Andrew Ferguson analyzes the late great presidential run of Fred Thompson. That run failed, of course, and in the process Ferguson detects a failure of normality, meaning the Fred Thompson is just too normal to be elected president. He didn't like asking people he didn't know for thousands of dollars. He was more interested in policy than being clever. He didn't make promises he couldn't keep and didn't see every moment as yet another opportunity for self-aggrandizement. He spoke at length about the long term problems of the nation rather than in sound bites about petty issues brought forth only because the focus group said they'd help gain votes. Ferguson writes:
The man or woman who seeks out such a life [of presidential campaigning] and enjoys its discomforts is not normal. Not crazy necessarily, but not normal, and probably, when the chips are down, not to be trusted, especially when the purpose of it all is to acquire power over other people (also called, in the delicate language of contemporary politics, "public service" or "getting things done on behalf of the American people"). The case is made, in defense of the contemporary campaign, that this is an efficient if unlovely way to choose leaders: It winnows out those who lack the stamina and discipline necessary to lead a rich, large, powerful, and complicated country. By this argument, Thompson failed because he deserved to.
But the opposite case is easier to make--that the modern campaign excludes anyone who lacks the narcissism, cold-bloodedness, and unreflective nature that the process requires and rewards. In his memoir -Greenspan remarks that of the seven presidents he has known well, the only one who was "close to normal" was Jerry Ford. And, as Greenspan points out, Ford was never elected.
Fred Thompson probably feels terrible at the moment, but he should be honored to be in Ford's company.
In a sound election system the ability to gain votes is tied to the ability to govern. The kind of skills the electoral mechanism rewards are the kind of skills needed for sound governing. It channels ambition of office seekers in a way the promotes the public good. It moderates candidate behavior, dissuading them from making promises they cannot keep.
Our system instead rewards constant posturing and pandering. While incessantly demanding politicians who are not driven by polls, we damn to oblivion any politician who does not slavishly follow the demands of the moment, not to mention looking to the polls to help us decide for whom we should vote. Rudy Giuliani seems to be the latest victim of this death spiral with Florida voters abandoning him simply because he has slipped slightly in the polls, guaranteeing he will slip further in the polls causing more voters to abandon him. The the polls become not just the snap shot of the moment but a predictor of the future. Our process rewards the politician who can promise the most, package himself the best, drive up his opponents negatives the most, and avoids controversy at all costs. And then we will complain about how we just can't seem to get any decent candidates for president.
Recent Comments