The Cincinnatus Trap: Conservatism does not need an indifferent leader

Conservatives and libertarians have a certain romantic fascination with Cincinnatus, by reputation if not by name. Cincinnatus was a Roman farmer who reluctantly left his fields to take charge of the Republic during a moment of crisis, served wisely and selflessly for precisely as long as he was needed, and trudged quietly back to his farm when Rome was safe once again. There’s a statue in his namesake city of Cincinnati that shows him surrendering the symbols of power with one hand, while he limbers up his trusty plow with the other.

That’s the mythological ideal of a limited-government president, isn’t it? He, or she, would be a successful businessperson of great intelligence and humility, modestly accepting the nomination of the Republican Party without any unseemly hardball campaigning. Our citizen-candidate would catch an early morning flight out of Galt’s Gulch and arrive in Washington just in time for the inauguration, and serve a term of courageous and principled reform. With those years of noble service complete, our hero would ride off into the sunset, leaving behind nothing but a note requesting that all funds collected for a presidential library should be donated to cancer research instead.

This ideal is a dead end, an intellectual bear trap that ultimately serves the purposes of the Left. Embracing it will deny us the tough and energetic leadership we need for real reform to succeed in Washington.

I found myself thinking of the Cincinnatus Trap as I read an opinion piece from former Republican senator John Sununu in the Boston Globe on Monday. Sununu criticizes prospective GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sarah Palin for being “captivated by the idea of being President,” which makes them “exactly the type of political figure our country’s founders were worried about.”

Sununu goes on to recount the Founders’ abiding suspicion of populism, reminding us how they were “troubled – some might say preoccupied – with the potential dangers of ambition, factions, and concentrated power.” Although he assures us he doesn’t “view Palin or Trump as a threat to the republic,” he feels “ill at ease with officeholders or candidates who are too enamored with the idea of holding a particular office.”

Here’s the problem: no one will win a modern Presidential race unless they want the Oval Office like Gollum wants the One Ring. The 2012 race will be an incredible test of endurance and character. No matter how affable and inoffensive they might seem today, any candidate who runs against Barack Obama will be mercilessly savaged. The media will sit up nights preparing ambush interviews, and magnify the smallest gaffe into evidence of greed, stupidity, or psychosis. Every moment of the candidate’s history will be scrutinized, every element of their personal lives will be weaponized, and every member of their families will be a target.

In 2008, swarms of reporters went crawling through dumpsters in Alaska, while aliens who chose to make first contact by landing a saucer in Chicago would have found not a single reporter to cover the event. It’s going to be like that again in 2012, but even more so. The candidate will spend the first round of media appearances appealing a summary conviction of racism, hypocrisy, and slavish obedience to the Evil Rich.

No humble Cincinnatus is going to be able to weather that kind of storm, or generate the non-stop energy and flawless attention to detail required of today’s high-profile candidates. Even if public disgust with Obama is so powerful that a modest candidate could waltz into the Oval Office, they wouldn’t be able to fight the tough battles that lie ahead. The man or woman who answers America’s call in this desperate hour will be at war with the system itself. A terrible network of gears, covered with decades of rusted ideology, waits to devour them.

Turning up our noses at Republicans who display a hearty appetite for the White House grants a tremendous advantage to the Democrats, who can disguise the ambition of their candidates behind a veil of sanctimony. People like Barack Obama are never portrayed as being hungry for power. Instead, they care so damn much for “working Americans” and the downtrodden that their full-contact, no-holds-barred battle for power is transformed into a holy crusade. They enjoy a presumption of selfless nobility that will never be extended to any Republican… even one who shows up in Washington lugging a bag lunch and a dirty plow.

Many words will be used to describe the man or woman who unseats Barack Obama in 2012. “Reluctant” will not be one of them.

Although he assures us he doesn’t “view Palin or Trump as a threat to the republic,” he feels “ill at ease with officeholders or candidates who are too enamored with the idea of holding a particular office.”

Yet in the same column this hypocrtical asshat goes on to endorse Romney, among others.

(Try this again, with clarity!)

Although he (John Sununu) assures us he doesn’t “view Palin or Trump as a threat to the republic,” he feels “ill at ease with officeholders or candidates who are too enamored with the idea of holding a particular office.”

Yet in that same column the hypocrtical asswipe Sununu goes on to endorse Romney, among others.
Romney!

Yeah, good points. But no one yet knows the true plans or motives of any of the potential candidates. I don't see Palin as a "reluctant" candidate at all. She has said she will wait to see if a conservative candidate enters the race; if none do, or if none get traction, I expect to see her "in it to win it". She has written, "If you are not the lead dog, the view never changes", meaning no more VP runs for her.

I suspect this election to be less like "politics as usual", and more like the retaking of Fortress Europe.

Remembering that we are fighting not only against Obama but his entire well payed propaganda machine to include most of the Media is a good point.

To abandon the ideals of good leadership rather then argue fervently for them seems almost to miss the point of the election simply to win.

