Posted on 10/11/2015 10:22:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In America, the saying goes, anyone can grow up to be president. Well, “anyone” did, and now it seems like everyone else wants to try.
One of Barack Obama’s few accomplishments as president is that he has substantially lowered the bar for future aspirants. In retrospect, it is still mind-boggling that citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, presumed leader of the free world, risked its governance on a community organizer of little note, a senator for less than one term with no legislative achievements to speak of.
It should not be a surprise when the country that elects such a neophyte struggles with a tepid economy, a smaller work force, and a global environment in which former U.S. allies look to Russia for leadership and vision.
Another part of Obama’s legacy is the surprising popularity of the three non-politicians in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. It is as if the American people have realized that if “experience” has produced today’s political climate, then we might as well try a different type of inexperience. It can’t be worse, can it?
Probably not, as long as the novice politician retains a sense of humility, a willingness to admit mistakes and learn from them, and an openness to diverse sources of information. Of the three novices in the Republican race, two – Dr. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina – certainly qualify from that perspective. The third – Donald Trump – does not, and awakens ghosts from the distant past.
Almost all presidents have ascended to the office after serving as vice president or governor. Eisenhower was the last president who entered office as a non-politician but he had merely been the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces that won World War II.
Ross Perot was the last non-politician to mount a serious campaign for the presidency, and he probably cost George H.W. Bush reelection in 1992, although analysts spin the numbers both ways. But Trump replicates another individual who sought the presidency as his first elective office, and the similarities are fascinating.
Wendell Willkie was also a former Democrat and a successful businessman (frequently described as a “Wall Street titan”) who wrested the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1940 from several better known competitors, famed politicians all: Senators Robert Taft (Ohio) and Arthur Vandenberg (Michigan), and Thomas E. Dewey, then-district attorney of New York County. (Dewey gained the nominations in 1944 and 1948 while serving as New York governor.)
Willkie had the misfortune of opposing a sitting president – FDR – but the 1940 campaign saw FDR running for an unprecedented third term, with an economy still struggling and Nazi Germany rampaging through Europe. It was a winnable election, but Willkie, while a likable chap, was not an especially enthralling campaigner. He also labored to find the right message that would balance the Republican Party’s isolationist tendencies with its internationalist wing.
Notwithstanding that Willkie and FDR had almost identical views on World War II – full support for the Allies short of entering the war – Willkie was lambasted by FDR’s running mate Henry Wallace as the “Nazis’ choice for president.” Dirty campaigning is not a modern invention. Ironically, Wallace himself was later exposed as a Communist sympathizer.
In the end, Willkie won more votes than any Republican in history to that point but lost to FDR 55 percent to 45 percent.
Willkie did not have strong roots in the Republican Party and that certainly cost him in the general election – a note of caution for Trump. Lacking a political base, he was unable to overcome FDR, the master of appealing to disparate voting blocs.
Yet the differences are also dramatic, starting with the political environment. Politics has always been raucous, but today’s widespread exposure of candidates, the incessant campaign season, and the “president-as-celebrity” that has both dumbed down politics and precipitated Obama’s elections have brought all campaigns into uncharted territory.
I once thought people who want an entertainer or beer buddy or perpetual candidate as president do not vote, but I have been proven wrong. Politicians nowadays have an enormous capacity to bypass traditional media and communicate directly to the people, not only through speeches but also YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other such dominant entities.
Trump’s real fame is not as a businessman – he has had ups and downs like most businessmen – but as an entertainer. Trump’s appeal is that he can speak in bombastic generalities to an audience that, to date, is largely intrigued by it.
Will they vote for him? Who knows, and here’s what has brought me to (almost) the point of revulsion: the campaign is just too long, and as it is too long, it lends itself to producing not the best candidate or potential president but the shallowest and most superficial (not to mention the best financed).
There is something wrong when candidates drop out more than a half-year before anyone actually votes. Yes, it is an endurance test, but why? In theory, a president need not be a great debater; Obama certainly isn’t, and the only times he was actually challenged publicly and in person by anyone (Paul Ryan and Benjamin Netanyahu come to mind), he just became snarky. But it’s not as if the next president will have to debate Putin, Merkel, Assad, or anyone else. That’s not how policy is made.
