Regarding the Presidency: The Question of Qualification (part 2)

Part 1 ended up emphasizing foreign policy experience of a particular sort, and downplaying rhetorical skills and to some degree even the skills one gets in management/executive positions.

Now that last post had the advantage of being grounded in historical observations and the question of America’s place in the world. This post is far more speculative, and I realize the last one was pretty speculative too.

So let’s just cut to the key question: What should the President be knowledgeable about, aside from the actual experiences he might have had running things before?

Our temptation is probably to say, “Well, he needs to know Economics, otherwise how is he going to deal with our economic growth and know when trade deals are good and bad. He probably should also be conversant with how law works. He does need to know history, and he probably should be aware of what our military is capable of, and what it isn’t, and what its needs are…”

The trouble with bringing up knowledge of law and economics is that such knowledge can go two ways: nowadays, the way the fields are taught, it is knowledge of very particular things being given so that way one can do things with that knowledge. In other words, it’s about utility, and utility is always contingent on very specific things that could change. So that kind of reasoning collapses very quickly into “he needs to know everything about every issue in every field relevant to his job in order to make a decision.” (Note what we mean when we say “he should have experts advise.” We’re saying it would be best if he knew absolutely everything, but since that’s not possible, we’re going to try to get him such knowledge whenever possible).

More theoretical knowledge about law and economics in the broadest sense (i.e. “How does a law reflect a community’s values,” or even the Marxist question “Does economics determine all human history”) is gone now. No one studies it – the only candidate in the race even aware of such things is Newt Gingrich, who was a professor of political science.

The funny thing is that our greatest President, a self-taught man who read Cicero and Shakespeare in his spare time, did have that more theoretical knowledge. The understanding of this nation and rule of law in the Gettysburg Address is not terribly technical, but it isn’t just rhetoric disconnected from higher sorts of knowledge.

The thing is, President Bush has his MBA from Harvard. And I don’t think he’s been a bad President, but I do think his training hasn’t allowed him to come to grips with how nasty a climate there is against him. I don’t think he’s been able to transcend DC’s pettiness and really appeal to the American people, because his training probably makes him think his role is connected with the bureaucracy. And it is, and it isn’t. The bureaucracy in Washington will outlast him: most of the people in charge of the FCC and stuff will be there long after the two terms are done being served.

His training has been relevant to the job in accidental ways: he understands he shouldn’t micromanage. He understands there are issues where he represents the nation as a whole (foreign policy) and those are his chief concern. He understands that he sets a vision and tone for an organization (I am very grateful to him for the Mexico City policy still).

But that last word I used – “organization” – is the problem. A President has to understand America in a sense, and what he thinks American life is about. For FDR, it was standing with the UK against fascism of all sorts. American life was not about populist tyrannies that wholly embraced the future. For Truman, same thing. For Jefferson, it was about people truly governing themselves (that’s why the Louisiana Purchase was such a problem – it was less about self-governance, and more about expansion. The literal expansion of America means that controls that are more imperial and less democratic have to be put in place). For Lincoln, it was about the fact that true freedom doesn’t involve hurting another, but helping others. For Nixon, it was about making peace while the world grew up: our order was excellent, and the trick was to not let the world collapse into a “war to end all wars” scenario like the Two World Wars, and allow us to enjoy our freedom while not allowing tyranny to empower itself outside our borders.

I think you see now what I’m getting at in terms of an education: it isn’t enough to have values. Everyone has values. The trick is to be able to articulate the pros and cons of your values, and understand that there are always trade-offs. The trouble with Senators is that they’re absolutely right about everything in their minds, and education is about crafting pretty speeches. Compromise is purely formal with them. The trouble with Governors and Mayors are that they rule too absolutely, and may never see the problems that taking a stance on anything involves. Education with them is about knowing everything, because if they can micromanage something and get success out of it, they’re considered successful.

Foreign policy expertise is an education of another sort, though: it is an education in the raw exercise of power being used against you. People will lie to your face consistently in the international arena if they can get away with it: there is nothing analogous to this in domestic politics – it’s too tame: rigged elections make a few bitter, but are looked as a joke of sorts at the local level.

So when looking to see what a candidate has learned, I’m looking to see if they have a knowledge of their own values, and aren’t just saying things to appease one group and then another. While politicians do have things they stand strongly for – they are true believers, some of them – “knowledge of value” is a very different issue. Whoever we elect to this job has to have a vision for America, has to be able to see the bigger issues, for he represents America in a world where there is no literal higher authority. He must be cognizant of the greater good, then, from within.

powered by performancing firefox