Cincinnatus however is a poor example in that he was given dictatorial power, not limited power. The fact that he allegedly had fair judgement in the laying down of that power when the time came is his only political virtue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

Good points.

Where? Certainly not here:
Sununu goes on to recount the Founders’ abiding suspicion of populism, reminding us how they were “troubled – some might say preoccupied – with the potential dangers of ambition, factions, and concentrated power.” Although he assures us he doesn’t “view Palin or Trump as a threat to the republic,” he feels “ill at ease with officeholders or candidates who are too enamored with the idea of holding a particular office.”
Part of the knock on Palin is that she didn't cling to the office of Governor of Alaska beyond the point where, circumstances having changed, she could no longer be effective in it.

Granted that she used that maneuver to "reload,' making herself more available the the nation as a whole - but still . . . .
Now a Democrat who wins the nomination will resemble Gollum.

Sarah Palin is the last person I see as being captivated by the idea of being president. I think she’s captivated by the idea of seeing this country put on the right path, but she seems perfectly happy to play whatever large or small part she can and return to Alaska.

Okay, I have one more point.

Sarah Palin seems to have a "fire in the belly" about the possibility of being president, but that's her personality. She seems genuinely passionate about everything she does. One of the reasons that some people may hate her is that she just seems twice as alive as they are. If she runs, she'll be passionate about running. If she finishes her time in government and goes back to the fishing boat, she'll go passionately back to the fishing boat.

Interesting piece. The myth of Cincinnatus is only appealing on the face of it. As one poster pointed out, Cincinnatus was given dictatorial powers. That is always fatal to a republic. Our Founders genius was to know human nature, that it is corrupt, not corruptible, but corrupt. The Founders knew that we are sinners all. And the Republic they forged has hitherto withstood the corrupt ambitions of would-be lords of the earth for these last 2 and a quarter or so centuries. But they have been working steadily, in earnest since at least Wilson, to undermine it.

And it is telling that what the Founders placed their hopes in was an active and informed citizenry, free to speak and armed, and above all who feared the Lord God. A citizenry that looked out for their own self interest against any who would be a tyrant. Unfortunately as we all have lamented, public education has been very successful in creating an indolent and ignorant population that may well lose its status as citizens of a republic.

How the Republic has been turned topsy-turvy when so called public servants lord it over citizens rather than fill their public duties with a decent trembling and shame that they serve a great republic and its citizens.

A decade ago, a psychiatrist friend of mine pointed out that with the way campaigns go, one would have to have to be a narcisisst to run for the position--without that, it would be impossible to endure.

(Whether or not that's true, my layman's opinion is that the current occupant of the Oval Office is an extreme example.)

John Sununu is a postal child for hypocrisy. He is super power hungry, incredibly arrogant, and has an ego bigger than the state of New Hampshire.

For him to suggest Palin or Trump are “too captivated” by the idea of being president, how does he describe himself?

The author is correct, somebody has to be driven to seek the presidency.

The issue, is what drives them? In Palin’s case, I think it is because she wants to save the Republic. In Trump’s case, I think its because he is self-important and wants the power his money has never given him.

One thing the author nailed was the brutal savaging that awaits any Republican (or Tea Partier ... I count them as a viable party) who announces for office. The attacks will be vicious and unending, with more than a few blatant falsehoods thrown in just to keep the fires burning.

And that is unfortunate, because a lot of potentially terrific statesmen are too terrified to go near the political arena. Nobody in their right mind wants their family humiliated.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin is the only person I’ve seen who has survived this hideous baptism of fire and is still standing. She has withstood their best savagery and that gives her a measure of immunity when she seeks higher office, whatever her motivation. Go Sarah!

Here’s the problem: no one will win a modern Presidential race unless they want the Oval Office like Gollum wants the One Ring.

Well, we learned that in 2008 with Fred Thompson. But in turn, we have to ask - why does a candidate want so badly to be president?

In Mitt's case, it's about his ego. I know ego has to be part of the equation, but it cannot be the primary motivation if we are going to get a candidate worth supporting.

Sununu's piece was very poorly thought out. The Founders certainly would have been a bit wary of a millionaire-celebrity, like Trump, who tried for the White House, but Trump and Palin are very different cases.

This "Cincinatus Trap" article is very good. I think of the support that a lot of people gave Bush because unlike Clinton, he wasn't trying to be president his whole life long.

That may have been a point in his favor, but his reticence about seeking office translated into an unwillingness to take on some important political battles -- a feeling that he could sidestep some important issues -- and that didn't have good results.

George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson were “millionaires” by the standards of the 18th Century.

But not reality TV stars ... Would the Founding Fathers be appalled by Trump if they could meet him? Or would they be like him if they lived today?

Those are questions for philosophers more than anyone else, questions that can't be answered with any certainty, but the Founders had been involved in all the agitation, revolution, war, diplomacy, constitution-writing, and nation-building of their era. They'd probably want the President to be somebody who'd had serious experience of both politics and administration. By that standard they wouldn't want Trump -- or Obama.

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.