Political Candidates and their Qualifications.

The inability of the media to give advice and even to inform is obvious; they have great trouble to go beyond noisy popularity contests during the election of the President of the United States - and to some extent also in the elections for Congressional candidates. Much too little attention is devoted to the essential questions regarding this most important issue. Personal stories, as long as their sources are clearly identified can, of course, contribute to an assessment of the character of the candidates, but they are by far not the most important issue. Even worse, the election campaign have, as in earlier times, more the appearance of a gigantic spectacle for the amusement of the citizens. Of course, people vote for a candidate for a variety of reasons. From what I hear, however, most of the reasons given, have nothing (or very little) to do with the awesome job of the President. If we want to make the best choice from among the candidates, we ought to know what is important and why. I have witnessed elections since 1928 when I only understood that my parents were very worried and, as it unfortunately turned out, for very good reasons. . . . .

On top of everything is the key responsibility of the President, and in a different way also of Congress, for the defense of the country.  If we ever should lose control over it, nothing else will matter and we will not be able to do any of those things which seem so important in the debates! We ought to keep this firmly in our mind to see our various personal concerns in their proper light and order. Every one of us voters has a most serious responsibility to make the right decision for the country - and not for himself directly, for his own interest as he perceives it because this perception is only on the basis of insufficient, and often wrong and misleading information. For Congressional candidates, it is equally important to be able to educate their constituency. They have access to the best available information and if they cannot use it to educate the voters, the temptation will be great to yield to the opinions of the electorate which, with poorly informed voters, it is not in the interest of the country.

The requirements of the office.
As chief executive, the President is the elected leader of the nation. His concept of what is important, what is critical, what is desirable, will decide where the nation is going to go in the next four years. For this, the President needs vision and wide experience; without this, he could lead the nation in a wrong direction. However, this is only the ideal case. In our world today, we are faced almost daily with serious problems which will force deviations from the plans and ideas the President may have, in favor of the things that have to be taken care of immediately. Therefore, an essential strength in this top position is the ability to make sound decisions, the ability to see what is possible and what is not, what is urgent, and what must wait. For the most critical decisions which he will be forced to make, i.e., using the immense military capability of the nation in a forceful defense - the President needs moral strength, tremendous strength - and again, vision! This ability, as well as general executive ability, cannot be identified in a popularity contest; it must include the fortitude, when absolutely necessary, to push "The Button" and to send young people into harms way! This strength can only be inferred from the past actions of the candidate under stress. A candidate who himself has avoided military service, is in my view for this reason less qualified than one who has served and has demonstrated that he was willing to do himself what he will be forced to ask others to do for their country.  If you think, that we should not wage war at all, please read my review on "Blood Rites" (Rites . .). War is not in our free decision. It can become unavoidable as the result of shortsighted policies. In November 1941, America was not asked whether it wanted war. It was declared by Japan and by Germany and for America, there was no choice at all. 

Important decisions that the President must make are the selection of the leading persons, the chiefs of the departments and other top level appointments. For this, the President must be able to recognize merit in persons, and also, even more important, their weaknesses and potential failures. To appoint the best people, the president must be able to resist the temptation to select friends with mediocre merit. This points to the most important item:

The Character of the Candidate.
It is in my opinion the most important point because a person's decisions depend more critically on character and adopted values than on "intelligence" or "brilliance". Regarding character and other personality traits, my essay on "How to Meet People" brings up a number of relevant and important aspects. (How .)

Age and Fitness of the candidate:
Machiavelli, in book 1, discourse 60 of the Discourses, discusses that the Romans conferred the Consulate and other high offices without respect to age. But what they always looked for was virtue (virtú), i.e., a forceful character, with valor (it fits a man, vir). Valerius Corvinus, consul at 23, told his troops that the consulate was the reward of virtue, not of birth. The Roman system was superbly effective and this practice is interesting. Machiavelli adds that if, indeed, the people select a young man to a post which demands the prudence of an old man, they should do it because he must have performed some outstanding feat. Given that condition, it would be harmful for the state not to avail itself of the young man while he is still in his fullest vigor. Thus Rome made use of Scipio, Pompey, and many others as very young men.

The counterpoint is our claim that immaturity is correlated with youth. If the state, or any organization, happens to fall into the hands of an immature, but capable person, it is a danger, and could become a real calamity. Hitler was only 44 when he assumed absolute power in Germany, Napoleon was 35 when he became Emperor of France, Lenin was 47 at the Russian Revolution, and Mussolini was 39 when he was dictator of Italy. On the other hand, Adenauer was 69 when he started to lead Germany back from total defeat in 1945, until at 87 he ceased to be Chancellor. Churchill was 66 when, in 1940 he became War Prime Minister, led his country to victory, and was in office until age 81. De Gaulle was 68 when he became President of France and saved it from chaos. He was in office until age 79. Therefore, the typical age of the 4 madmen, adventurers, and fanatics is 41, in contrast to 67 years for the 3 saviors of their country, several of them continuing with their leadership into their 80s.

There are numerous examples for the great potential of well aged men for mastering a critical public situation when nobody else could. Clemenceau was 76 when he became France's leader under the worst circumstances and saved it with his indomitable energy in WWI. Finally, President Reagan is the most recent example for meritorious service at advanced age. From this we could say that youth is correlated with immaturity. But correlation does not mean it is a determinant. Similarly, as it used to be appreciated, age is correlated with wisdom, but age is unfortunately not a determinant of wisdom either (growing old did not help Stalin, he only lost energy). Correlation only implies that one can predict the occurrence of the correlated trait with a probability that is given by the magnitude of the correlation.

