Here and There

I’m torn, and I may take this internal debate to the grave.

I was listening to a Commonwealth Club podcast featuring Joe Klein the other day. Klein was speaking to the sea change in US politics, and cited Robert Kennedy’s brief candidacy in 1968 as the last example of a from-the-gut, truly inspiring version of American leadership. Of course, he didn’t really phrase it as such, but it got me thinking: do I want leaders who inspire, who challenge my thinking and the conventional wisdom? Or do I prefer politicians who follow the advice of their pollsters and handlers, and are always telling the public (or some portion thereof) what it wants to hear?

The model over at least the last generation has been the latter. Ronald Reagan may have actually believed that cutting taxes and building up the military would revive the US economy and bring about the fall of the Soviet Union, but he got those ideas from focus groups and think tanks. Similiarly, Bill Clinton didn’t come up with the model for what is known as the “New Democrat.” His handlers saw an inroad in national politics with the demise of George H. W. Bush, and thus the end of the Reagan-Bush era.

While it’s true both men challenged some people’s thinking, overall it was their character that elevated them into public office. Which brings me to another important point: What is the value of a person’s true nature when it comes to elected office? Until the presidency of George W. Bush, I liked to think character didn’t matter. But I stopped myself when I realized one of the things I liked about Clinton was that I felt he’d be fun to share a beer and shoot the shit with.

Character (or, better put, disposition) does matter. It points to how a person goes about day-to-day activities. It matters in who we choose as our friends because we like to be able to predict our interactions with that person, at least to some degree. Since the office of president is so far removed from every member of the voting public for 1.460 out of 1,461 days, we need to have confidence that we can trust this man or woman to go about their decision making in a way suitable to the office. In truth, whether we agree with their choices isn’t the issue—rather, it’s knowing that they’re not flipping coins in the Oval Office, deciding whether to bomb this or that nation. Or, if that’s your thing, maybe flipping pennies is exactly what you want out of a president.

The point is we’re past the time where character doesn’t matter. We’ve moved away from the era in which politicians did inspire and challenge us. These days of endless war and a stagnant economy come with no price tag for the present population. There is next to no sacrifice being asked of the general public.

This isn’t a digression. If you look back to World War II and FDR (a genuine leader), there were rations and tax hikes as far as the eye could see. Rather than hand the war effort over entirely to private enterprise, the government took the reins, and employment shot through the roof. Two end results: we won the war and climbed out of the Great Depression.

And Roosevelt was, for the most part, wheelchair-bound.

But, like I said at the opening of this post, I’m torn. I’m not exactly reminiscing here. Well, sort of. I simply mean to draw a contrast. Knowing from where you came always helps you get a better handle on where you are now, and possibly where you’re headed next. I don’t pretend to know what’s good for this country, as far as what it needs by way of its politicians. I just know I wouldn’t be disappointed if a true leader were to emerge from the muck of current politics.

Relevant links:
Commonwealth Club podcast. Listen to “Joe Klein and Phil Bronstein.”
Kennedy’s impromptu speech in Indianapolis.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.