Syndication
What Makes a President?
The Hour
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Leonard Fein
More in Forward ForumLet us speak of political virtues.
There’s oratorical skill, long since recognized as a major asset, obviously a Barack Obama strength. Here’s how Aristotle frames the matter in his “Rhetoric” (Book One, Chapter Two): “Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker (ethos); the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind (pathos); the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself (logos).” Obama scores high on ethos and pathos, though he remains somewhat light on logos.
The moving, even transcendent, phrase or slogan can galvanize a stadium-size audience, now and then even an entire nation. Such moments are rare, therefore memorable. None who heard it, for example, will ever forget the power of Lyndon Johnson’s use, in the course of his civil rights speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, of the words “We shall overcome.” Three words, as spoken by the president of the United States one week after the violence in Selma, sufficient to alter the course of the nation.
Obama’s “Yes we can” has similar power, as one can see from the frenzy of enthusiasm it generates in the crowds he addresses. But we do well to remember the limitations of rhetoric: In the quiet after the frenzy, by the cold, gray light of morning, someone is bound to ask, “What exactly is it that we can do?” And if the answer’s “build a better future,” then how shall we define that future, and what materials shall we use to build it?
With the power to galvanize and mobilize comes the responsibility to govern, and much of governing is mundane, is contained in the footnotes and the appendices. It should be a cause for concern to Obama’s supporters — of whom I am one — that he does markedly better in the give of oratory than in the give and take of debate. Maybe, indeed, he does have it all — but there’s a half of it he’s not yet shown.
So then there’s experience, Hillary Clinton’s touted strength: “Ready from Day One.” The benefits of experience can be substantial, if one has the wisdom to learn from experience. (If not, then all experience teaches is how to do the same thing again.) Presumably, one thing Clinton learned from her health care debacle is about the hazards of secrecy. But in far too many ways, what she seems to have learned best is how to prevaricate (a word that derives from the Latin for “bowlegged”) — or, if you prefer its more contemporary formulation, triangulate.
When all is said and done, it is no easier to know what Clinton stands for, despite her policy wonkishness, than it is to know what Obama stands for. She tacks now this way, now that, long on logos but very short on ethos and only intermittently convincing on pathos. Obama galvanizes; Clinton divides.
Passion is John Edwards’s strength. He is all hot, all the time, and his outrage is convincing. But he suffers in comparison to a candidate who has the distinctive capacity to be both hot and super-cool simultaneously. Edwards promises to fight the good fight every day of his life; Obama promises to conciliate. There’s a legitimate “if” about the Obama approach: If the stranglehold of the corporate interests is as menacing as Edwards asserts, it’s really hard to see how conciliation can work. But if Obama can pull it off, surely that’s better than the president as pugilist.
On the Republican side, we have Mitt Romney, the successful CEO, as if turning around a government is analogous to turning around a business, only more so. Managerial skill is a virtue, but a virtue of limited importance. Politics is the art of the possible, not the science of efficiency.
Score one for Mike Huckabee, the one being his unusual affability, his apparent authenticity. But the limits of authenticity are made painfully clear by Huckabee’s recent assertion of the primacy of God: “I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” Even if, as he later claimed, Huckabee was “only” talking about abortion and gay marriage, the statement is inadmissible.
Which bring us to John McCain and the virtues of honesty and courage. One is properly in awe of his courage, best exemplified by his refusal to accept the release offered by his captors in North Vietnam so long as others who had been imprisoned longer than he were not to be freed. McCain’s “straight talk,” however, though straighter than most, is hardly so straight as he claims. Still, on a comparative basis, he deserves praise for an honesty that has so often made him into a maverick.
The McCain problem derives not from issues of character so much as from issues of substantive policy. Cutting earmarks, as he has proposed, would no doubt be a good thing, but it does not address the dramatically more fundamental question of entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There is no reason to believe, given McCain’s stated conservatism, that he would seek to preserve (much less to repair and extend) the social safety net.
That leaves Rudy Giuliani. But this is about virtues.
Comments
Well said, Sephardman.
Rep. Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist in this race. All the rest are variants of neoliberal or neocon interventionist meddlers, The "State of Israel", however, has no constitution. That Potemkin-village cum prison camp, subsidised by the US taxpayer to the tune of billions a year, is a ludicrous monument to the bipartisan political establishment's propping up of a blasphemous concept turned failed state.
The Founding Fathers told the young USA to avoid "entangling alliances", and Israel-- the coming nemesis of atheistic arrogance-- will vindicate their foresight as never before. Unless the minority of Jews living there turn back to Torah and stop playing their own Messiah. Ceasing to suck the American teat is the prerequisite. Likewise American leaders must stop shilling for Zionist plutocrats' money because they cannot persuade millions of ordinary voters to give them a red cent any more.
Ron Paul is the virtuous candidate. But Fein fails to notice his existence.
Obama’s Experience is not sufficient to be President
Would you let a first grade teacher teach a class in a graduate school? The answer is absolutely not.
Our political system is complex and full of pitfalls. You must have experience in order to maneuver in Washington politics.
In order to accomplish any policy changes, implement campaign promises – one must know the political ropes it takes to pass any legislation.
