Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The Bogus Human Factor for Politicians
I was listening to NPR today and the voices were talking about the McCain-Obama debate. The analyst brought up an apparent highlight for McCain, the moment near the end when he engaged with an enlisted Navy person in the audience. This was labeled one of the few "human moments" of the debate. Why are human moments the holy grail of the campaign trail? What the hell is wrong with the people in this country? I mean, besides the evangelical morons who vote for whoever is "pro-life" independent of any other consideration. In fact a useful act would be to sterilize these rubes. Anyhow, why are human moments important? I would like to see less human moments now, and more shrewd and saavy governing moments after election. Isn't this why Gore didn't have a larger popular majority and didn't win the electoral majority? (Besides the fact that stupid Tennessee, his own state, failed him) He was too...wooden or robotic, stiff, wasn't that it? What was he really? Too proficient? Intelligent? Educated? Knowledgeable? Efficient? Effective? Professional? Academic? Objective? Rational? Hello!!! We want someone in the executive office is who NOT a regular average citizen. We want someone who eschews emotion for hard facts and rational cost/benefit decisio-making. We want someone who is good at governing, not fostering a cult of personality via charisma and human moments. I don't know how pointless it is to complain about this. To some degree its a reflection of being human and occurs all around the world. But if there is anywhere there should be a higher standard, shouldn't it be in America?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I love your optimistic idealism, and I can't help agreeing with your point. But realistically, in the very human dynamic of American politics, I believe (as I have mentioned before) that charisma, or the ability to show empathy, is one of the crucial attributes of a successful American president for exactly the reason you are reviling. A national election is very difficult to carry because it means swaying so many people who have never met you, seen you in person, or even felt that you are addressing their concerns. I think the election of 2000 proved that a regular-Joe type could be a serious contender for the office you have placed so high above our heads. Charisma and personableness are important not only in the election, but throughout the president's term, as she puts forward her ideas to Congress and tries to get them passed into law, and also proceeds with decisions she hopes will benefit the country. Though the president wields great executive power, public disaffection will catch up to an unpopular president and lead to drawn swords in Congress, and obviously, a refusal to renew the president's contract. Look at FDR: the man invented Fireside Chats, and he was re-elected three times! So, unfortunately, fine, but dull, minds like Gore's make great senators, not presidents. And until we are a nation of well-educated, rational citizens, I think the attribute of charisma will continue to be an essential tool in a successful American president.
By the by, do you know I learned that word, 'charisma', from D&D? Talk about essential attributes!
Gore would have had trouble getting things done with Congress. It does take charisma. Take the charisma of JFK and Reagan.
Post a Comment