What does it take to be a successful President of the United States?

What does it take to be a successful President of the United States?

Hard to say, we’ve had so few.

Democrats point to Clinton and Roosevelt. Republicans tout Reagan. Historians, political scientists and journalists continually compile rankings and polls. Washington, Lincoln and FDR are most commonly put at the top of lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Given the great number of dummies with the right to vote in US elections, it comes as no surprise that there is a Guide for Dummies for evaluating US presidents:

Evaluating U.S. Presidents

By Marcus Stadelmann

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evaluating-us-presidents.html

“U.S. presidents are evaluated in many ways. The major characteristics that academic and public polls use to evaluate the 44 U.S. presidents vary from survey to survey, but the main standards remain consistent.”

Policy leadership

Crisis management

Presidential appointments

Foreign standing

Character and integrity

Public persuasion

Presidential vision

They seem like pretty reasonable criteria for evaluating whether a president is relatively successful or not. But the characteristics we use to evaluate a presidency aren’t always apparent when we are evaluating candidates for the office.

To take the current president for an example, we can see that he has done a poor job of policy leadership. His policies have been abysmal and he has too often “led from the rear.”

Crisis management: He has had plenty of crises to manage, many of his own making. He has mismanaged almost all of them. In each case, the president’s response seems to have diminished the standing of the US in the world and made the US less safe and less secure. From the Bailout that bailed out Democrat constituencies rather than the nation, to Fast and Furious, ad nauseum, this administration has exacerbated or prolonged crises. One begins to wonder: what was Rahm Emanuel thinking when he said, “Never let a crisis go to waste?” Of course he knew that crises are useful for autocrats. A crisis focuses public attention on something other than the government. Progressives back to Henry James saw the value in creating a ‘moral equivalent for war.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Jimmy_Carter%27s_Moral_Equivalent_of_War_Speech

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Presidential appointments: Van Jones, Timmy Geitner, Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder. ‘nuff said.

Foreign Standing: From dissing England and Israel in his first weeks in office through “Reset” or something with Russia to spending 3 years to the Arab Spring which has sprung anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israel Islamist autarkies across North Africa and the Levant to Iran, North Korea and China who are all becoming more hostile to the US. The current president has been a failure at home and abroad.

Character and Integrity: Tony Rezko on line 1, Rod Blagojevich on line 2, Mr. President.

Public Persuasion: He still has 26% of the nation persuaded: “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Presidential Vision: Sorry, anyone who envisages “fundamentally transforming America” has the wrong vision.

The problem is that at least half of those attributes cannot be known until it is too late. We are dealing with that reality today.

What are the traits, attributes, beliefs etc. that we may discern from the public record of candidates for the office of president? What can be discerned from what they’ve said and done in prior positions and on the campaign trail that may give us some understanding of how they would each do in the office when their legacy and the future of the country is played out.

IMHO, the characteristics a person needs to even have a chance to succeed in the presidency are:

Vision – No. I don’t mean “a vision” as in “having a vision for the country.” That’s the sort of thing that got us into this mess. I mean the ability to see and think abstractly and creatively; to grasp the important things in the welter of data, incomplete information, and conflicting opinions. The ability to see the pattern amid the clutter and grasp the interrelatedness of apparently disparate things. To see the essential thread that must be addressed to untangle the knot. Reagan saw that modernizing our nuclear forces and deploying tactical nukes to Europe was the best path to nuclear arms reductions and the end of the Cold War.

Sound principles – In our Constitutional Republic based on Natural Law and Christianity; that means adherence to the principles laid down by the Founders upon the bedrock of Natural Law. Principles are different from ideology; which is brittle, shallow, narrow and inflexible.

Judgment – This may be a result of Vision and Principles. It may be its own trait. I would place management ability under the broader category of Judgment. Prudential Judgment should naturally lead to good choices of staff and to effective leadership – maybe not inspiring leadership, but effective leadership.

Personal Integrity – Do I really have to explain this one?

I cannot score the current president highly in any of these four areas.

How do the major candidates remaining measure up? None of them score significantly high in all four characteristics. Each of them scores well in at least one. All of them score better than Obama across the board.

Romney scores well in Vision as understood as the ability to understand complex problems – strategic leadership. I believe he has personal integrity. I thought he had good judgement. But I am unconvinced of his commitment to sound principles.

Santorum’s Personal Integrity and Sound Principles are nearly unquestionable. His reputation as a supporter of big government is worrisome, but I think he has a clearer understanding that the government you nurture as your pet inevitably becomes a monster at someone else’ hand. Best to starve the beast and keep it caged even when it means you can’t use it for what you think are good purposes. I do worry about his executive management ability.

Gingrich is a very mixed bag. He may be a visionary, but I’m not sure he has strategic vision. He didn’t cover himself in glory while Speaker. Although he did accomplish some historic things, it didn’t take long for the Republican caucus to fall apart. That speaks poorly of his judgement. His personal integrity remains iffy, too. 3 wives? I’ll gladly accept that he has repented and has a firm resolution to avoid the near occasion of sin. But he does seem to have a politicians love of dancing the side-step when he gets called on things. His lame explanation of his work for Fannie Mae is an example.

I thought Ron Paul had impeccable integrity, until I heard about his evasions over his old newsletters and his possibile colusion with Romney on behalf of Rand Paul. While I concede that he is probably closest to the principles of government held by the Founders, I do question his judgement. He shows no evidence of possessing strategic vision or exectutive management ability.