This coming Tuesday, the nation will hold
elections for a new President and Congress. As I write this, the pollsters
are saying that the presidential election is too close to call. Who will
win, Al Gore or George Bush? I don’t know. But, I think the important question
is who should win, and what will be the consequences of the election. So,
who should win? I don’t know right now. However, there are several factors
that should be considered.
Personality
In my view, personality is the most important
issue in the election. This is the first thing we should look at. Why?
Well, the president has his hand on the nuclear button. He controls one
of the world’s most impressive military establishments. He controls the
nation’s federal law enforcement agencies. He nominates federal judges.
He can sign executive orders. He appoints the heads of the federal regulatory
agencies. He manages the federal bureaucracy. And, he can do things to
the economy that are simply horrific. So, what kind of person do you want
to hold that kind of power? Do you want a moral activist out to save the
world? Do you want someone who is battling personal demons? What kind of
person do you want to entrust the future of this country to? I think people
vote for the safest candidate, when it comes to personality. I think people
consider the personality before the policies. And, they are right. For
example, in 1996, Bill Clinton was able to defeat Bob Dole because people
knew he was had effective policies (whatever his personal foibles were),
and he was the safer choice (Dole was too old). Also, he took a tough stance
on law enforcement at home, and he put national security in front of peace
mongering. He supported a ballistic missile defense program. He didn’t
sign the treaty to ban land mine because it would put U.S. troop at risk.
He used force where needed to protect human lives and the national interest.
And, if the force didn’t work (as in Somalia) he pulled out rather then
mire the nation in a conflict. And so it goes, people vote for the candidate
who offers the most security.
Character?
I think character (as it is usually described)
is something we should be careful about. I know, the pundits say this is
incredibly important issue. The president is supposed to be a paragon of
ethical behavior, a virtual morality computer. However, I think extreme
outward morality often hides inward personality flaws. Neurotics sometimes
use rigid morality as a shield to cover psychic wounds. So, “character”
often involves relatively shallow things that might be hiding deeper issues.
And, rigid morality in itself (without an underlying neurosis) can be almost
as bad. Take, for example, Jimmy Carter. He was (and is) a very honest,
moral, and decent man. But, he did not succeed as president. The problem
was that he was too honest, moral, and decent. This is paradoxical, because
in almost any other job Mr. Carter would have done well, except as president
of the United States. I think his personality made him unfit to be President.
Understand, an extremely moral person can be too inflexible to make tough
decisions, or may feel that he has to make the wrong decision because it
is “right.” So, “character” may disqualify a candidate for the presidency.
But, then again, we don’t want an immoral person either. Immorality is
an even deeper personality flaw then “character.” In the end, we should
look beyond character. We should try to discover what is going on in the
candidate’s soul. And, that can be difficult.
There is an important ethical point buried here. When a person gains a lot of power, morality turns around. Acts that are moral for an individual may be totally immoral for a ruler. Acts that are immoral for an individual may be moral for a ruler. A leaders acts can ripple across society. So, the effects across society that must be considered. Take for example, killing. It is immoral for you or me to kill another human being. But, a judge can sentence a murderer to death. What is the moral difference? The judge has political authority. If he didn’t punish criminals, other idiots might be tempted to dice with the law. Not putting a killer to death could be worse for society. Now, what about the President ordering soldiers into combat? Ordering soldiers to kill people (some of them innocent bystanders) and destroy property. Is this wrong? It depends on circumstances. A national leader’s acts can effect millions of other lives. So what is moral for the leader may not be moral for the individual. And, extreme outward morality is something we should be careful about because there may be a wounded soul underneath the facade.
So, what is important about a candidate’s ethics? First, I think he should be fundamentally honest. That is, he should be honest with himself, and he should at least want to be honest with those around him? Understand, an aversion to lying is dangerous. There may be situations where a leader has to lie. But, the pundits love statements like, “I’ll never lie to you.” It sounds so good. But, such statements are nearly always lies (and if the leader is serious the consequences can sometimes be terrible). Instead, I would ask, “Does he value honesty?” And, “Does he try to be honest (when he can)?” Next, I think the ability to repent is important. That is, the willingness to realize that some behavior is wrong, and then to stop doing it. Understand, a man who cannot repent is either an arrogant fool or has never lived. And, the person who thinks he can never do wrong is a fanatic. In either case, the person is disqualified for the presidency. So, the ability to say, “I was wrong” is important. The ability to change one’s behavior is all important. Beyond that, I think a candidate’s morals should be entirely conventional. Finally, the candidate should be a level headed thinker, and be able to exercise self control.
