What is Important in a President

A friend shared this video with me and asked my opinion of it.  The Firewall - The Enigma.  Here is my response to her.


"I've not read Dreams of My Father but there seems to be a fair amount of controversy with regards as to the original author, which if true would mean it is at least part fiction spun to sell a product.  So I would have to take with some reservation the excerpts Bill Whittle pulls from the book, the assumptions he makes with regard to motivation and the supplemental information he provides about the communist influence from school and church that may have shaped his Mothers life and perhaps his Grandmother.  It is a compelling story regarding the socialist and communist influences that perhaps shaped his life and which clearly shape his politics today.  You can see in his actions the belief in state ownership of the individual, and control of the market place.  In his public policy you can see the desire to enforce a socialist system at the cost of our economy, and when given any choice the need to interject an ever larger government presence.  When the Congress and the Executive were under a single party control that was the major push.  You can know all this by observing his action today, and you could have known that if the last election had been about issues and not personality.

One of the opening statements made by Bill Whittle was that to know what someone will do you had to delve into his upbringing and background.  I do take some issue with that.  It is only now, in the age of instant communication and the internet that all the gory details of the candidate become "critical" to the opinions of the voters.  The problem with today's primary process is we allow the personal attacks and debate about character to submarine the discussion of real and important issues.  Talking about an opponents infidelity is so much easier than being forced to lay out how to tackle the national debt.  How much did the nation know about Thomas Jefferson when they elected him the 3rd President?  Surely the knowledge of his alleged affair with Sally Hemings was never put on the record.  How about when U.S. Grant ran, did the press hammer him for his drinking?  While in hind sight that may have been a good thing I don't think it would have made a difference to the election.  I was raised in a small town in the Hudson Valley, called Hyde Park, so lets talk about my home town hero Franklin D. Roosevelt... so much could have been brought out but never was.  During his Presidency he implemented more socialist reform than anyone and the nation loved him for it.  The press never pointed out he was incapable of walking more than a few steps or he was having a long term affair with his secretary, although both facts were widely known to the press.  I doubt it was widely reported he was  controlled by his Mother and was considered a "Momma's boy."  Would it have mattered in his elections?  Would the nation have been better off if we had known? What the nation did understand in 1932 was he wasn't a Republican (blamed for the stock market crash), and in 36 he was putting people to work, and in 40 he was putting many more to work as we built up our wartime industries.

In our history the real issues are usually glossed over because they are often too abstract and complex to put into campaign speak or sound bites.  What is understood by the politicians in the Presidential election is a large portion of the country always votes Democratic or Republican and if you are to win you need to persuade that small percentage of uncommitted to side with you.  I think that is why the Democrats choose Obama, he brought out in hugh numbers the black communities that are usually apathetic non-voters.  I can assure you the turn out here in the South was huge compared to just four years earlier."



So we now come to the question on what is important in a President?  Is moral character critical, how about patriotism, or a strong religious foundation?  I think each of these qualities bring both value and risk, for each is hard to define in a universal sense for all the nation.  


When John F. Kennedy was running for president the Nixon campaign played against protestant fears he would be subject to Vatican influence.  In todays world this is hard to imagine, but in 1959 it was a very real fear that Kennedy had to address head on.


Clearly our President should be a patriot, but how do you quantify that?  If he is opposed to immigration is he a patriot? What if he is in favor of states rights?  Does that make him unpatriotic?  If he thinks big government is the cure for all that is wrong is he by default unpatriotic?  How about baseball?  If he can't name all the teams in the American League should he be declared a Canadian?  We have fundament extremists who wrap themselves in the cloak of patriotism, if the President were to interfere with their activities would he be unpatriotic?


The same things can be said about moral character.  Each of us bring a slightly different sense of what that term means and no one can live up to everyone's definition.  Some of our better Presidents were philanderers.  Andrew Jackson married Rachel Donelson Robards while she was still married to Lewis Robards.  While there may be some debate over his or her knowledge of the situation he did then enter into a number of duels to defend her honor.


So you ask what do I think is important?  I think the President needs to have the following qualities.  A strong sense of self, a vision he or she can articulate, the courage to make a decision and stand behind it, the ability to ignore the crowd, the humility to admit when he/she has made a mistake, and finally a willingness to compromise for the greater good.  Several of these characteristics are linked and I will explain why I think them important together.


As the President, he/she must govern for the nation, not the party they belong to.  Therefore there will be times the President must be prepared to go against his party for a common good.  This requires a very strong sense of personal worth and confidence, courage to make decisions and face the consequences and a willingness to compromise.  We see very little of this in the current President, who is in a non-stop campaign mode.  In the 1960's, we can look to Lyndon Johnson and see his ability to work with Republicans for the social legislation as an example.  No one questioned his Democratic credentials so when he needed to bend a little to achieve the goals it was possible.  As much as we may dislike Richard Nixon for his failures, these same strengths played a part of his ability to open up Communist China.


The President sets the tone for the country and, when successful, the goals we collectively strive for.  Thomas Jefferson had the courage to go against his previous beliefs on the role of government, when he saw an opportunity to purchase Louisiana from the French.  In one move, without seeking Congressional approval beforehand he doubled the size of the United States and opened the great westward expansion that dominated the 19th Century.  To undertake such an endeavor he had a vision far beyond the day to day management a weak federal government linking 13 collective states.


John Kennedy is known best for his ability to set those visions into the American psyche.  We will never know if we would have reached the Moon in the 60's if he had lived, but clearly we did reach it because of his vision and Johnson's willingness to push it forward.


I would also use Kennedy to illustrate a man with the strength to admit he had made a mistake and stand up to it.  Shortly after he assumed the Presidency he authorized the invasion of Cuba with a group of expatriates trained by the CIA.  He did not have the will to commit the necessary US forces to insure their success and the invasion failed on the beach.  Hundreds were killed, captured or wounded.  Although the effort began well before he came to office it was on his authorization it executed.  I don't recall him blaming Eisenhower for the failure.


Perhaps he had the foresight to see the quagmire Vietnam would become when he established the US Army's Special Forces (Green Berets) to attempt to keep our involvement in the Communist insurgency small, but we will never know for sure.


Having a vision and not being able to articulate it is almost like not having a vision.  We need only to look to the 41st President to see how his inability to clearly communicate the grand ideas into a vision caused him problems.  After the first world war, Woodrow Wilson helped create the League of Nations, but was unable to persuade Americans that we must be a part of it.  That failure doomed the League to become the ineffective agent it was, while it allowed German expansion in Europe.


Presidents will not always make popular decisions but they must be able to make them and stand behind them in the face of rising controversy.  Reagan made the decision to win the cold war.  Something all his predecessors since Truman had either attempted or felt impossible to accomplish.  In his eight years as President he built an Arm's race that eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Without firing a shot he won a war we had been engaged in since 1949.  His decision unified Germany, freed the nations of the Warsaw Pact, and reduced the threat of nuclear war to a level last seen in the early 1950s.


This event gave Bush the elder the ability to maneuver when Iraq invaded Kuwait.  Without it, we would have risked war with Russia if we chose to engage directly, or we would have had to fight through surrogates.


So, with all that said what do I see in our President?  I see a man who blames others, who when he makes a choice will change it if he feels the winds of opinion pushing against him. I see someone who even when attempting to compromise cannot resist slamming the other side, a man nether gracious in victory or defeat.  I see a gifted speaker, when the teleprompter is working, but at other times is no different then his predecessor.  I don't see a man guiding this nation for the common good.