What is Presidential? (op-ed)
In the movie The American President the commander-in-chief orders an air strike. Afterwards a staffer, concerned about approval ratings and re-election, said the decision was very “presidential”, but the president replied it was the least presidential thing he did.
The scene depicted a striking contrast between the actual presidency and what appears presidential.
Is there a balance? Probably after presidential experience, but in which direction does a presidential candidate run?
A recent Washington Post/ABC poll asked potential voters: Which of the following is most important for a presidential nominee someone who (shares your values), (understands problems), (is honest/ trustworthy), (is a strong leader), or (has the best experience.) Honest/ trustworthy tied strong leader on top of the list. Most might not distinguish between the two but for a presidential campaign these equal numbers present a paradox.
In 1988 democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was asked if his wife was raped and murdered would he favor the death penalty for the killer.
Dukakis was a known opponent of the death penalty. The questioner attempted to emotionally compromise Dukakis, but Dukakis demonstrated leadership fit for the presidency. He restated his opposition regardless of public perception and maintained his integrity.
But Dukakis’s poll numbers dropped. His courage of conviction appeared weak to the public. Does this suggest if Dukakis abandoned his principles and advocated to execute a fictitious rapist/murder he would have appeared more presidential?
In 1992 Bill Clinton was the democratic candidate for president. As governor Clinton enforced Arkansas’s death penalty, the people’s will, but it wasn’t his personal philosophy. But to avoid the soft on crime label placed on the party by Dukakis Clinton wanted to appear aggressive. So candidate Clinton presided over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, an intellectually disabled Black man. (This case is more complicated. Rector’s mental condition resulted from a self inflicted head shot after he murdered two people, the second a police officer.) But a lawyer for Rector stated the issue wasn’t the death penalty but weather this case deserved it. He said, “This is a measure of how civilized we are. At what level of disability do you kill people?”
Some saw Clinton’s actions as immoral opportunism unfit for decision making in the oval office. But it appeared presidential to others during a campaign, and unlike Dukakis, Clinton became president.
During this election cycle all attention is on the republican field of candidates. But each campaign has to decide, every other week, how they want their candidate to appear by first deciding what they believe is presidential to the public, which may reveal a lack of respect each campaign has for the intelligence of the people they are propositioning for support.
Recently Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist and Republican presidential candidate, joined a team of eye surgeons in Haiti. (Of course Paul was there with a billionaire republican donor who has been active in Haitian charity work since the 2010 earthquake.) But Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and the team was there to restore sight to nearly 200 people who would not have been blind if they lived in the United States, curable blindness is normal in Haiti.
During Paul’s four day humanitarian efforts he gave an interview and acknowledged his low poll numbers. Paul said, “It’s sort of like a schoolyard. Once you’re down, everyone piles on, and I’ve been down for a couple of weeks.”
If the interviewer would of asked Paul: Well, how come you’re not back in the states campaigning?
I wonder if Paul would have replied, “Campaigning is the least presidential thing a candidate does.”
First published in the new Pittsburgh Courier 9/2/15
The scene depicted a striking contrast between the actual presidency and what appears presidential.
Is there a balance? Probably after presidential experience, but in which direction does a presidential candidate run?
A recent Washington Post/ABC poll asked potential voters: Which of the following is most important for a presidential nominee someone who (shares your values), (understands problems), (is honest/ trustworthy), (is a strong leader), or (has the best experience.) Honest/ trustworthy tied strong leader on top of the list. Most might not distinguish between the two but for a presidential campaign these equal numbers present a paradox.
In 1988 democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was asked if his wife was raped and murdered would he favor the death penalty for the killer.
Dukakis was a known opponent of the death penalty. The questioner attempted to emotionally compromise Dukakis, but Dukakis demonstrated leadership fit for the presidency. He restated his opposition regardless of public perception and maintained his integrity.
But Dukakis’s poll numbers dropped. His courage of conviction appeared weak to the public. Does this suggest if Dukakis abandoned his principles and advocated to execute a fictitious rapist/murder he would have appeared more presidential?
In 1992 Bill Clinton was the democratic candidate for president. As governor Clinton enforced Arkansas’s death penalty, the people’s will, but it wasn’t his personal philosophy. But to avoid the soft on crime label placed on the party by Dukakis Clinton wanted to appear aggressive. So candidate Clinton presided over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, an intellectually disabled Black man. (This case is more complicated. Rector’s mental condition resulted from a self inflicted head shot after he murdered two people, the second a police officer.) But a lawyer for Rector stated the issue wasn’t the death penalty but weather this case deserved it. He said, “This is a measure of how civilized we are. At what level of disability do you kill people?”
Some saw Clinton’s actions as immoral opportunism unfit for decision making in the oval office. But it appeared presidential to others during a campaign, and unlike Dukakis, Clinton became president.
During this election cycle all attention is on the republican field of candidates. But each campaign has to decide, every other week, how they want their candidate to appear by first deciding what they believe is presidential to the public, which may reveal a lack of respect each campaign has for the intelligence of the people they are propositioning for support.
Recently Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist and Republican presidential candidate, joined a team of eye surgeons in Haiti. (Of course Paul was there with a billionaire republican donor who has been active in Haitian charity work since the 2010 earthquake.) But Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and the team was there to restore sight to nearly 200 people who would not have been blind if they lived in the United States, curable blindness is normal in Haiti.
During Paul’s four day humanitarian efforts he gave an interview and acknowledged his low poll numbers. Paul said, “It’s sort of like a schoolyard. Once you’re down, everyone piles on, and I’ve been down for a couple of weeks.”
If the interviewer would of asked Paul: Well, how come you’re not back in the states campaigning?
I wonder if Paul would have replied, “Campaigning is the least presidential thing a candidate does.”
First published in the new Pittsburgh Courier 9/2/15
Comments
Post a Comment