In theory, too, a president need not be telegenic or even a good speaker. Abraham Lincoln was not especially handsome and he had a tinny voice (although a legendary way with words). These campaigns produce the best candidates but being a good candidate often has little connection with being a good president; the proof of that proposition dwells in the White House today and he still cannot resist making at least five stump speeches weekly even though he can’t run again.
The good candidate and the good president have almost opposite skill sets but today’s campaigns are almost designed to reward the better candidate and penalize the person who would be the good president. So the campaigns must be shortened dramatically – even six months seems too long – and the party conventions (four days of hot air and balloons) should be eliminated.
Here’s the ideal campaign: no candidate can announce, raise funds, or mention the word “president” until June 1 of the election year. Have one national primary – both parties, same day, in July – and one day for the election in November. (Or maybe September 1 and October 1, for the campaign kick-off and the national primary.) The top two candidates are the presidential and vice-presidential nominees (unless the latter declines).
Stop giving tiny states like Iowa and New Hampshire disproportionate influence over the outcomes of presidential elections. Campaigns would not be as expensive but would be more meaningful. And – I beg – eliminate all polling. Taking daily polls is like taking your pulse every ten minutes; it is both obsessive and worthless. It is mind-numbing – as is the daily punditry. No other country in the world has such an extensive election process. Bad process, bad results.
Everyone knows where this is headed already – so why not vote this November? Hillary Clinton is ethically challenged with a cackle that makes one’s skin crawl, and will struggle – thankfully – to overcome Joe Biden. It says something about the state of American Jewry that the first Jewish candidate to be leading the polls in several states this late in a campaign is an intermarried, unaffiliated socialist.
The Democrat candidates are weak, but weak Democrats have won in the past by drawing heavily from the fear chapter in the Democrat handbook. They’ll accuse Republicans – any and all – of being anti-woman, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-elderly, anti-poor, and anti-middle class and promise to hand out more free stuff. I would quite enjoy a Fiorina-Carson ticket being labeled anti-woman and anti-black.
The Republican slate is filled with qualified candidates. None is without flaws, but then, who is anywhere in life? Whom do the Democrats fear most? Judging by the level of attacks, the answers in no particular order would be Christie (for his campaigning skills, his ability to get things done with a hostile legislature, and his knack for communicating his positions in a way voters understand); Rubio (bright, young, dynamic Hispanic with a keen grasp of the issues – and young almost always beats old in presidential elections); Kasich (for his record of achievement as a congressman and as a governor of a critical swing state); and, somewhat less, Jeb Bush (who is suffering from Bush fatigue but whose war chest will not allow the Democrats to steamroll him at any time during the campaign).
Democrats should fear Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina and even Donald Trump – the first two because they cut into indispensable Democrat blocs and the latter because, well, he is unpredictable and all the rules of politics have changed in the last decade.
Trump will most likely flame out shortly after the voting starts. Democrats may wish for Ted Cruz because he is very conservative; be careful what you wish for, as there is no brighter, more articulate candidate than the Texas senator. Win or lose, he will be around for a long time. Mike Huckabee is a sage and folksy presence, a good combination. Almost all the candidates project what is most needed in a president: firm, sensible convictions grounded in reality and a reasonable way of implementing them.
The shame is that there are so many quality people – Graham and Jindal, to name two others – running for president that it is impossible for all of them to really get a fair hearing by the voters.
Down the road, we can evaluate each candidate’s approach and feelings toward Israel, if only to irritate Ann Coulter. For now, the race is on – even if it is just about a year too early.
*******
About the Author: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun of Teaneck, New Jersey, and author, most recently, of “Tzadka Mimeni: The Jewish Ethic of Personal Responsibility” (Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem, 2014). His writings and lectures can be found at www.Rabbipruzansky.com.
“The [Peter] principle states that a person rises only as high as permitted by his own incompetence.”
I’m sorry Vision, I don’t think you have that exactly right. I actually read that book years ago and I think what it says is that a person rises UNTIL he/she reaches his/her level of incompetence. In other words, in a hierarchy every one is doomed to become incompetent.
Obama is certainly incompetent as president, but whether or not he proves the principle I don’t know. I’m perfectly willing to believe the man was incompetent at all levels.
