Lack of an obvious successor. Lack of leadership. Lack of experience. Obvious disqualifications. Unobvious qualifications. Genuine and substantial differences of opinion. General dissatisfaction. These and, no doubt, many other reasons contribute to the outcome that we saw in Iowa with three candidates dividing the Democratic votes nearly evenly and five candidates dividing the Republican vote. Nearly two-thirds of the votes in each party went to some candidate other than the ostensible winner.
I honestly don’t recall a comparable primary in my adult life. Does this represent a bold new day for American politics or, as I suspect, that whatever the outcome in the general election in November 2008 a lot of Americans will be profoundly unhappy with the result?
The last interesting primary campaign I can recall was ’88. Republicans had Bush, Dole, Pat Robertson, Kemp, Haig, DuPont and the Democrats had Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Gary Hart, Al Gore, Biden, Gephart, Paul Simon. At the very least, there seems to be less scandal (so far).
Probably because, 20 years later, it takes a heckuva lot more to make a scandal than it used to.
I would have voted for Hillary. But I’m not at all unhappy about the idea of an Obama candidacy. I’d have been happy (to various degrees) with Hillary, Obama, Biden, Dodd or Richardson. I don’t think Democrats will be too cranky come November, however it plays out. There’s no civil war in the Democratic party, but there may be in the GOP.
In 1988 the top three finishers were
Democratic: Gephardt (31%), Simon (27%), Dukakis (22%) (80% overall)
Republican: Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%) (83%)
Among the Democrats the spread is the same (9 points separate first and third) but the percentage that accounts for is higher and, importantly, the number of voters is much higher.
Among the Republicans the spread between first and third was 18%. This time around it was 25%. And it took four candidates to capture 89% of the vote. I don’t think that represents happy campers.
I’d vote for Obama, too, Michael, but I’d be unhappy about either a Clinton or Edwards nomination to the presidency. IMO All of the first-tier candidates on the Democratic side are conspicuously unqualified (however much they may hem and haw) and, while the Republicans are nominally better, the policies and personalities of the two leaders (Huckabee and Romney) are really objectionable.
My satisfaction with Obama is based on my notion that he’s temperamentally moderate. I think that’s important.
IMO All of the first-tier candidates on the Democratic side are conspicuously unqualified (however much they may hem and haw) and, while the Republicans are nominally better, the policies and personalities of the two leaders (Huckabee and Romney) are really objectionable.
That “nominally” should have probably been in scare quotes!
Slightly more seriously, is anyone ever qualified to be President (in this day and age) when first assuming office?
I mean, consider it this way. In recent years I can think of only one candidate on a national ticket that seemed to have the resume that made me say, “Now THAT guy is qualified!” He had ten years experience as a Congresman. He had been the head of one of the major departments (Defense). He had successfully (according to most) managed wars, and had international experience. He had been the top (appointed) official in the White House, and knew how the Byzantine politics could work out. Plus, he had a successful career in the private sector.
But really, does anyone now think that Cheney would have been the right man to be President these last few years?
Serving in the House is no more qualification for the presidency than being the manager of a 7-11 is a qualification for becoming the CEO of GE. You only need a couple of hundred thousand votes to get the job and with safe seats it’s practically an appointed position.
There’s such a thing as personal qualifications as well as professional qualifications, however.
I think that governors of large states who’ve held office for eight or more years with decent track records of accomplishment can reasonably be considered qualified for the presidency. CEO’s of Fortune 100 companies, too, are qualified. Generals are qualified.
Senators aren’t qualified without additional professional expertise. First Ladies aren’t qualified without additional professional expertise. IMO the only nominally qualified candidates in the present race are
Romney
Richardson
McCain (because of his military training and proven leadership there)
I have problems with both Romney and Richardson on personality and policy issues. McCain is in Dutch with his own party.
Serving in the House is no more qualification for the presidency than being the manager of a 7-11 is a qualification for becoming the CEO of GE.
In and of itself, I agree with you. Same goes for being a Senator in my book.
I think that governors of large states who’ve held office for eight or more years with decent track records of accomplishment can reasonably be considered qualified for the presidency. CEO’s of Fortune 100 companies, too, are qualified. Generals are qualified.
Okay, I will agree with you on the governorship being a good indication. But what qualifies as a large state? I wouldn’t count Massachusetts, as it only ranks 13 in population, just outside of the top quartile. And certainly not New Mexico. (Actually, being Mayor of NYC would count for more than bing governor of all but a handful of states.)
More generally, while being a governor is definitely similar to being President, there are substantial differences. First, while governors do trade missions and the like, they are not responsible for foreign policy in any substantial way. Second, no governor is subject to the intense 24/7 pressure that the President is subjected too. I don’t think anyone can truly be prepared for that ahead of time. (And this is why judging character is important. I don’t mean to diminish that aspect although this comment might appear to do so.)
I would say that I think being a CEO of a large corporation isn’t a qualification. CEO’s, especially the successful ones, have very small constituencies. They also tend to have great power over the direction of their respective companies. (Again, if successful. Presumably no one would want a CEO that had failed in that capacity.) But a President has to deal with an entrenched bureacracy that he CAN’T fire or downsize or sometimes even get to follow orders. A President can’t decide to get out of a losing line of business on his own, or most likely at all. A President DOES have to deal with a legaslature that ultimately controls the purse-strings.
These are things that CEOs don’t have to deal with, but that are critical for a President. Also, CEOs don’t have to get elected by tens of millions of people in the first place.
(This is why I included Cheney’s experience in the House. By itself, it wouldn’t be enough. But it does indicate that he knows what it’s like to actually have to campaign, and also knows the role the legislature will play.)
We speak of the Imperial Presidency at times, but no President gets to be as imperial as the common Fortune 100 CEO. (Exception: Presidents during major wars have often had much more latitude. Think Lincoln, Wilson & FDR.) By itself I don’t think being a CEO would come close to being enough of a qualification for the job.
Generals (and Admirals, although we’ve never elected an Admiral to the Presidency) can lay claim to some qualifications, depending on the particulars of their service. But even they have problems. Ultimately, most generals do follow orders as much as they give them, meaning they haven’t been the main drivers in determining national policy. Also, many (most?) generals don’t have to deal with the legislature directly, and thus are not accustomed to the frictions that this generates. Nor have generals had to actually run for office. Also, generals are accutomed to having their orders followed to the letter. In these last three points their weaknesses are akin to those of CEOs.
What all three DO have is executive skills. Given the size of our federal government, that’s obviously a critical skill set, and the lack of those skills indicate why I’m not all that big on legislators being good candidates for the job. (Absent other experience, of course.)
I agree with Icepick. I don’t see much of a connection between CEO and POTUS. The most direct connection is from Governor to President. But I’d point out that Carter, Clinton and Bush were governors, while Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were not.
What successful presidents seem to have in common is a degree of intelligence (genius not required,) some spine, some instinct, some core beliefs, and a hell of a lot of luck. Experience — while it is calming to the jangled nerves of voters, including me — doesn’t appear to determine success. Nixon was experienced, Lincoln was not. Reagan was experienced but so was James Buchanan – Congressman, Sec State, Ambassador.
Interesting discussion on qualifications. If you start with the premise that the highest obligation of the Presidency is national security, then I think membership in Congress on certain committees is a good qualification (intelligence / armed services) OTOH, Congress is not a popular institution from which to launch a presidential campaign.
I think that’s why McCain is the best qualified. His experience doesn’t flow from his years in the military, its from years on the armed forces committee in which he can say I’ve met all of the major players in Pakistan. OTOH, he’s cast votes that he constantly has to answer for.
Obama is on the opposite end. He’s probably the least qualified, but being in the Senate three years, he hasn’t alienated anybody except the Clintons.
Arguably one of the most qualified Presidents of the 20th century was Herbert Hoover: significant business experience; highly educated; a lot of overseas experience, including diplomacy during WWI, administrative experience in setting up emergency relief programs and Secretary of Commerce.
One other observation: GWBush bolstered his lack of national security experience by naming or suggesting his foreign policy team before the election. I think this would be a good idea for Obama if he wins the nomination.
I guess I have a different understanding of Fortune 500 CEO’s than the rest of you. How many Fortune 500 CEO’s do you know? “Know” as in have lunch with them one-on-one or be invited to their homes?
I’ve known a half dozen over the years (all now deceased). They’re politicians. And salemen, a qualifty that I think we could use now. Clinton was a great salesman. Unfortunately (at least from my take on the man), he wanted to be president rather than accomplish something.
One other observation: GWBush bolstered his lack of national security experience by naming or suggesting his foreign policy team before the election. I think this would be a good idea for Obama if he wins the nomination.
Ack! Suggesting that Obama use W’s playbook might not be the best way for him to reassure the country!
(More substantive comments later, I hope.)
How many Fortune 500 CEO’s do you know? “Know†as in have lunch with them one-on-one or be invited to their homes?
I don’t keep that kind of high-powered company, thank goodness. I would ask you this in response. How many Fortune 100 CEOs have you worked for? I’ve worked for three now, of highly varied personality and all other attributes. (Well, excepting that they’ve all been white males.) And the one common denominator is that when any of them said “Jump!” during a meeting. every one in the room from the CFO on down has jumped before asking “How high?”
Worked for three; consulted for another three; done presentations for at least a dozen more.
I aggravated every single one of the ones I worked or consulted for I think because I didn’t show enough deference. But I also cultivated a reputation for telling them the truth and they needed me. 😉
I aggravated every single one of the ones I worked or consulted for I think because I didn’t show enough deference.
Ha! Now those are the CEOs I know and love!
But I also cultivated a reputation for telling them the truth and they needed me.
The good ones realize they need people like that. Some of the great ones realize that too, and some are too damned arrogant to listen!
In my prior comment I wrote: I don’t keep that kind of high-powered company, thank goodness.
Reading it now it sounds snarky, which was not my intent, and I apologize for that. Believe it or not, I’m a rather laid back individual, and they’re usually very driven and ambitious. Not a good mix!
What successful presidents seem to have in common is a degree of intelligence (genius not required,) some spine, some instinct, some core beliefs, and a hell of a lot of luck. Experience — while it is calming to the jangled nerves of voters, including me — doesn’t appear to determine success.
I pretty much agree with all of that. And I would like to be clear that while I don’t think anyone can be truly qualified for the Presidency before hand, clearly people can be better prepared by past experience. But temperment matters a great deal. (Which I think everyone in this discussion agrees with.)
BTW, FDR had been Governor of New York before becoming President.
So he had. And I knew it. Clearly the Alzheimer’s is coming for me early.
It turns out I had less to say than I thought. [Loud cheers ring out throughout the land.] But reading PD Shaw’s comment and thinking about this and other discussions makes one thing perfectly clear: There is NOTHING that is a good indication of who will make a good President.
Temperment? Presidents have had all manner of temperment, and there’s no clear indication of which type makes for a success or failure.
Experience? Lyndon Johnson had lots of experience, as did Nixon, and it didn’t help a bit. Lincoln had very little. However lack of experience is also no indicator of success. Neither Carter nor GW Bush were all that experienced for the Presidency of their time if their records are examined closely.
Intelligence is the same story: Nixon and Carter had lots of brainpower. Reagan and FDR weren’t the most brilliant men of their respective generations, but they did all right.
Really, thinking about it in these terms is depressing. None of the candidates look all that good, and the stuff we like about them may end up leading us astray. Ugh.
Clearly the Alzheimer’s is coming for me early.
I recommend smoking and drinking to excess. It won’t help, but you’ll care less about it.
It’s a simple problem to state, really: the job is too big to be done well by any one person.
Look, our expectation (at least, given how the country reacts when anything goes wrong) is that the president is an expert on foreign policy; diplomatic technique; the history, culture and domestic politics of every important country (where “important” is defined after the crisis, when it’s too late to start learning, so effectively every country); military strategy; economics; monetary policy; budgeting; trade; procurement; land and facilities management; personnel management; education; housing policy; business regulation, policy and the actual actions of all major corporations and corporate leaders; all emergency services anywhere; disaster relief; social security; the details of all laws, regulations and court decisions currently having in effect or under consideration; the conditions of all identifiable groups of people in the US; and any number of things I’m not thinking of. In addition, we expect the President to know everything happening in all parts of the US and indeed the world before we do, and to know all actions being taken by anyone in government service. We require that the President have strong, deeply held, well researched and consistent positions on every issue possible, including ones that became an issue yesterday, and that he will never, ever change those positions, but will immediately admit whenever he has made any error and wear a hair shirt for each transgression, no matter how minor, or whether his new positions are better than his old ones. Finally, we expect that the President will act on his expertise in all of these areas without ever making a mistake. It’s simply not a realistic expectation.
Worse, even a realistic expectation of the minimums: that the President will hire good advisors, will delegate well and manage well, will respond quickly and well to any crisis he can fix and will know which crises he can fix in the first place — even this is too much, because there are just too many areas the President must act in to be able to make good judgements on more than a few of them. The best we can hope for is that the President will not be actively seeking to cause things to fall apart, and will do his best under very strict time constraints and unimaginable pressure. And no one seems willing either to accept that or to fix it by shrinking the government’s responsibilities, transferring regulatory power back to Congress, or dividing the executive powers and responsibilities of government among several responsible executives (for the sake of argument, let’s call them “Cabinet Secretaries”) with the President serving to set overall goals and correct errors on the part of the lesser executives. Given that, it’s reasonable to conclude that we are screwed, that the screwing is structural, and that no one is willing to fix our being screwed (probably because they’re afraid, not unreasonably, that we’ll be more screwed if we do).
It’s a mess, that’s for sure.
Well said, Jeff!