American Pie: So What Kind Of National Leader Do You Really, Really Want?
...The many politicians democratic countries have trusted to lead them in the past have arrived at that pinnacle by similar, though not identical routes, almost like a marathon to decide the fittest if not necessarily the ablest. Given the enormous increase over the years in the complexity of world dynamics, one wonders if the job can ever again be performed successfully by one such person....
John Merchant suggests that in the best of all worlds perhaps a cloned leader would be the ideal.
For more of John's stylish and well-argued columns please click on American Pie in the menu on his page.
With a US presidential election due in 2008, (though you could believe it was more imminent from the media frenzy) a British general election due sometime soon, and a French election just over, perhaps it’s time to give some thought to what, not whom, our future leaders should be. The “whom” is being rammed down the US electorate’s throat every minute of every day, and the candidates are traditionally pre-packaged. So the selection process already has gone through considerable refinement and it’s too late to change the specification this time around.
The many politicians democratic countries have trusted to lead them in the past have arrived at that pinnacle by similar, though not identical routes, almost like a marathon to decide the fittest if not necessarily the ablest. Given the enormous increase over the years in the complexity of world dynamics, one wonders if the job can ever again be performed successfully by one such person.
Of course the idea of a committee leading a nation is ludicrous, but one could say that heads of state, in any case, don’t function without a team of advisors. However, in the US at least, presidents have demonstrated that they are quite capable of acting against the advice of their cabinet members and appointed experts, most recently George W. Bush. Other Presidents have paid lip service to their inner circle, but placed more faith in a trusted outsider like Roosevelt’s friend, Harry Hopkins.
For the past three elections in the USA, the selection process for a President seemed to be more about sociological criteria than qualifications for the job. Was it time for a woman? Could an African American be elected? How much of a factor would a divorced president be? Going back to John F. Kennedy’s time, the popular belief was that a catholic candidate would not be accepted, and he almost wasn’t.
In the run-up to the presidential election in 2008, when the USA is in greater turmoil than it may ever have been in modern times, those sociological considerations surprisingly still are in the forefront. Job skills, experience, national and international relationships, have all been seconded to male or female, black or white, and how much campaign money each candidate can raise.
The two hot prospects, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fit that mold perfectly, but do either of them have what it takes to lead the USA out of the domestic and international mire that is the legacy of the Bush administration? As First Lady, Ms. Clinton amply demonstrated her ability to stir up a hornets nest, and had to be suppressed. As a senator, she has been preoccupied with proving that she can “get along,” but will the teeth and claws emerge again once she has the top job?
Barack Obama emerged as a person to watch when he gave the keynote address during the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and has spent the intervening years modestly denying that he could be a presidential candidate. Finally yielding to pressure from unspecified sources, he announced his candidacy in 2007. He is intelligent, charismatic, handsome, gives one hell of a good speech and is black, but does that equip him for dealing with Russia’s increasing hostility toward the USA, the emerging “New China,” or the quirky malevolence of countries like Iran and Syria?
And what of the electorate in all of this? The voting public in the USA is not noted in my opinion for wise choices. It is too easily swayed by self interest, the media, and the strong-arm tactics of powerful political machines. Its candidate selection process is analogous to someone buying a car, whose real need is for a mid-sized sedan with good gas mileage that they can comfortably afford. But during the selection and buying process, they allow themselves to be convinced that what they really need is a Humvee. After the purchase they then go through a period of “buyer remorse.”
So what do we really, really want in a president or a prime minister? Looking back, it would seem that intellect is not too important, nor is religion. Some street smarts would be very useful. Consistency and the willingness to listen and take advice would go a long way. Sensitivity to other cultures is essential, and a few years in politics is a real plus, providing the candidate has stayed above the fray. Durability is a given, of course, as is the ability to stand up to the generals, the spooks and the vested interests. A sense of humor would be nice, providing everyone understands it, and that the jokes translate well into other languages.
In the best of all worlds, perhaps a cloned leader would be the ideal; one that could be assembled from a genetic stew. So then we could have a strong dash of purposeful Putin, a pinch of JFK’s charisma, a dollop of Clinton’s political savvy, a soupcon of Tony Blair’s oratory, a pinch of Sarkozy to add zest, all topped off by a bouquet of herbs de Merkel. As to skin color and gender, perhaps it would be best to simply let the chips fall where they may.
# # #