Nail on the head bump.
It’s okay, no need to apologize because it was a good catch.
It looks like what I described was not the peter principle itself, but the basis for the principle, namely, that a person’s incompetence limits how high he should rise.
barack has proven this part to be wrong because he didn’t deserve either a first much less a second term in the white house.
He’s just a post turtle.
Exactly.
Question: So why is this kind of tripe constantly dragged over to FR for consumption?
Answer: Freepers running pissing contests to see which one can out-post the other. Never considering how their actions have displayed an appalling inability to recognize the difference between yellow journalism and prescient reporting. Thus having a decidedly negative and damping effect upon the level of discourse here at FR.
I wish this brilliant political insight were shared with us at the beginning of the article rather than at the end. I wouldn't have had to read any further then. There's a few more minutes of my life completely wasted.
Disagree with Rabbi Pruzansky’s assertion the Republican slate is qualified.
The majority couldn’t manage a profitable lemonade stand.
” In retrospect, it is still mind-boggling that citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, presumed leader of the free world, risked its governance on a community organizer of little note, a senator for less than one term with no legislative achievements to speak of.”
Not so mind-boggling when you consider the increasing number of low education voters and massive voter fraud.
exactly .... the end of the essay is the meat;
Everyone knows where this is headed already – so why not vote this November? Hillary Clinton is ethically challenged with a cackle that makes one’s skin crawl, and will struggle – thankfully – to overcome Joe Biden. It says something about the state of American Jewry that the first Jewish candidate to be leading the polls in several states this late in a campaign is an intermarried, unaffiliated socialist.
The Democrat candidates are weak, but weak Democrats have won in the past by drawing heavily from the fear chapter in the Democrat handbook. They’ll accuse Republicans – any and all – of being anti-woman, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-elderly, anti-poor, and anti-middle class and promise to hand out more free stuff. I would quite enjoy a Fiorina-Carson ticket being labeled anti-woman and anti-black.
The Republican slate is filled with qualified candidates. None is without flaws, but then, who is anywhere in life? Whom do the Democrats fear most? Judging by the level of attacks, the answers in no particular order would be Christie (for his campaigning skills, his ability to get things done with a hostile legislature, and his knack for communicating his positions in a way voters understand); Rubio (bright, young, dynamic Hispanic with a keen grasp of the issues – and young almost always beats old in presidential elections); Kasich (for his record of achievement as a congressman and as a governor of a critical swing state); and, somewhat less, Jeb Bush (who is suffering from Bush fatigue but whose war chest will not allow the Democrats to steamroll him at any time during the campaign).
Democrats should fear Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina and even Donald Trump – the first two because they cut into indispensable Democrat blocs and the latter because, well, he is unpredictable and all the rules of politics have changed in the last decade.
Trump will most likely flame out shortly after the voting starts. Democrats may wish for Ted Cruz because he is very conservative; be careful what you wish for, as there is no brighter, more articulate candidate than the Texas senator. Win or lose, he will be around for a long time. Mike Huckabee is a sage and folksy presence, a good combination. Almost all the candidates project what is most needed in a president: firm, sensible convictions grounded in reality and a reasonable way of implementing them.
The shame is that there are so many quality people – Graham and Jindal, to name two others – running for president that it is impossible for all of them to really get a fair hearing by the voters.
Down the road, we can evaluate each candidate’s approach and feelings toward Israel, if only to irritate Ann Coulter. For now, the race is on – even if it is just about a year too early.
*******
About the Author: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun of Teaneck, New Jersey, and author, most recently, of “Tzadka Mimeni: The Jewish Ethic of Personal Responsibility” (Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem, 2014). His writings and lectures can be found at www.Rabbipruzansky.com.
I think it would be worthy of thought if we were still in the traditional political calculus of predictable voter patterns. My point is that we are NOT. Media, political pundits, traditionalists in the sense of the old campaigning meme, and conventional powers that be were all wrong. Their logic is wrong because the field on which they are playing has been paved over.
They don’t understand his rise and apparent sustainment because they refuse to believe the animus and ire they and their political cronies have instilled in a very large portion of our citizens. Their only game now is “Trump will eventually fall..”, “Rubio will rise” (even if they have to lie about or beat the poll data until it surrenders the truth they want to hear and can publicize), and Jeb/Christie/Kasich are still blah, blah, blah. Horse pucky.
