What We Want in a Presidential Candidate
George F.Will quotes Bill Clinton saying "regarding presidential candidates, that Republicans like to fall in line and Democrats like to fall in love. Which explains the Clinton campaign's palpable panic: Democrats have fallen in love, but not with her. Republicans tend to nominate the next person in line: Vice President Richard Nixon, not Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, to follow President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960; Vice President George H.W. Bush, not Sen. Robert Dole, to follow President Ronald Reagan in 1988; Dole rather than Lamar Alexander or any other contender in 1996; Gov. George W. Bush, whose dynastic lineage propelled him past Sen. John McCain in 2000. There is a Republican tinge to Sen. Clinton's campaign: She is next in line. That fact -- combined with the Clintons' (how often the plural is pertinent) money machine, combined with the Clintons' earned reputation for ferocity -- is supposed to impart to her an aura of inevitability." This is true about the psychological dynamic, but Will never asks why this is the case. After all, both liberals and conservatives have a set of beliefs, or litmus tests, that they apply to presidential candidates. Both Republicans and Democrats must hew to the party line at least somewhat, even when they claim to be maverick politicians, independent thinkers, or a "New" Democrat or Republican. So, on the surface, there is no reason why Democrats should not "fall in line".
In fact, this was one of the biggest critiques of presidential politics articulated by William G. Mayer at the Northeast Political Science Association. Why, he asked, do the Republicans select a nominee early without much conflict, while the Democrats engage in constant intra-party conflict, leaving the nominee virtually crippled at the end? It would make much more sense for the Democrats to settle on someone early, or for the Republicans to engage in intra-party conflict. But that is not the case.
There are two main reasons I can think of for this phenomenon. First, the liberal temperament is oriented toward political participation, dialogue, and intellectual exchange. There is a very strong connection, after all, between educational achievement and liberal politics. Academia is based on promoting intellectual exchange and criticism. Those people who cannot hold their own in an intellectual debate are quickly removed from the environment. This temperament naturally extends to politics. Liberals love the idea of freedom of speech, especially on a college campus. Liberals love the idea of participation for its own sake. Yet, participation is really supposed to mirror the classroom environment, with the professor as a facilitator of dialogue and the students as eager learners. The objective of the classroom environment is not merely to pass on information. Instead, the objective is to develop the ideas, personality, and abilities of the student and the professor. All of this takes place in an environment characterized by caring and compassion. The professor cares for the intellectual, emotional and even spiritual growth of the student, and the student cares about the development of the subject matter as a discipline. Hence, the liberal temperament, at its best, uses the collegiate environment to turn all participants in the public sphere into better versions of themselves.
This temperament orients the liberal to specific areas of intellectual exchange. Health care, for instance, is a favorite liberal topic because it identifies an area of economic life that currently prevents individuals from becoming healthier. The economy is another favorite topic because it identifies the economic pressures that prevent people from improving their circumstances. Yet, even if these topics weren't favorites for liberals, there would be some other topic aimed at developing human potential. In essence, liberal politics is primed for falling in love with candidates, because the voter's relationship with the candidate is nearly identical to the voter's relationship with a potential spouse: the candidate offers the ability to become a better person through interaction with the candidate. Public policy discussion and political participation are merely means to that ultimate end. Hence, the ideal liberal candidate is akin to a best friend, a lover, a spouse, or a mentor. All of those relationships involve nurturing and caring, in addition to the exchange of information. This is the reason ultra-left candidates and voters call each other names that are reminiscent of family. Their ideal politics leads to a recognition of the family of man. In case the reader is wondering, this ideal is a direct descendant from the religious ideal of the family of God. After all, in monasteries and churches nuns refer to each other as "sister" and monks refer to each other as "brother", with church heads called "father" and "mother" after the ideal relationship in Heaven. The academy started as a training ground for priests and religious scholars, so the model has simply transferred into liberal politics.
The conservative temperament is the opposite. Even though the liberal temperament starts from the same origin as the liberal temperament - using the model of the religion or the church as the model for ideal relationships - the objective of the relationship is not the intellectual, emotional, psychological, and personal development of the participant. Instead, the conservative assumption is that personal growth is impossible. Rather than experiencing personal growth, an individual merely fulfills a role that has been designated for him or her. This assumption leads directly to the idea of a "calling", as in individuals are "called" by a supernatural force to fulfill a destiny that is preordained. The central problem is that no one has direct access to this supernatural force, and so there is no way to tell why the person has been called for this duty. This automatically precludes and challenge to the called person. The most one can do is accept it, hoping that there is a good reason the chosen person has been called.
The conservative temperament leads directly to the acceptance of authority in various institutions: the church, the family, the military, and the business. The military's chain of command, for instance, dictates that a soldier must follow the orders of the superior officer, not merely because the superior officer has a higher rank, but because the superior officer inevitably has access to information that the lower-ranking officer does not have. The same goes for the relationship between the priest and the follower, the father and the child, the CEO and the employee. More specifically, the conservative temperament acknowledges that each institution has its designated role. It recognizes an inherent division of labor that must be respected. Consequently, the role of the academy is to educate; the military defends; the church provides a relationship with God; the business makes money; the family provides love. The public sphere and politics maintain these roles for each institution. The proper conservative politicians is a good caretaker, preserving these institutions so that they can continue doing their job in the future.