PS. The big issue with Obama’s policy changes; the central question is, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” I see the recent focus on “flip-flops” as misplaced, both because the term isn’t very helpful and because voters aren’t surprised by politicians who change their positions. More importantly, it doesn’t highlight the more damaging question: “When will Obama change his position again?” That question forces voters to consider the possibility that Obama is an unknown, is dishonest, or lacks the experience to know where he stands on issues. Like a used-car salesmen who tells you a price in the parking lot, only to change it when you sit down at his desk, Obama is similarly trying to find the right sales pitch to get you to commit to him, even if he’s a lemon. Obama's critics need to put the possibility of more Obama policy changes front and center, driving voters to choose the more reliable and consistent McCain over the trendy, untested Obama.
Many notes that “the Republican National Committee, in a statement cataloguing some half-dozen recent Obama 'flip-flops,' threw up its hands without offering answers,” that challenge should quickly be overcome by a campaign that catalogues Obama’s frequent and conflicting policy positions and does so while raising questions such as: “When will Obama change his position again? On Election Day? In the Oval Office? Or perhaps during unconditional meetings with our enemies? Can Obama, who touts change, be trusted to not change his positions again?" Perhaps most critically, Obama’s critics need to make clear that a political campaign is not the place where America wants its leaders developing their expertise and their positions, and the presidency is not the place for on-the-job training. McCain is experienced, tested, and consistent; Obama is inexperienced, untested and inconsistent. No amount of hope can change those facts.
Second, the campaign must drive home the details of Obama’s inexperience. This should be tied to the policy changes highlighted above. Many states that Obama has 4 years of experience in the U.S. Senate. That’s common rounding, but it’s inaccurate, and Obama’s critics should stop doing it, because it distracts from his dearth of experience (and the significance of his policy changes during his short tenure). On Election Day Obama will have just 3 years and 10 months of experience as a U.S. Senator. It was after just 1 year and 10 months working as a senator that he started eyeing the presidency (as alluded to on Meet the Press). Then, just 2 years and 12 days into his job as a senator, he formed his presidential exploratory committee. Obviously, I’m splitting hairs by breaking his experience down into days and months — which is precisely the point. If Obama needs the benefit of a few months or days of rounding to seem ready to be commander-in-Chief, he’s got a serious experience problem. Moreover, if he can’t stay consistent during those short 3 years and 10 months, he has a serious experience problem coupled with a serious judgment problem. I did a little informal poll amongst friends, and most of them did not know that Obama had just 2 years of experience as a senator before deciding to run for president. They probably didn’t know that because it has not been consistently repeated. Saying Obama is inexperienced when he’s up against someone like McCain, with decades of experience, is one thing, but Obama’s inexperience is more than just comparative, it’s inexperience — period. No matter which way you frame it, 2 years and 12 days or 3 years and 10 months, both are facts which should be repeated until every voter knows them by heart. So, given this lack of experience, one would expect some serious accomplishments from Obama during his 3 year and 10 month tenure, accomplishments that would merit nominating him to be president. However, no such record of accomplishments exists. He racked up the Senate's most liberal voting-record rating and a one-page résumé lacking in leadership experience, not exactly presidency-worthy accomplishments. Of course, in fairness, that’s not what Obama is running on. He’s running on his ability to inspire us, to bring about “change.” Given his vaunted ability to inspire, one would think he would have a legislative record to speak of. But he doesn’t. In his time in the Senate, his ability to inspire his colleagues ensured that just two bills he sponsored were signed into law. One can hope for change, but based on Obama’s record, it doesn’t seem that much is forthcoming. Now, granted, Obama also has state legislative experience. But how many of us can even name our state senator, let alone confidently say that he or she should be the next President? Local government is great (in fact, I prefer it), but it’s not a proxy for the ability to lead a nation. The 13th legislative district of Illinois, where Obama was a state senator until the end of 2004, has a population of 112,599 (per State Senator Raoul’s office). That’s on par with a city like Peoria, Illinois. Now I’m sure that Mayor Ardis of Peoria is a great public servant, but I’m not about to nominate him for President without some significant leadership experience on national issues — even if Peoria is a community, a region and hometown as unique as its name. Similarly, Obama’s work as a state senator and his 3 years and 10 months as a U.S. senator are not sufficient substitutes for true national experience. Which highlights the final point. In view of his non-existent record, Obama’s words must merit greater scrutiny because they are the only remaining measure voters have for what Obama believes. Those words have been woefully inconsistent over the totality of Obama’s short career, and are full of generalities like “hope” and “change.” In fact, the only consistent theme in his campaign is one policy change after another. All politicians modify their positions (including McCain), but usually those changes take place over a few years and as circumstances dictate. Obama's changes on dozens of issues came about in just three and a half years and not for policy reasons, but for political gain. Obama’s game of musical chairs is filled with the hope that he’ll be sitting in the right place when the Election Day music stops. His critics need to make clear that sitting in the President's chair is not a game. Consistency and credibility both matter when dealing with enemies and allies. Obama’s 3 years and 10 months of inexperience — filled with generalities, uncertainty, and frequent policy changes — should be a unified theme of his critics. If Obama can’t maintain consistent policies over just a few short years, how can he possibly command the respect of our troops, win the support of our allies, and deter our enemies?
Leonard-
You neglected to write about the best candidate seeking the presidency, Ron Paul, who is fighting to restore the authentic constitutional values of our Republic!