The Issues
The candidates always have a lot to say about
the “issues.” However, I think the real issue is how much a candidate is
willing to compromise on his issues, and to what extent is he willing to
compromise. Understand, getting into fights with congress over some precious
agenda is a good way to go nowhere. Compromises have to be made to move
a policy forward. And, there is another thing to consider. Can a proposal
even get through Congress? Take, for example, George Bush’s Social Security
proposals. I don’t think have much of a chance in Congress. If he is elected,
the proposals will probably die bravely during his first year in office,
or be changed into something unrecognizable. So, why should he bother to
push such a plan? There are three possible reasons. First, because he thinks
it is important. Second, because it gives him a chance to push his agendas
into the liberal backyard; to make them have to go on the defensive and
squirm Or, third, because the proposals make for good sound bytes on national
television. A program that doesn’t have much of a chance in congress can
still be useful politically. In the end, I think the issues are not that
important. The real issue is personality. How much is the candidate willing
to compromise to push his agenda through congress? And, how rational are
his proposals (both politically and legislatively)?
Effective Personality in Office
Over the years I have noticed that certain personality
traits are needed to succeed in political office. And, that different political
offices tend to favor different kinds of personalities. A good vice president
is someone who sits quietly in the background while other people get the
spotlight. He is the person who gets behind the political cart and pushes
the president’s agenda forward. The sheep dog who herds the functionaries
down the president’s political path. The golden retriever who wheedles
and cajoles the powerful politicians and special interests into supporting
the presidents agenda. He is the Harry “Give em hell!” Truman, the cajoling,
conniving Lyndon Johnson, or the cerebral manager like George Bush senior.
On the other hand, the presidency requires a totally different kind of
personality. If the vice president is the one who gets behind and pushes,
the president is the one who gets out in front and leads. He’s the man
who inspires everyone to follow. He’s the man with a vision. He’s the man
who “feels your pain.” He’s the man who likes you (even if he has only
known you for five minutes). He’s the man who makes you feel like he cares.
He’s Blarney the Dinosaur, and who could possibly not love Blarney. He’s
part visionary and part con-man. So, the kind of personality that makes
for a good vice-president is totally different then for a good president.
Vice-presidents who rise to become the president often have a hard time; they tend to alienate people, they get into unnecessary controversies, they have trouble pushing their policies, they often serve only one term and have a hard time getting reelected. The problem is personality. The personality traits that make for good vice-presidents are a disaster for a president. For example, Harry Truman had a hard time getting elected in 1948 (remember, “Dewey Defeats Truman”). He had an even harder time pushing his policies through congress. A few years later, Lyndon Johnson wanted to build a great society, both here and in Vietnam. He failed in Vietnam because couldn’t cajole or bribe the fanatics in Hanoi, and he couldn’t find another way out of that war. The only answer was to realize that the war was unwinnable and then decide where to draw the line. That is, to decide how much of Vietnam to lose. Politically, he couldn’t bring himself to do that. So, his term ended in disaster. On the other hand, George Bush senior was a fairly successful president. However, he did not win re-election because he was too distant and cerebral. He couldn’t make people feel that he cared; he couldn’t emote with them. This is usually the case; the personality traits that make for good vice-presidents tend to be the ruin of presidents. Sometimes, a vice president is chosen to placate the radical wing of the party. For example, Abraham Lincoln’s second vice-president, Andrew Johnson, or Franklin Roosevelt second vice-president Henry Wallace. This man might be a moral activist committed to justice, or a convinced right winger. In any case, political radicalism is often used to defend a wounded soul. To cover over deep seated (from childhood) feelings of worthlessness, defectiveness, or shame. So, any attack on this man’s policies is taken as a personal attack. If one of these men becomes the president, sparks fly and the results can be interesting. Usually, these men are doomed from day one. For example, Andrew Johnson as president tried to ignore the fact that the Civil War even happened. He tried to push the nation back to the status quo of the 1850’s. The congress finally reacted by impeaching him. He survived but was not reelected. The problem was his personality.
