The Mentality of Presidential Wannabes

A post of mine on candidates with issues prompted Steven Taylor:

… to wonder about the mental state of anyone who runs for the presidency of the United States.

Consider what it means to run for the presidency. One has to have an enormous ego. One has to be willing to listen to oneself say the say the same things over and over and over again or a daily (if not hourly) basis. 2 One has to be willing to endure inane event after inane event (think pancake flipping and diner hopping). One has to be willing to use stupid arguments and simplistic slogans (that one knows are stupid and simplistic, but can’t admit it) against one’s opponents over and over and over again in the quest for votes. One has to expose oneself (and one’s family and associates) to a great deal of scrutiny, often of the mist humiliating type. Indeed, there is a great deal of self-humiliation that one is required to engage in to run for the presidency.

Beyond that, one has to go through an ever-lengthening, physically grinding process which requires a great deal of time to pursue that means little leisure time and limited contact with family and friends. The campaigning itself is not productive work (i.e., in and of itself it produced nothing tangible), but rather is a tedious means to an end.

As such, forget what specific “issues” a given candidate might have–what does it say about a person in general that they are willing to run for the office in the first place?

Additional thoughts follow. Go read the whole thing.

Posted on Friday, May 02 2008 | Permalink

Sudden random thought but why not—has there ever been a serious proposal for a collective group to run as ‘the president?’ In otherwards, rather than it just being down to one person with a Cabinet chosen after the fact, said person plus the planned Cabinet runs as a group, with those persons picked for their areas of expertise able to debate each other specifically on those areas, say.  (It’s not the equivalent of the opposing ministers in a UK-style system, but perhaps an approximation of it for our own system.)

I’m not making any serious proposals here—and the mechanics I can’t even begin to imagine!—but it would take the onus off of it being one person in favor of it being a decision to vote for a team whose collective work would appeal the most.  Some sense of who you’re getting well in advance than just a group of ‘advisors’—put it all out in the open, who is the chosen expert and why, and can they work well with the others on the team to advance an overall agenda, and can they put it in a way that brings the public into the decision making process more thoroughly?  And would deemphasizing a central figure allow that figure to not be so simplistic (then again, perhaps it would only make it worse!).

Posted by Ned R.  on  05/02  at  01:41 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business



Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll