Qualities That Make A Great President

by Jack Lee

Like it or not, we’re only 2 months away from the official start of another Presidential Election cycle.   I know, for most of us we would rather swerve into a tree than endure two more years of candidates posturing, lying and bloviating.

 However, this electioneering is no picnic for the candidates either.   Today’s candidates hold themselves wide open to scrutiny never seen before, from everything in their political past up to and including what we everyday people consider deeply personal.   Clearly,  one must be driven by forces that are hard to imagine to endure what it takes to run for president. Hunter S. Thompson once quipped that you have to be borderline crazy to run for president.

What qualities do you demand for your candidate?    Here are a few of mine for your consideration:  

Honesty…absolutely!   But, how much honesty?  I’m serious.  Have you ever stopped to consider that unflinching honesty makes people vulnerable?   Being too candid can create problems where none need to exist and it make them targets of criticism. I wouldn’t fault a candidate for playing his cards close to his chest on personal family stuff, but outright lying for personal/political advantage is another thing.

Most of us will probably agree, the President must set a high standard if he is going to run a clean administration, develop the needed respect and trust from political colleagues and constituents.

An even temperament or at least a controlled temper is a must. Temper outbursts can be seen as a sign of immaturity or instability and this is a weakness to be exploited. John McCain’s temper got him ridiculed in his election bid. When he’s mad he flares his nostrils and that made him somewhat of a joke. Obama tends to have a slow burn and he has used this to his advantage. For instance while on the campaign trail he said to pestering reporters, “Just let me eat my waffle.” It was said just firmly enough that it was a clear sign to back off and they did. Nixon had a vicious temper, but the public never saw it, so it might as well never have existed. We only learned about his hot temper through the release of White House tapes many years later.

You don’t belong in the White House unless you are politically savvy, this is no place for learning as you go. It usually requires a many years of federal level political experience, coupled to an above average education before people are going to trust the candidate’s judgment. The world is full of shrewd political opponents and that means naivety is a national security issue.

Some might just call this character, but I’ll go with having the courage of one’s convictions. Candidates are notorious for saying one thing and then doing another. Again, this goes to building respect and confidence necessary to lead. When Bush senior made his famous “Read my lips…” statement and later compromised with the opposition to raise taxes, he demonstrated he did not have the courage of his own convictions. He yielded to expediency for what he thought would be future leverage and it backfired. There’s a fine line between standing up for your convictions and being seen as closed minded. So it’s good for voters to understand a candidates most closely held convictions and for the candidate it better be something he really can live with and stand behind. Politics is a game of tactical compromise, keep that in mind when you think about a person’s convictions and how it might affect their ability to lead. On the hand a persons convictions are a statement of purpose.

If a candidate is not a great Statesman, he’ll never be a great President. The art of diplomacy is far superior to the art of war and the American Civil War has to be the hallmark of failed statesmanship. President James Buchanan left office in 1860 as one of the most disgraced presidents in American history thanks to his failure to keep the Union together. Buchanan didn’t have the political capital nor the diplomacy. He was indecisive on critical issues such as slavery and he more than the any other factor divided the Democratic Party and kept them out of the White House for the next 24 years.

Our best presidents were people who exemplified what it means to be of good character. A person dedicated to upholding our best principles of our founding fathers with an ability to communicate clearly with credibility. You can say what you will about Ronald Reagan, but he was a master of communication.  He was amiable and sincere and that all came across in everything he said. No other President in our history could deliver a biting criticism more tactfully than Reagan or sell an idea as if it were draped in the American flag.  His quick wit that remind historians of Lincoln won him a lot of debates, like Lincoln. 

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the editor of the American Presidents Series and author of numerous presidential volumes, writes of the qualities of a good president. “Great presidents possess — a vision of an ideal America.” That was Ronald Reagan and he made us feel good about being Americans. He made us believe in our ability to face great adversity and win.

Great presidents will always rise above partisan politics. Their character will never waiver in the face of great adversity and they will never lose their passion to steer our Ship of State of on the right course.

Let us hope and pray the next President in the White House will be such a person!  (Dare I say it… Hope for change?)

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Qualities That Make A Great President

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    I don’t expect a great POTUS 45, I just hope we get one that is not a pathological serial liar like POTUS 44.

    It would also be nice to get a president who does not neglect his job in order to be out on the golf course when he or she is not campaigning.

    Oh, and no more “community activists.” They completely suck.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Bill, I just read the article about Sodexo and their new part-time employees. Well, many people warned this would happen and obviously it is. At the rate its failing ObamaCare is going to be one of biggest boondoggles in American history. It makes our Postal Service and DMV look like well oiled machines.

  2. Peggy says:

    I’m not sure the person exist to be #45 and able to get us out of the ObamaCare mess, unemployment mess and foreign policy disaster created by #44.

    If he/she does exist they’ll have to be the third person able to walk on water ever. And I mean that in a good way as in a gift from on high to save this country.

  3. Tina says:

    Wow Bill…that is one heck of a premium shock:

    Now our options seem to be either to pay $19,600.52 per year for the COBRA plan, or $12,636 for an individual family plan with a deductible that is 3 times our current plan.

    The family will likely never meet the deductible!

    Many Americans will no longer have real coverage for their family healthcare needs. This just really stinks!

  4. Tina says:

    Peggy I agree, it’s going to be a tough job, especially if that “gift president” has a stinky Congress.

    Of course if we get Hillary or Elizabeth Warren or, God forbid Joe Biden we can forget it.

  5. Tina says:

    Jack you’ve covered the bases pretty well.

    Now…what can we do about the electorate? 😉

    • Post Scripts says:

      Tina, as usual you have nailed it. The headwaters for elections are the electorate and as the saying goes people get the government we deserve. Wising them up to vote smart is no easy job, in fact its become a lot tougher over the last 20-30 years. If we keep going down this path imagine what voters will be like by 2100? Then again, maybe there won’t be any voters…they will have done themselves in and could have Fuhrer or something.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #8 Post Scripts : “Pie, the level of the bar set by the Obama Administration is now so low the next POTUS is bound to look good!”

    POTUS 44 makes me wax notalgic for the good old days of POTUS 39.

  7. Dewey says:

    The Country is still suffering from Reaganomics and the fake trickle down Thatcherism. Reagan was not a great president at all.

    One can like him for what ever reason but a great president has lasting positive results for a country. The economics charts show Reaganomics a failure .

    Well as long as people allow the Corporate ran Citizens United media to dictate who the candidates we will get stuck with presidents on the corporate payroll to take away human rights.

    Ever notice how they try to write laws that say your boss can dictate personal decisions? Usually tea party Politicians but all are guilty

  8. Tina says:

    Dewey: “a great president has lasting positive results for a country. The economics charts show Reaganomics a failure .

    Wrong! This BS is a product of the extremist progressives that have taken over what was once an American political party. After the disaster of the hapless Carter the policies enacted by Reagan are responsible for a great economic expansion. It could have been even better if not for the irresponsible dirty political maneuverings of Tip O’Niell.

    New York Times:

    Almost everyone knows that the greatest depression the U.S. ever had was in the 1930’s. It was known as the Great Depression, and its infamy merits a separate section in economics textbooks. But what was its counterpart? When did our greatest economic expansion occur?

    We just had it. And it is still expanding, setting new records with each passing month.

    We don’t know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980’s or Reagan’s Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen – in any country, at any time.

    The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let’s look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan’s new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Creation of wealth. (emphasis mine)

    Economist can cherry pick statistics to prove anything but they cannot cherry pick what happens in people’s lives. The American people experienced more freedom, greater opportunity, and less burden from a demanding, controlling, money sucking government under Ronald Reagan and that is absolutely irrefutable!

    Further evidence and opinion:

    Georgetown University:

    In terms of economic accomplishments, perhaps the most significant positive aspect of the Reaganomics program of lower taxes and regulatory reforms is the tremendous increase in employment. The atmosphere of expansion and innovation created by the Reagan program continued to affect economic activity in the next decade as well. It is estimated that 24 million new jobs have been created in the 1980-1995 period in the U.S. – compared to only about 9 million in the European Union, which has a one-third larger population than America. After the 1981-82 recession (inherited in large part from the Carter years), and largely caused by the Fed hitting the monetary brakes very hard, real GDP rose by about four percent per year in the 1982-88 period. During this period, overall employment rose by 17%, but . . . “Hispanic employment has grown by more than 45 percent, black employment by nearly 30 percent, and female employment by more than 20 percent.” Although there was a distinct shift from manufacturing jobs (in part due to a strong rise in productivity in that sector) to employment in services, 90% of the new jobs were full-time positions and 85% were in skilled occupations (not “flipping burgers”).

    See comparative charts, Reagan and Obama, here

    Let’s start with the GDP data. The comparison is striking. Under Reagan’s policies, the economy skyrocketed. Heck, the chart prepared by the Minneapolis Fed doesn’t even go high enough to show how well the economy performed during the 1980s.

    Under Obama’s policies, by contrast, we’ve just barely gotten back to where we were when the recession began. Unlike past recessions, we haven’t enjoyed a strong bounce. And this means we haven’t recovered the output that was lost during the downturn.

    There is no evidence that corporate money makes any more difference in politics than does union money or Soros foundation money which is sizable.

    During the election that GW Bush won for a second term big money was spent to defeat him by George Soros:

    Open Secrets:

    Soros spent $24 million in under two years and did so in his determination to defeat George W. Bush in 2004.

    Open Secrets makes a valiant attempt to compare expenditures by the Koch’s and Soros, however they fail to report on the millions and millions of dollars that Soros spends to create and fund leftis organizations that do not bear his name. See that record here.

    The big difference for me in these two big money spenders. the Kochs actually make things and provide a lot of jobs. The Kochs are for less government power in individual lives but are for reasonable regulation for safety and conservation. Soros is a Hedge Fund guy that has been responsible for collapsing the value of currencies. Soros is no friend to freedom being a socialist. Soros is self serving and manipulative to that end.

    The best way to avoid the boss is to become your own boss. Try it and see how you fair. You might just learn something.

  9. Princess says:

    Hillary Clinton will probably be our next president if the GOP doesn’t get their stuff together and she’ll be awesome. She will be another George Bush. She loves war (voted for it in the Senate), and she LOOOOVES her Wall Street cash. This week she gave speeches for Goldman Sachs and they paid her $400,000. Yes, almost a half million dollars for speeches. Nothing to see here, to big to fail round 2.
    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-rakes-big-money-two-goldman-sachs-speeches-one-week

  10. Dewey says:

    LOL Ever heard of Citizens United? Well if one is not fighting to repeal it and stop the money from dictating to us who runs we may end up with a corporate democrat. there is no way The extreemist views of the Tea Party demanded of their candidates will win. Thanks allot guys last thing I want is a corporate democrat but yep good ol citizens united…

    The Money says it’s christy for the GOP right now there is another snake in the grass!

    One can not complain if they do not help to fix it!

    Go ahead run ted Cruz! LOL

Comments are closed.