Re: Hillary, Vol. I

That's the last time I leave the blogosphere unattended that long.

The last post generated a few comments, and I figured I would answer (or defend) some of my statements in a way where people wouldn't have to root through a stream of comments to find it.

First, a response to Kimberly's inquiry, "As for experience, what would qualify as legitimate presidential experience in your book?"

Generally, I consider any type of executive position a plus in "presidential" experience. This involves most directly being a governor for a state. This is because it mirrors more closely the day to day tasks of presidential leadership. You make decisions, lead the party in your state and deal with a hostile and uncooperative state legislature.

Senatorial and representative jobs don't really prepare you for presidential jobs. As president, you dictate the political dialogue of the country, negotiate with other countries, act as a face for the country and must make decisions and then stand by them. As a senator, your main job is to respond to the political dialogue of the country and represent your constituents, make compromises with other senators and if you take a strong political stance, it will most likely be political suicide in the long run. The two jobs are very different.

The truth is, nothing will really prepare you to be a president. I imagine it's much like going on a mission or getting married. You can read about it and observe it but once you are experiencing it yourself, it's still completely different from what you expected. Experience, in the long run, is iffy as a factor of whether the person will be a good president. Abraham Lincoln was a representative for Illinois before his underdog bid for president, and he is often revered as one of the best. Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was, on the other hand, well versed in politics and just as equally good. George W. Bush was a governor, but apparently that didn't help him much with his ability to court the press and handle a partisan Congress. George Washington was a general and did a fine job as the first president, while Ulysses Grant, also a general, ran a presidency plagued with ineffectiveness and scandal.

In response to Kimberly's comment, "And the last time America based it's vote on charisma we got womanizer Bill Clinton (national scandal ftw). In 10 years maybe a few of the more popular, smarmy political bloggers will run and we'll see what happens."

As Mormons, we are often tainted by our view of Clinton as a whoremonger (which, apparently, is a pretty bad thing to do). Irregardless of this, before jumping into politics again with his wife's campaign, let's remember that the majority of the country had a favorable opinion of him over the minority that held a less than favorable opinion. You mention Bill Clinton's legacy to conservatives and they often laugh, saying, "What legacy?" You mention it to a Democrat, and they will fondly recollect on the Clinton era - NAFTA, a booming economy, no real wars, and goodwill from many international countries (it's well known that Clinton was very well received internationally). Paint that in stark contrast with what will most likely be Bush's legacy - a recession (which he was unfortunate to ride through at the tail end of his presidency), wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, incredible unpopularity and eroding moral authority in the international arena.

When you put a sex scandal (omg! The president had an affair!) next to civil rights scandals (omg! The president is torturing people!), fooling around seems pale in comparison.

Charisma is vitally important in politics. The ancient Grecian and Roman republics which we adore as Westerners ran on rhetoricians and orators. Ethos, the rhetorical tool college students struggle the most with to identify and utilize, exists for a reason. Charismatic leaders get something done. Uncharismatic, unpopular leaders (especially in democracies) will only face opposition and gridlock. If we were really voting in people who were smart, competent and had the skills to run a country, we'd be voting for people like Warren Buffet.

In response to Xirax's comment: "Any candidate, if he or she is to have any chance of winning the race, will stop at nothing to accomplish it. Some just hide it better than others ;) If you involve notions of morality into politics (and actually abide by them) you will lose. Which actually is a good thing, because it's the ability to compromise that makes a good President."

Some candidates will stop at something to accomplish their goals. I smiled when he bracketed the comment with [Machiavellian] tags. Good old Nicolo was a smart man, and his tactics work - when putting princes and other totalitarian figures into power. However, his tactics sometimes don't work as well in the political arena for democracy. And sometimes, it's a good thing to not want the presidency so badly. Case in point: Romney steps down gracefully in the nomination race for the Republican candidate. He actually enhances his political viability by gaining favor among the conservatives when he "bridges the party together" for "the good of the party" and increases the chances of a Republican winning in 2008 (once a long shot goal, now somewhat attainable). One could argue that Romney didn't want the presidency that badly; in this case, it's probably a Good Thing (in the prespective of Republicans). One could also argue that Romney did this in order to cement his ability to run in political races in the future. This also is a Good Thing where he thinks of his long term political future and is not blinded by a singular goal.

Contrast with Hillary Clinton. She will probably not win the nomination. If she does, she will emerge a damaged candidate, for half of the party will view her with such vitrol that they will not vote for her. She is willing to tear apart her political party to win the nomination. In the end, she may be crippling herself for politics in the long run. This is a Bad Thing. In some cases, wanting something too badly can hurt you.

It reminds me vaguely of an anecdote, where I saw a kid with his hand stuck in a vending machine. He had reached in to grab the candy bar. However, his hand was too big to pull out with the candy bar in it. He was inconsolable, as he could not bear to drop the candy bar and pull out his hand (even though he could reasonably still get the candy bar later) and sat there, stuck, crying and surrounded by concerned parents and mocking peers. He was blinded by the candy bar.