-11-25
The Difference - 2008-11-18
Writer's Block? - 2008-11-17