The most memorable line in Stephen Spielberg’s biopic ‘Abraham Lincoln’ comes when Daniel Day-Lewis thunders that he is President of the United States, “clothed in immense power!” That is a truism. American presidents matter. Presidential elections matter. The character and temperament of those who aspire to occupy the White House matters. Despite its constitutional-imposed constraints, in contemporary times no other single elected office has the ability to influence events or shape public opinion on such a global scale.
Every president-elect comes to the role bristling with confidence, having survived an often arcane process of primaries and caucuses that has taken him (or her) years to complete. Much rubber chicken has been consumed, many hands shaken, countless speeches given, and all in the relentless glare of an occasionally frivolous media that pokes, pries and exacerbates every real or imagined detail. Those who successfully tread this path gain insight into themselves and the kind of toughness a relentless weathering of fortune’s outrageous slings and arrows can bring. Small wonder that they think governing would be easy in comparison.
Yet they are often proven wrong. Politics can be grubby; it can also sing with poetry. Yet the means by which great legislative and foreign policy gains are made is often through the prose of governance. Though he (and as of this moment all of the presidents have been men) has at his disposal a vast military arsenal a president must persuade, cajole, cut dubious and self-interested deals with congressional legislators to pass laws. So too must he negotiate with foreign leaders to leave their mark on history. After all, having reached the presidency, how many have not aspired to belong to the ages?
The modern presidency is a unique office, calling upon its incumbent to be able to summon the oratorical skills of Socrates, the persuasiveness of Cicero, the strategic genius of Julius Caesar, the moral authority of the Pope (or insert the religious authority of your choice), the guile of Machiavelli, King Solomon’s ability to compromise, and to display the compassion of Mahatma Gandhi. Head of State, Chief Comforter, Commander-in-Chief, are all titles euphemistically or officially ascribed to the role. There is very real debate as to whether or not the position has grown too much for any one person to handle.
Abraham Lincoln suffered from chronic depression, along with a heart condition exacerbated by the stress of the Civil War; Franklin Roosevelt physically shrank as he led America through the deprivations of the Depression and the Second World War. Both men essentially worked themselves to death (notwithstanding Lincoln’s assassination there is doubt he could have made it through a second term). And these were the great presidents. Others like LBJ watched as his Great Society burned in the fires of Vietnam to the point where he micromanaged the conflict to an extraordinary degree, all the while deluding himself that he could cut a deal with Ho Chih Minh like some Capitol Hill senator or congressman, if only the opportunity presented itself; Richard Nixon attained soaring heights with foreign policy triumphs then sank into the pits of Watergate, driven by his inherent paranoia, lack of self-worth and insecurity. A good president can do good to great things. A president with issues, not so much.
Hence the dilemma with this current crop of presidential choices. Issues are aplenty with the known unknowns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Each has resumes sprinkled with degrees of success, political or business, as well as a whole railcar full of controversial baggage ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime. Neither is regarded as well-liked, nor particularly trusted. Indeed, in recent times have there been no presidential candidates from either major political party less viewed as trustworthy or reliable by the general public then this pair. Barack Obama’s anaemic 50% plus popularity rating makes him look like a superstar in comparison.
This is because the American people sense that the Clinton/Trump choice is like having to decide between eating a bowl of cold poison or be bludgeoned by a blunt instrument. There is a deep sense that neither has the wherewithal or the character to be effective as president, much less provide inspirational good government to confront the troubled times we live in. In fact, they are like those relatives that people whisper about at parties who hover on the edge of social acceptability, and whom we vaguely know but have to share the occasional festive meal with.
Hillary Clinton has been kicking around in political life longer than many of us have been alive, withstanding a deluge of ethical challenges (real or fabricated) stemming from what seems to be a control-freak, don’t trust anyone permanent siege mentality personality. Undoubtedly whip-smart with great qualifications (first lady, senator, secretary of state) her resume fits the job about to be vacated by Obama. Yet she is publicly uninspiring, with stiff gestures (she likes pointing at nothing in particular while on stage – just watch carefully), and moves like a badly oiled robot whose mechanism needs an overhaul, wooden speech delivery and comes across either as cloying or feigning emotion when seeking to show passion. Worse, all of her answers or questions on policy and ethics are veiled in legal parsing and occasional doublespeak that makes us wonder, what is she hiding, even if she truly has nothing to conceal. She has also occasionally shown astonishing naïveté in her judgements (i.e. the Whitewater scandal, the email server issue during her tenure at the State Department) as well as an inability to manage (the 2008 Democratic nomination fight). Don’t even think about getting her to admit error.
As for Donald Trump, while he has proven himself to be a master of marketing and media manipulation, one gets the acute sense that he is now in way above his head. What likely started as a semi-serious lark to boost his ratings for a reality show on how to run for president (Look at me, aren’t I great? Look at me mocking the media by the very outlandishness of my campaign. Look at me saying non-pc things.) has now become serious as he realizes that losing the election will tarnish his most prized possession – his brand. Furthermore, it can be argued that he may not even want to win as the sheer mundaneness of the prose of governing would bore him. And all of this without me even touching upon the controversial things he has said, or implied, much less his wildly inconsistent policy statements where there is policy at all. Name calling, mud-slinging, sly insinuation do nothing to ‘Make America Great Again.’ Don’t even think about getting him to admit error.
So where does this leave the American voter?
This year, thank God for Kaine and Pence.
This seems counterintuitive. In the American system voters choose their president directly from either major party’s candidates. The vice presidential nominees are, in turn, selected by those candidates for ‘ticket balancing’ by region, political views, compatibility of personality, race and sometimes, for being dull and politically non-threatening. Senator Kaine and Governor Pence are smart, hard-working politicians with records on votes and issues they are happy to discuss, debate and defend. Both have also shown a welcome tendency to break with their titular bosses on matters of policy and conduct, Kaine on the issue of abortion (he is a staunch Catholic), Pence on Trump’s overblown rhetoric and conduct (i.e. the conflict with the Khan family over their criticism of him). Moreover, while both are politically on different ends of the spectrum (centrist Democrat vs conservative Republican) neither is hobbled by scandal nor hint of scandal. Most importantly, in their careers and public pronouncements both men have been sensible, calm and have projected that they each could be president should the need arise. While they don’t have an overdose of charisma, which could be problematic should they be called upon to galvanize the electorate, technocratic competence can often be as important to good governance.
Bottom line: they can both do the job with the Big Chair.
There is one more consideration. Both Clinton and Trump have displayed a propensity for controversy and ethical challenges that could conceivably hobble a presidency. While neither appears to have issues on a Nixonian scale, it is not entirely impossible that a wounded President Clinton would turn to Vice President Kaine to help broker congressional deals to pass legislation and to show the flag abroad. If Hillary were to be brought down or rendered ineffective he could steer the ship of state through troubled waters. And if President Trump is more interested in playing golf and building walls, then the ship of state could still navigate with second-in-command Pence in charge of the mundane act of governing. Each of them was selected as a “safe pair of hands.” Each too, deep inside, must be taking a long hard look at their presidential ticket headliners and ask themselves, “Why not me?” someday.
So, at the end of things no matter who wins the White House, the United States and the rest of us who watch from the side lines, are in for a rocky four years. Clinton/Trump will not be boring. Whomever wins, let us at least be grateful that there are good understudies waiting in the wings.