The weather pattern(s) for my section of the country (upper right quadrant) no longer make much sense to this 68 yr old ...
And as a relative newcomer to politics (1998 or so) ... I am openly amazed (and pleased) with the public turnout in political interest ... albeit, a new experience for many .... the citizen politician
A handle I accepted when I became a school board member .... citizen politician.
I got interested in politics when I mustered out in 1976 and suffered through Jimmy Carter. I welcome the “citizen politician” also. However, the problem is that so many of them become accomplished politicians far more interested in embedding themselves further into the swamp of DC and all it surveys than doing what they promised.
My own newcomer Republican Congressman just 4 years ago promised the world. A former professional - no connection to politics, ready to take on the world for me and the rest of his constituency...
The realization came for me when HE voted with Congressmen Lewis and Johnson (Ds) on the Ryan Capitulation Budget bill. He’s just another liar and that only took two years.
As far as I’m concerned, the Republican elitist leadership and that which they control cannot be ‘fixed’. It has to be soundly defeated and decimated throughout. And, that will not happen if we as a people follow THEIR traditional rules of campaigning, political thinking or believe their enablers.
Two words: Sarah Palin.
If Trump gets the nomination, and he thinks either Carson or Fiorina would be the best fit for VP, he should make the choice he thinks best.
But let no one here kid him/herself, the "identity" of our candidates is of no account. A woman politician is only lauded as a woman if she's liberal; a black politician is only lauded as a black if s/he's liberal; an Hispanic politician is only lauded as an Hispanic if s/he's liberal.
Moreover, liberals can lie about their identities and be accepted because of the fake identities (Warren, Dolezal: imagine the reaction to Sarah Palin attempting to convince people she had an Inuit ancestor).
O was packaged and sold like corn flakes. Remember Anita Dunn? His PR person said they never answered media questions....only put out what THEY wanted people to know about him.
Hillary and Bill had pics of Obama dressed as a Muslim...
Uncle Teddy went ballistic... ordered them not to use the Muslim pics. .
Teddy and Caroline later endorsed the befuddled Obama---
showing what a great country we are by endorsing a black man.
In other words he won in something of the same way as Nixon in 1968 (people forget that Wallace was a dyed in the wool southern democrat and that it's entirely possible the majority of the fellow Yellow Dogs who voted for him might have held their noses and gone for Humphrey) and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 when Perot pursued his personal vendetta against the Bush clan. In a straight up contest he almost certainly would never have been elected the first time.
By the time 1864 rolled around the majority northern voters, and especially serving Union troops, were in no mood to compromise with the Confederacy for a quick peace and he was quite unexpectedly reelected. But his looks, despite the widespread caricatures of him as an ape, had little to do with it. Back then voters (men only) could actually read a candidate's words in print, and barring their susceptibility to persuasion via cash or whiskey or both, would base their vote on more substantial grounds than a pretty face.
It's no coincidence that everything changed in 1960 with television and "Mad Men" advertising electing the handsome and secretly diseased priapic son of a rich pro-Nazi philandering bootlegging kingpin named Kennedy.
It’s the usual anti Trump crap gussied up to look more intellectual.
Well, I still won’t say he’s homely, but of course it is true that very, very, very few people would ever have heard any candidates voice in those days, maybe not even seen an image of them, not at least until they became President.
And yes, TV has certainly changed that. Do we think any president elected since, say Nixon was less than OK looking?
That’s why I wonder about Trump’s appeal, I get it that he’s got real pizzazz but to me at least he’s pretty goofy looking.
Now, Christie is fat, and not at all tall (I was shocked by how truly round he was when I saw him in real life) but he has a handsome face. The one I see being truly hampered by less that good looks is Jindal. Although his wife is quite lovely judging from the one picture I’ve seen of her.
Like that wacky lefty, Dennis Kucinich (sp?), he’s practically a goblin and yet his wife is a stunner. Another big lefty herself and I think she maybe a Brit.
Oh, and if Ben Carson ends up getting the nom we are going to have to get Mrs. C. fashion help STAT.
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.