Even still, citizens are genuinely concerned that their president look the part of a president and carry themselves in a way that makes us proud.
So what exactly is meant when someone says a candidate looks or is "presidential"? And why should we care? This is the subject I'm going to explore and discuss in this vanity.
JFK, Jackie and the Royalty of Camelot
Well, to begin, I think our current notion of a "presidential" style was strongly influenced by JFK in the 1960s. It was Kennedy and his wife Jackie who first brought a royalty-like style to the White House and presidency. JFK's predecessors, Eisenhower and Truman, were rather plain guys by comparison. And so the press glorified the JFK style to the point where the Kennedy era was given the name: Camelot.
Now presidents like the Bushes, Carter and Nixon -- by and large -- did not project this Camelot presidential image. But I think Reagan, Obama, and candidate Romney have. To me the Camelot image projects a couple things: 1) a detached and diplomatic manner; and 2) lofty, well-rehearsed speeches delivered with the head held high. The clothes reinforce the Camelot image too: Obama's perfectly creased pants and Romney's prep-school blazers with that gleam in the eye.
Is There Substance Behind the Presidential Style?
Now the trouble with Camelot is that a candidate or president can measure up on the style side, but lack the substance.
Obama is a certainly a creature of style. He's a celebrity and community organizer raised the level of his incompetence. Most of us have figured out that Obama is not a man of strengthen in character or accomplishments. He's really a puppet of the invisible donors and globalists who support him.
And what does he do out on the campaign trail? He jumps onto the podium with his sunglasses on as if to say, "Look at me. I'm Mr. Cool. I'm President of the United States." Not a lot of humility in this man.
But Obama does know Camelot. He does know the look of being presidential. But since he's not a true leader, Putin and Iran can run circles around him. On the airport runway in Shanghai a couple weeks ago, the Chinese didn't even bother to roll out a stairway for Obama to get off the plane. On the same trip to Asia, the president of the Philippines called Obama's mother a whore. And what did Obama do? He just shrugged it all off.
Mitt Romney, too, wins on style, but loses on character. Remember the last debate in 2012 when Romney caved over Benghazi and more or less quit the last month of his campaign? Romney looks the part, but he's really only a moderately successful venture capitalist and lacks the backbone to push a true conservative agenda. He's too busy pleasing his globalist donors.
But Romney's mastery of the Camelot speaking style is probably why the GOPe bigwigs and donors selected him to take potshots at Trump before the Utah primary. Trouble is: the elite stylist Romney lacked the solid virtues. That's why your average Republican instantly recognized Romney's attacks as pitiful and dishonest — even if he did deliver them like JFK.
The Presidential Substance of George Washington and Reagan
George Washington, of course, is legendary for his leadership and presidential qualities. Ralph Waldo Emerson studied Washington and painted one of the most compelling images of our first President:
- We cannot find the smallest part of the personal weight of Washington, in the narrative of his exploits. The largest part of his power was latent. This is that which we call Character...
What others effect by talent or by eloquence, this man accomplishes by some magnetism. "Half his strength he put not forth." His victories are by demonstration of superiority, and not by crossing of bayonets. He conquers, because his arrival alters the face of affairs.
- Ralph W. Emerson, Character from Essays: Second Series (1844)
Reagan had a similar magnetism. And his gravity came both from his leadership style and his gravity as a man. Reagan had a long an accomplished career as a Hollywood actor, radio sportscaster, and California governor. And the toughness of his character could be easily seen during his "I paid for this microphone!" campaign.
And yet, Reagan could fit the Camelot presidential style too. His oratory at critical moments was memorable such as his poetry after the Challenger space shuttle disaster:
- We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and "slipped the surly bonds of earth" to "touch the face of God."
How Trump is Changing our Notion of Presidential Style
Now Reagan's Camelot style worked for him, but that doesn't mean we should expect Trump to follow that same model.
Trump's personal experience grew out of the business world, so his style is bound to be quite different from someone who's spent most of their adult life in politics.
Perhaps Trump's son Eric said it best when he said his Dad is kind of billionaire blue collar guy.
p>Sure, Trump's definitely rough around the edges and he tells us how Clinton got "schlonged" by Obama in 2008. But to Trump supporters, that kind of language doesn't turn us off: it telegraphs Trump's humanity and honesty!
When Trump steps into one his rallies, he electrifies the room. He proves he's one of us! So Trump very much has his own populist style and will never fit into the Camelot cookie cutter. Besides, a president doesn't need to be "presidential" all the time.
And yet, when it's time to get more serious, Trump's delivery of major speeches on immigration, the economy, and foreign policy proves he can communicate in a very "presidential" when the occasion calls for it.
