Testing the Candidates

Not far from here, in Pennsylvania, they engage in an annual great silliness called Ground Hog Day.  On February 2^nd all gather around to watch as the honoree, Punxsutawney Phil, pops his head up out of the ground and decides whether winter is at an end. On a really miserable day, he stays in bed, but if there seems to be spring in the air he starts to check what’s really happening.  On a cloudy day he stays up and winter, at least in Punxsutawney Pennsylvania, is declared officially over.  But Phil is a very skittery little animal, and at the slightest sign of his shadow,  goes back down for another six weeks, and winter, at least in Punxsutawney Pennsylvania, continues its dreary way. Not snow, or balmy breezes, or flights of geese headed north are his guide, but only his shadow.  The fate of the season thus rests on the temperament of that nervous nellie, the ground hog.

I thought of that as I watched the Charlie Rose Show on Monday night.  Charlie is one of those rarities on TV, a talk show host with a keen mind and without vanity.  All he does is gather interesting people around and ask them interesting questions, then sit back and let them have at it.  Monday having been Presidents’ Day, he gathered several eminent historians of the Presidency around and asked them, simply, what is it that makes a great President?  They bounced around from Lincoln to FDR to Jefferson to Jackson, and first decided that “the bright red line” for identifying a candidate for that exclusive club, was that he was a two term President – with one notable exception – they unanimously excluded George Bush.  Then, after more reflection, they all agreed that the distinguishing characteristic of a great President was his temperament.  And by that, they meant the ability to see through the fog of politics to the real issues and to get something done about them.  That, to the historians, involved a mixture of will, insight and unflappability that defined greatness. 

That’s what makes the American electoral process so interesting.  For, going on from the historians’ insights, the purpose of the quadrennially mixed-up mess that we call the election process is not really to determine policies so much as to test candidate temperaments.  The American electorate is rightly suspicious of causes carried to the extreme.   Proclaiming your allegiance to narrow causes is not enough. Kathleen Parker, a columnist in the Washington Post with whom I frequently disagree – but sometimes she’s right,  remarked this morning that voters do not want to be led either by messiahs or prophets. She’s right on that, too.

The temperament of a candidate is key in that it involves being able both to see the problems as they really are and to avoid distraction while working on them.  When my children were young, I sometimes reminded them that the reason, ”the meek shall inherit the earth”, as stated in the Sermon on the Mount, is that arrogance leads to blindness about what’s really going on and how to deal with it.  You start to see things as brighter or more shadowy than they actually are and to reject ideas not your own.   Enough intellectual humility to recognize that your own definition of the problem may need ongoing adjustment in the light of reality is necessarily a part of being a great President.  So is the courage to pursue your solution in the midst of adverse circumstances. 

Finding the candidate who comes closest to that mix of traits which we dub temperament is what we’re doing.  It’s a serious task, and we the people, for the most part, are not distracted by appeals to or from special interests “My way or the highway” automatically fails that arrogance test, as appealing to fears only flunks you on the courage test.  It appears that, at the moment, the Republican part of we the people have about decided that their vote is for ”none of the above” in their primary.  While I support Obama, I think that’s too bad, because serious times demand serious contenders.  Punxsutawney Phil need not apply.