Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Presidential Power

For the first time since WWII, no presidential candidate in either Party has served in the military. As Jeffrey Toobin points out, this is the culmination of a recent trend in American Politics over that last two and a half decades: " In every election since 1988, the candidate with the better military record lost." Some may lament the fact that military experience has played a decreasing role in how we evaluate a person's ability to become Commander and Chief - and there are valid points to be made in favor of electing a person who has seen the horrors of war up close - but there are also persuasive arguments against electing a person purely on the basis of military prowess.

Once such argument can be found in Richard Neustadt's seminal work, Presidential Power, where the author asserts that a President's greatest asset is his ability to persuade others - whether the public or in the administration - to do his bidding. As opposed to in the Military where a soldier is legally bound to obey his General, there is no such obligation in politics. This fact was not lost on President Truman when he commented that Eisenhower, should he become president, will just "sit here, and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike-it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."

And after being elected, Eisenhower found this to be true. In his very own words, "I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do without my persuading them.... That's all the powers of the President amount to."

Americans say they don't want professional politicians in the White House, but a politician is the exact type of person who embodies and has spent his career honing these skills. We just want a politician so good, that he persuades us he isn't one.