Posted on 09/01/2014 10:21:42 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Like it or not, this truism is very true: Being president in the modern era requires a certain "It Factor."
You don't need star power to make it to the U.S. Senate, or to rise in its leadership. (Looking at you, Senators Reid and McConnell.) You don't need an almost celebrity-like sexiness to succeed in the House. (Who among us would describe Steny Hoyer or Steve Scalise in such terms?) But when we're talking about the presidency, it's not enough these days to be a highly intelligent lawmaker with a history of policy expertise and success. You've got to have charisma. You've got to have charm. You've got to have, well, It.
Now, the fact that we call It "It" implies that this certain something is a little squishy and difficult to define. You just know It when you see It. Still, there are some obvious components. Good looks certainly help. So does confidence. Gravitas, swagger both help you have It. And it's often very important to be cool whatever that is. Competence and the notion that you're a winner who can get things done? Now that's It.
JFK had It. Reagan had It. Clinton had It. So did George W. Bush. And Obama well, let's just say he was once heralded as "the biggest celebrity in the world."
Now of course, some modern presidents lacked this quality, most notably Richard Nixon. You could say the same of George H.W. Bush though he certainly had It more than his Democratic opponent, noted tank operator Michael Dukakis.
But let's accept for a moment that for better or worse, our celebrity-obsessed, always-on, evermore-demanding, digitally connected culture now requires our president to have It. There are obvious drawbacks to this the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful army needs restraint and ideological clarity more than a high Q rating. But it's not all bad. Charisma and confidence and likability matter. After all, the job is at least in part about persuading the public to follow you. Winston Churchill didn't have movie star looks, but he had It. And that charisma and panache helped him pull Great Britain through the darkest days of World War II.
Whether or not the political It Factor is a positive phenomenon for humanity, it certainly seems to be an observable one. As such, it's altogether reasonable for political analysts and commentators to factor this "It Factor" into their electoral predictions.
But in a world where statistical analysis is increasingly utilized and fetishized, the notion that you can make predictions based on intangible qualities makes you seem sort of like the old fuddy-duddy scouts in Moneyball, who would base a player's potential on ungraspable and unquantifiable qualities like "heart."
Whether it's sports or politics, intangibles aren't enough on their own. They are necessary but not sufficient. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain are all incredibly talented they all had It but all lacked some basic policy fundamentals, which prevented them from ever being true presidential contenders.
Still, the It Factor is so important that a candidate with a great resume won't be able to overcome an insufficiency of It. Think Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels.
So who has It in 2016? Chris Christie has It. So do Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (though Rubio's confidence seems shaken by his immigration failure).
Rick Perry kind of has It at least in the swagger and likability department. But his lack of gravitas, composure, and policy competence was a real problem in 2012.
Mike Pence and Rand Paul? They're very solid candidates. But neither ooze It.
And then there's Bobby Jindal perhaps the would-be GOP candidate with the best resume and Scott Walker. Neither has anything close to It.
On the Democratic side, I must concede that the all-but-certain nominee, Hillary Clinton, has It. Now, she doesn't have It the way her husband does but really, who does?
Think of the last several presidential elections Obama over Romney, Obama over McCain, Bush over Kerry, Bush over Gore, Clinton over Dole, Clinton over Bush, Bush over Dukakis, and so on. The candidate who has more of It always wins. So my fellow conservatives, I urge you: We've gotta find a candidate who has It. Because we'll need It in 2016.
I’ve never understood the group worship for Obama. He has got no charisma. People were raving about his speeches. I listened to some of his speeches, and there was no substance...and the “whistle” in his voice is VERY annoying. He can’t even speak coherently without a TelePrompTer.
I never saw the “magic” that so many kool aid drinking liberals saw.
Who would have guessed that Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie were loaded with charisma? A dullard corruptocrat and a fat man. Not my world.
They better not be referring to Obama
“Politics is show-business for ugly people.” —Paul Forehead Begala
In 2009, the NYT's Bob Herbert described an "it" quality for the newly-elected President:
"He's smart, deft, elegant. . . ."
But, we might have asked, does he hold fast to the principles of liberty stated so "elegant(ly)" by the Author of our Declaration of Independence and President of the U. S., Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 Inaugural Address--wherein Jefferson laid out what might be considered to be "qualifications" for the American presidency:
(Excerpt, "Our Ageless Constitution," p. xiv, reformatted)
"Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation;- entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them;
= enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man;
- acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter
with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?
- Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
- This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you,
- it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.
- Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;
- peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;
- the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies;
- the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;
- a jealous care of the right of election by the peoplea mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;
- absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
- a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them;
- the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;
- economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened;
- the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith;
- encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;
- the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason;
- freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
Now, does Herbert's standard of "smart, deft, and elegant" qualify one--anyone-- to lead us to "retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety"?
He lumps a Governor that was the veep on the GOP ticket with Herman Cain?
Unfortunately her squeakiness negated her itness.
“Squeakiness?”
LOL. Old Forehead.
Have not seen much of Forehead lately.
Really? Then why, both times he was elected, did the majority of voters choose somebody else at the ballot box?
I know. It's like Sydney Pollock worship. WTF?
However, I now understand that Obama worshippers are few and far between in actual numbers on the ground in real, legit American voters.
It's the MSM "group" that worships Obama, and the MSM is America's self-portrait in a funhouse mirror. Outside the MSM funhouse the "Obama worshippers" are way outnumbered.
Hillary can maintain it for about a few minutes, then her underlying and extensive nonitness shows through.
Nor any world except the MSM punditry's. The MSM is just the MSM. Most American have contempt for the biased MSM because they are intelligent enough to know propaganda when they see it. The majority of MSM practitioners embrace leftism, but the majority of Americans hold the MSM in contempt.
Hillary does not have It.
That’s why she blows it every time she gets public attention. People don’t really like her.
Nixon had zero “it.” GHWB had next to none, being merely next in line. Today’s electoral majority is more interested in what the candidate promises to give them that in what he/she will do for liberty.
Me either. The one and only time I tried to listen to him I looked at hubby and said switch the channel. I can’t stand his sing songy preacher cadence.
Dislike of her voice from many quarters...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.