These opposing temperaments lead to the political outcomes George Will describes. In the Democratic Primaries, there is either the "Next-In-Line" or the romantic suitor. If a candidate is not one of those types, it is nearly impossible to attract money, media attention, or pledges of support. Thus, even though David Brooks lauds New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the most likable, down-to-earth, experienced, and ideologically qualified candidate in the Democratic race for president, everyone else knows that Richardson is not the next-in-line, and not attractive as a romantic suitor. Instead, Edwards and Clinton are competing for "Next-in-Line" votes, and Edwards and Obama are competing for romantic suitor votes. The only candidate who can fulfill both roles is John Edwards, but his appeal as a romantic, transformative candidate is nil next to Obama's potential. Thus, even though Edwards has obvious charisma, detailed policy proposals regarding education and poverty, a reasonable position on Iraq, and the ability to win enough Southern states to win the electoral college, Edwards is another white male who doesn't present the possibility of voting for change.
Hillary Clinton cannot adopt the romantic suitor role, even if she tries to seem more like a compassionate human being, because so many voters thing of her as the third wheel on the romantic relationship between Bill Clinton and the voters. In other words, Hillary Clinton is the annoying roommate who can't take a hint when you get home with a hot date and start making out on the couch. Even though Clinton has tried to make herself as attractive as possible, there is no getting around the fact that, unlike Bill Clinton, Hillary has no sex appeal. She's more a dominatrix than a potential lover. So, yes, she has the money and the attractive policy positions, but she's not someone anyone could imagine getting to know personally. Without the ability to engage personally and aid in a voter's personal growth, Clinton has only "change" to offer: vote for me because I am a woman. That's not enough for most voters. It's like dating a guy/girl who you know is all wrong you simply because you are on the rebound from a very bad, destructive relationship.
This is why Frank Rich notes Hillary Clinton's only remaining skill: personally destroying other people's character. Clinton knows, as the rest of us do, that the only way we are going to choose a mate that has no sex appeal is if all the other potential mates are worse. If a person has just left an abusive relationship, then yes, a person with no sex appeal begins to look pretty good. Clinton's problem is that, unlike the 1990s when there really were just two options - the Clintons or the radical Republicans - the 2008 election is presenting several great options. Indeed, many people I have spoken to think a great democratic ticket would include Edwards and Obama - the sexiest candidates the Democratic Party has given us since Clinton/Gore, but with the potential to be as nationally transformative as Kennedy/Johnson. Obama seeks to bring back the spirit of John and Robert Kennedy, while Edwards is bringing by the spirit of Lyndon Johnson. In contrast, the Republican party is offering very uninspiring candidates. More important, Bush has created such a bad relationship with the country that the last thing voters want now is another Republican President with the same policies and the same shaky use of the truth.
In fact, this was one of the biggest critiques of presidential politics articulated by William G. Mayer at the Northeast Political Science Association. Why, he asked, do the Republicans select a nominee early without much conflict, while the Democrats engage in constant intra-party conflict, leaving the nominee virtually crippled at the end? It would make much more sense for the Democrats to settle on someone early, or for the Republicans to engage in intra-party conflict. But that is not the case.
There are two main reasons I can think of for this phenomenon. First, the liberal temperament is oriented toward political participation, dialogue, and intellectual exchange. There is a very strong connection, after all, between educational achievement and liberal politics. Academia is based on promoting intellectual exchange and criticism. Those people who cannot hold their own in an intellectual debate are quickly removed from the environment. This temperament naturally extends to politics. Liberals love the idea of freedom of speech, especially on a college campus. Liberals love the idea of participation for its own sake. Yet, participation is really supposed to mirror the classroom environment, with the professor as a facilitator of dialogue and the students as eager learners. The objective of the classroom environment is not merely to pass on information. Instead, the objective is to develop the ideas, personality, and abilities of the student and the professor. All of this takes place in an environment characterized by caring and compassion. The professor cares for the intellectual, emotional and even spiritual growth of the student, and the student cares about the development of the subject matter as a discipline. Hence, the liberal temperament, at its best, uses the collegiate environment to turn all participants in the public sphere into better versions of themselves.