Sometimes it Takes a Bastard
In his book, “The Prince,” Niccolo Machiavelli
compared his ideal prince with the centaurs of ancient Greek myth. Machiavelli
said that a prince should be part enlightened man, part wild beast. There
is a certain truth to what he said. For example, Richard Nixon’s personality
was dominated by insecurity and paranoia. His behavior was often amoral
and dishonest (so I’ve heard). His ambition drove him on in a political
career that finally reached the white house, and ended in scandal. As president,
he negotiated the peace agreement that got the nation out Vietnam (and
might have saved the south had he not been forced to resign). He negotiated
the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) treaty with the Soviet Union.
This agreement was the beginning of the end of the cold war nuclear arms
race. He began the Helsinki Conference that finally resulted in the Helsinki
Accords. The Helsinki Accords created a human rights standard. It was the
Helsinki Accords that finally held the eastern block’s feet to the fire
on human rights. He negotiated the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty
with the Soviet Union. He went to Peiking and opened relations with China.
He began to defuse the conflict between China and the Soviet Union, the
most dangerous crisis of his era. And, finally, his “men” orchestrated
the Watergate burglary, which led to the scandal that ended his presidency.
I don’t know if he ordered the burglary (or even knew of it), but I believe
it was the result of his paranoia. That is, the result (at least) of the
environment he created around him. So, was he an evil man? I don’t know.
He did a lot of good. Again, I think another example of this paradox is
Bill Clinton. We all know about his scandals and outrageous escapades.
But, then again, he ended the civil wars in what was once Yugoslavia, and
drove the Slobodan Milosevic out of power. He brokered the peace agreement
between the Israelis and the Palestinians (that may yet succeed). During
his tenure the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in over
thirty years. Violent crime rates dropped by over a third. And, the national
economy had it’s longest period of expansion ever. So, what about his character?
I don’t know. It may be that a successful president needs a driving neurosis
to goad him on. A neurosis that drives him to great achievements, and possibly
to great disasters. The issue then is simply how well can he control the
cravings (various distorted childhood needs and traumas) in his soul. If
he loses control, watch out. Unfortunately, the presidency is one of the
most stressful jobs in the world.
Getting Elected
Mr. gore’s most serious problem in getting elected
is Bill Clinton. His best assets are the success of Bill Clinton’s policies.
This puts him in a weird situation. He most both embrace and distance himself
from Bill Clinton. Understand, Clinton has been like “Baby Poopsie” in
his scandals. Baby is always forgiven (some of his escapes have been truly
miraculous) for his oopsies. It’s those around him who have to deal with
the dodo. It’s those around him get tarred by his scandals (and sometimes
his enemies as in the case of Newt Gingrich). Al Gore has been smeared
with scandal, and so has to distance himself from Clinton. This is the
chief impediment in his campaign. Worse, it has deprived him of the full
aid of the man who is probably the greatest politician of our time, Bill
Clinton. So, Bill Clinton is both his greatest asset, and his worst problem.
If it weren’t for the scandals, Mr. Gore would have had a relatively easy
time getting elected given the success of Mr. Canton’s policies. People
tend to see the election of vice presidents as a referendum on the success
of the former president.
Predictions
If Al Gore is elected, I think he will only serve
one term. I think that early on he will alienate powerful people in Washington,
and so will have a hard time getting his proposals through congress. In
foreign relations, I think he may run into, or cause, friction. As for
overall foreign policy, I have no predictions, he will probably start by
following Clinton’s policies and them make some changes. As for congress,
at the end of his term I expect both houses of congress to be controlled
by the republicans. However, predicting the congressional elections this
year is a little iffy because the presidential race is so close. Understand,
people tend to vote for a congress that will protect them from the president,
and more importantly from the president’s political party. The more abrasive
or potentially dangerous the president, the more divided the government.
For example, the democrats continuously controlled the House of Representatives
during the Reagan years, and lost control in 1994 as the of the Clinton
follies came to light. So, if Gore were ahead in the polls, the republicans
would have a good chance of holding on to both houses of congress. But,
the presidential election is a toss-up, so overall the congressional races
cannot be predicted. And, the democrats have a good chance to gain control
of the house this year thanks to Newt Gingrich. The impeachment stampede
cost the republicans seats in the 1996, an election they were doing well
in. In any case, if Mr. Gore wins, he will probably have minority of the
popular vote and so have no mandate for his policies. After his first term,
I think his chances for re-election are slim, but he could surprise me.