Furthermore, we must not forget the decisive problem of fitness. Clearly, in the above cases, these leaders have enjoyed vigor and lucidity that was not diminished by their age but greatly amplified by experience. It is, however, an unfortunate fact that high age brings also the growing risk of senility, dementia, and in the worst case, Alzheimer's disease. This is certainly true. But to have able and mature leaders available and to prefer an immature person for a leadership position solely because he shows charisma and "brilliant" ability (of what?), but questionable qualities of character, is crazy and reckless. Moreover, if the candidate can maintain his leadership, energy, and efforts throughout the terribly demanding election campaign, he must be fit, I am sure. 

We must realize that speaking well, or "charisma", by itself is not a sign of personal quality, especially of the ability to lead the country.  I have heard many speeches by outright half wits, who have captured their audience and received wild acclaim. Unfortunately, we are easily impressed by appearances and carried by irrational emotions. A pure devil of a man, Adolf Hitler, was adored by the dominant part of the German public who was willing to follow him into disaster. In February 1943, the German war effort started to collapse, the armies retreating, the cities were burning, when Dr. Goebbels gave an incredibly inciting speech in which he asked the masses: "Do you want total war"? And they all applauded him enthusiastically! This is the magic power of leadership and it entirely depends on the person who leads where you will end up! Therefore, the leader must be selected with the very greatest care and circumspection. Poor choices happen if the people are ignorant about what to look for, or if they are unwilling to listen to reason because of their emotional or ideological bias. As one can see from the study of history, in the heat and pressure of the moment, the character of the leader is the decisive force, while his views during quiet moments at peace, become much less important.  All this is not to say that the capability of the President to communicate is not important. It is very important. But between communicating information, and the ability to incite a riot is a basic difference.  This is what we have to keep in mind.

Another factor to remember is that the public overrate intelligence (I am talking about one's own) because they do not understand what can limit or cancel even the best intelligence. Furthermore, the media, dominated by minds that lack distinction, have almost daily demonstrated that they cannot be as helpful as they should be. They routinely promote mere celebrities and do not distinguish merit and demonstrated capability from being just widely known. The media, more than anything else, shape our public opinion and here, possibly more than anywhere else, more mature leadership is urgently needed, i.e., right in the media!  For an important testimony of this, see Essay #11- 1, note [7] !  The worst aspect of this is that the public is hardly aware of it, particularly when opinions are fanatically defended that are based on nothing but these treacherous sources.  The most reliable impression one can gain will always be by listening and observing the candidate in person on live TV - before he will be deconstructed by a horde of parasites, many of whom seem to lack responsibility for what they say and will turn the words around until they mean the opposite of what was intended.  Of course, one must have some independent information about the subject, otherwise fraudulent claims could not be recognized.

Experience.  This is an important factor, but only in a supporting role in the qualification of a candidate.  President Truman, e.g., has come into the office with almost no specific experience, yet he became one of our important presidents.  He did  have business and personal experience, and was obviously a mature character, that is true.  In other words, experience is extremely useful, but it is not a sufficient factor.  As I see it, one has to take into account not necessarily specific experience, such as Governor of a state, but the overall lifetime experience of a person.  Between "experience" and demonstrated executive ability is a difference also.  The latter is very important, it is a necessary qualification because it reveals the candidate's initiative and ability to get things done.

Family Background.  It is well documented that persons who come from troubled or failed families tend to have more emotional problems than the average. In school, they are the most frequent sources of disturbance or other problems. The early upbringing, particularly for boys the presence of a concerned father, is of fundamental importance for the later life. For these reasons, I give a high importance to a solid family background of the candidate, with traditions that have been cultivated.

 Friends and Associates of the candidate.  Several reasons make this an important issue. First, the candidate will naturally be inclined to listen to the opinions and advice of his old friends and confidantes. But he will also look at this circle to pick candidates for the most confidential positions in his administration. Finally, the friends you keep are a good indication for the kind of person you are.

Wealth of the Candidate.  This subject is exploited by adversaries who think that they can gain points by arousing envy in the voters. I believe that this is wrong. Not only is envy understood as a sin in most religions, and it is unethical to arouse this in others. But if a wealthy person decides to go into public life with all the troubles this will entail, instead of passing his life in quiet leisure, this is highly meritorious. It is also advantageous to have a wealthy person in an official position because he will be less susceptible to corruption for personal reasons compared to a "carpet bagger" who owns nothing and depends on gifts from friends and supporters.  It has also been claimed by some that a rich person is less able to see the problems of the poorer part of the population.  I would discount this argument completely if the candidate has served in the military where one learns to live at close range with people from all parts of the population. The argument is totally unimportant in relation to the other problem that a person who owns wealth has most likely also the appreciation for the importance of preserving it (The adage must be verified, that beggars mounted run their horse to death. -  Shakespeare,  Henry VI, P3, A1).

Political Party Affiliation of the Candidate.  I am so completely convinced of the decisive importance of the character, that I would give the least weight to his party, even though, the program of the administration will depend very much on which party has provided and will support the candidate. But invariably, the pressures from the environment, the urgency of the problems, and expert advice will practically force the candidate to a policy that is much more realistic than he himself would like.  If given two candidates, one highly qualified, as determined from the points above, and the other poorly qualified, I would select the highly qualified person regardless of his party affiliation (provided, of course, that he will have support in Congress, which fringe candidates will not have).

Copyright © 2008  Gernot M. R. Winkler,               Last Correction  06/16/2009