This temperament orients the liberal to specific areas of intellectual exchange. Health care, for instance, is a favorite liberal topic because it identifies an area of economic life that currently prevents individuals from becoming healthier. The economy is another favorite topic because it identifies the economic pressures that prevent people from improving their circumstances. Yet, even if these topics weren't favorites for liberals, there would be some other topic aimed at developing human potential. In essence, liberal politics is primed for falling in love with candidates, because the voter's relationship with the candidate is nearly identical to the voter's relationship with a potential spouse: the candidate offers the ability to become a better person through interaction with the candidate. Public policy discussion and political participation are merely means to that ultimate end. Hence, the ideal liberal candidate is akin to a best friend, a lover, a spouse, or a mentor. All of those relationships involve nurturing and caring, in addition to the exchange of information. This is the reason ultra-left candidates and voters call each other names that are reminiscent of family. Their ideal politics leads to a recognition of the family of man. In case the reader is wondering, this ideal is a direct descendant from the religious ideal of the family of God. After all, in monasteries and churches nuns refer to each other as "sister" and monks refer to each other as "brother", with church heads called "father" and "mother" after the ideal relationship in Heaven. The academy started as a training ground for priests and religious scholars, so the model has simply transferred into liberal politics.
The conservative temperament is the opposite. Even though the liberal temperament starts from the same origin as the liberal temperament - using the model of the religion or the church as the model for ideal relationships - the objective of the relationship is not the intellectual, emotional, psychological, and personal development of the participant. Instead, the conservative assumption is that personal growth is impossible. Rather than experiencing personal growth, an individual merely fulfills a role that has been designated for him or her. This assumption leads directly to the idea of a "calling", as in individuals are "called" by a supernatural force to fulfill a destiny that is preordained. The central problem is that no one has direct access to this supernatural force, and so there is no way to tell why the person has been called for this duty. This automatically precludes and challenge to the called person. The most one can do is accept it, hoping that there is a good reason the chosen person has been called.
The conservative temperament leads directly to the acceptance of authority in various institutions: the church, the family, the military, and the business. The military's chain of command, for instance, dictates that a soldier must follow the orders of the superior officer, not merely because the superior officer has a higher rank, but because the superior officer inevitably has access to information that the lower-ranking officer does not have. The same goes for the relationship between the priest and the follower, the father and the child, the CEO and the employee. More specifically, the conservative temperament acknowledges that each institution has its designated role. It recognizes an inherent division of labor that must be respected. Consequently, the role of the academy is to educate; the military defends; the church provides a relationship with God; the business makes money; the family provides love. The public sphere and politics maintain these roles for each institution. The proper conservative politicians is a good caretaker, preserving these institutions so that they can continue doing their job in the future.
These opposing temperaments lead to the political outcomes George Will describes. In the Democratic Primaries, there is either the "Next-In-Line" or the romantic suitor. If a candidate is not one of those types, it is nearly impossible to attract money, media attention, or pledges of support. Thus, even though David Brooks lauds New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the most likable, down-to-earth, experienced, and ideologically qualified candidate in the Democratic race for president, everyone else knows that Richardson is not the next-in-line, and not attractive as a romantic suitor. Instead, Edwards and Clinton are competing for "Next-in-Line" votes, and Edwards and Obama are competing for romantic suitor votes. The only candidate who can fulfill both roles is John Edwards, but his appeal as a romantic, transformative candidate is nil next to Obama's potential. Thus, even though Edwards has obvious charisma, detailed policy proposals regarding education and poverty, a reasonable position on Iraq, and the ability to win enough Southern states to win the electoral college, Edwards is another white male who doesn't present the possibility of voting for change.
Hillary Clinton cannot adopt the romantic suitor role, even if she tries to seem more like a compassionate human being, because so many voters thing of her as the third wheel on the romantic relationship between Bill Clinton and the voters. In other words, Hillary Clinton is the annoying roommate who can't take a hint when you get home with a hot date and start making out on the couch. Even though Clinton has tried to make herself as attractive as possible, there is no getting around the fact that, unlike Bill Clinton, Hillary has no sex appeal. She's more a dominatrix than a potential lover. So, yes, she has the money and the attractive policy positions, but she's not someone anyone could imagine getting to know personally. Without the ability to engage personally and aid in a voter's personal growth, Clinton has only "change" to offer: vote for me because I am a woman. That's not enough for most voters. It's like dating a guy/girl who you know is all wrong you simply because you are on the rebound from a very bad, destructive relationship.
This is why Frank Rich notes Hillary Clinton's only remaining skill: personally destroying other people's character. Clinton knows, as the rest of us do, that the only way we are going to choose a mate that has no sex appeal is if all the other potential mates are worse. If a person has just left an abusive relationship, then yes, a person with no sex appeal begins to look pretty good. Clinton's problem is that, unlike the 1990s when there really were just two options - the Clintons or the radical Republicans - the 2008 election is presenting several great options. Indeed, many people I have spoken to think a great democratic ticket would include Edwards and Obama - the sexiest candidates the Democratic Party has given us since Clinton/Gore, but with the potential to be as nationally transformative as Kennedy/Johnson. Obama seeks to bring back the spirit of John and Robert Kennedy, while Edwards is bringing by the spirit of Lyndon Johnson. In contrast, the Republican party is offering very uninspiring candidates. More important, Bush has created such a bad relationship with the country that the last thing voters want now is another Republican President with the same policies and the same shaky use of the truth.
posted by Marriah @ 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home