Personality
George Bush’s personality seems to be pretty
safe. He doesn’t appear to have any serous psychic wounds. As governor
of Texas, he tended to run things by consensus. He was willing to cut deals
with the democrats and support their proposals. His ethics appear to be
conventional, but he did sow his wild oats as a college student. And, there
were his troubles with alcohol. But, he quit drinking fourteen years ago.
As I see it, the problem is that his personality may be too safe (remember
Jimmy Carter). He may not have a very effective machiavellian “beast” in
his personality, and so may not be able to deal with outrageous situations
(remember Jimmy Carter). He may be too nice to be president. He may be
unable to anticipate or deal with the behaviors of fanatics. The only way
to deal with someone who is really bonko is with threats from a position
of strength. But, threats to work have to be real. Also, someone may try
to test his resolve early on. How will he react? We won’t know until he
has to deal with a situation. However, he will have very capable advisors.
On the plus side, there is his experience as a not to successful entrepreneur
in the oil business, and his success as the owner or of a professional
sports team. He has experience as a manager, is willing to learn, and has
a lot of perseverance. So, is Bush intelligent and a good actor, or is
he not?
Predictions
If George Bush is elected, he may serve for one
or two terms, depending on his performance. I expect the democrats to gain
control of at least the House of Representatives and maybe the Senate sometime
during his term (see my comments on Al Gore above). As for his domestic
policies, he will probably try to work with congress, and base his policies
on a consensus, given his record in Texas. He may be more willing to endorse
a reasonable policy to deal with this nation’s drug problems, given his
past problems with substance abuse. He is more likely to support treatment
instead of jail. As for his foreign policy, I think he will start by following
the policies of the previous republican administrations. I don’t know how
he will change the policies later on. I think he will be a good negotiator,
but may have trouble dealing with fanatics. Beyond this, I cannot speculate
any further because George Bush does not have a long record in national
politics.
The Lightweight Effect
Back when Michael Dukakis was running against
George Bush senior for the presidency; I came to the conclusion that the
democrats did not think they could win, because of Reagan’s popularity.
So, they chose (that is, the man the leaders of the party quietly supported
in the primaries) a candidate who would wave the flag, and go down to defeat
bravely. Understand, the real money and influence are in congress. To hold
on to the congress a political party must avoid the white house at all
costs. So, run a string of relatively unknown governors like Bill Clinton
for president. Let the republicans win, and hang on to the congress. Alas,
the strategy doesn’t always work. Anyway, I think the republicans (the
party leadership) might have been trying to this strategy. They might have
thought that they couldn’t win against Al Gore. So, run a lightweight,
and hang on to the congress. George Bush deceived them. O.K. So, maybe
I am indulging in conspiracy theories.
An Electoral College Disaster for the Winner?
As you may know, the presidential vote is not
for the candidates, but for the state delegates to the electoral college.
Under the current rules, the vote is winner take all. That is, the candidate
who wins the majority of the vote in a state, gets all that state’s electors.
Unfortunately, the contest this year is so close that the winner of the
popular vote may not get a majority of the college, and so lose having
won the election. This could also force a change in the presidential voting
system. The political consequences for the “winner” could be drastic because
he would be deligitimized from day one. The problem is that he would have
no mandate, so his policies could be challenged at every turn. Also, with
Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in the race, even if he is a clear winner
he will probably not have a majority of the popular vote. I’m not sure
what will happen if the popular and electoral votes split. However, there
will be calls to change the presidential election system. But, I’m not
sure if the electoral college should be abandoned. And, the simplest way
to prevent this kind of vote split in the future might be to apportion
the delegates to the college according to the vote percentages. It requires
only a change in the laws, not the constitution. But, I’m not sure anyone
will seriously consider this as a solution. So, this election might have
interesting results beyond the voting. The election could be a political
calamity for the winner.
A Dark Possibility
A few months ago I had an outrageous thought.
With the election so close, and given that president Clinton is still embroiled
in scandal. What if someone in the Clinton camp decided to throw the elections
to Al Gore, because he would almost certainly pardon Clinton if he won.
This would be possible because the votes being tallied by computer. So,
what if Al Gore wins the election, but the vote tallies do not line up
with the exit polls in some districts? What happens if someone notices
it? This would be the last of Baby Poopsie’s oopsies (and Clinton might
even survive it). But, whatever the outcome, the scandal would ruin Al
Gore. So, maybe George Bush should make a commitment pardon Bill Clinton.
Al Gore or George bush? You be the judge.
I hope you enjoyed reading this.
30 October 2000 - 5 November 2000