Two middle-aged men dressed in neatly pressed navy blue suits appear alongside each other on your television screen. In front of millions of intently watching Americans, these two men vie for the presidency on this most public stage. The first man speaks eloquently, weaving stories of hard-luck mine workers, childhood memories of classic Americana, and all of a sudden, you feel like you have stepped into a Norman Rockwell painting.
Then the second man opens his mouth, cocking his eyebrows inappropriately and glancing from camera lens to podium while uttering noticeably rehearsed clich?©s, and you feel immersed in a classic Saturday Night Live parody skit. Who makes the better president? The pleasant, smiling smooth-talker, or the bumbling idiot who can not seem to project a rational thought?
For me, like most, the choice is clear. However, the presidency was not always dominated by image. Today, for some, the defining characteristic in what makes a good president is his ability to lead behind closed doors.
Like most matters, there is a "gray area" worthy of consideration. The smooth-talker most likely possesses adequate political experience and the credentials to execute the office of the presidency to the best of his ability. Otherwise, the election would resemble an audition of sorts, with actors vying to be "leader of the free world," (and you can bet AHHHnold would be first in line.) Likewise, the incoherent idiot probably is about as good a public speaker as you or I. No one makes it to the presidential debates if he has a "face for radio" with a monotone voice to boot. In any election, each candidate falls somewhere in between the two extremes.
Since the 1960 debate between Massachusetts senator John F. Kennedy and California governor Richard Nixon, the image of the American president has become the paramount feature in all of politics for the common person. While most voters make their choice based largely on this image, one has to question the soundness of this decision.
Undoubtedly, the ability to lead behind closed doors is an attribute that most voters desire. However, can anybody truly determine if a certain candidate has what it takes to be a strong leader? In American history, the presidents that we consider "strong leaders" are perceived as such because of events that took place during their presidency. Lincoln had the Civil War, FDR had World War II, and the current president Bush has his "war on terror." It is difficult for voters to determine which exact qualities result in strong leadership from the Oval Office. These character traits simply do not manifest themselves until after the candidate has been elected.
There is perhaps no leadership trait more valuable than the ability to unite and inspire people by speaking. Only recently did the president have the far-reaching forum that he does today. When a president requests network air time, he is speaking to not only our country, but the entire world as well. These are the moments in which leadership is defined. If a president were to come on the airwaves following a national tragedy, and deliver a sloppily written, poorly delivered speech, he would do more harm to our country and our cause then he ever could engineer behind closed doors.
Think back over the past fifty years. When you think of leadership in the presidency, what comes to mind? Certainly at the forefront is JFK's Oct. 22, 1962 speech denouncing Soviet missiles in Cuba, Ronald Reagan's address to the nation following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and George W. Bush's remarks on the night of Sept. 11, 2001. These are the fleeting moments when a president must demonstrate to Americans and to the world that our country is united, and our resolve cannot be broken. If a president fails to adequately articulate these ideas, America could be viewed as weak or indecisive.
Imagine if JFK had not appeared so forceful and clear regarding the American position to Soviet offensive missiles in Cuba? Perhaps the crisis would have taken a different turn. The point here is that leadership is a vital quality in a president, and there is no way better to lead than to project a strong, uniting image to your constituents and the world at large.
For some in America, perhaps too much importance is placed on the president's outward image. Consider in 2000, when in a poll, fictional president Jed Bartlett of NBC's "The West Wing" actually received a larger number of votes than many real candidates in the race. This support for a fictional leader is a reflection of how much weight the average voter places on the public representation of the president. But this far-reaching power of image may signify the difficulty in identifying what it takes to be a true leader. Since people cannot perceive who is an effective leader behind closed doors, they turn to the most overt option. They choose the candidate who leads best on the most watched stage, on television, in front of the world.
Jake Lipton is a junior majoring in International Relations
