“At Least He Looks Presidential”

Any number of people would look equally presidential in the situation we witnessed tonight. Some of them are good friends of mine. They are self-possessed, have an authoritative bearing, are practiced public speakers across a full range of contexts (including debates), and could have learned everything that was said tonight in less than a week just watching a selection of Obama’s and McCain’s campaign speeches. But none of these friends of mine has any business running for president. Thankfully, they are not.

But Barack Obama and John McCain are running for president. And they both look like they could be president. It’s befuddling and disappointing that this is the single most significant factor the pundits have utilized in calculating the net result of tonight’s debate. Obama only had to look presidential to win—even if McCain also looked presidential—as long as McCain did not deliver a knock-out punch. This because Obama’s lead in critical states has lengthened. And that’s more-or-less how things turned out, if we’re to believe post-debate chatter.

What do pudits mean by a “knock-out punch”? What many of them mean is the slick delivery of a purely rhetorical zinger. An example, courtesy of Brit Hume (Fox News), is Ronald Reagan’s admittedly clever and endearing jibe about not taking advantage of Walter Mondale’s youth and inexperience.

Give me a break. Has the media gone bonkers? The most charitable spin I can put on this is to suppose that the punditocracy is merely speculating (perhaps quite plausibly) about how viewers (especially undecideds) will perceive the outcome. But that isn’t exactly what the pudits are saying. It sounds like it’s what they themselves believe. And they should know better. More than that, they would serve us better if they attempted to educate us in the proper criteria for evaluating a candidate for the presidency. Otherwise, we don’t really need them.

Maybe they think that’s what they are doing—educating us in a tradition of collective wisdom. If so, they and I disagree about what that is and what criteria matter most.

I’m of the anachronistic opinion that we need to distinguish between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions for being qualified to serve as president of the United States. Looking presidential (talk about a subjective variable) may be a necessary condition—may be. But in my judgment it is by no means a sufficient condition. A candidate must have other qualities. And among the preeminent qualities are proven experience and policies that make sense on close inspection.

That probably sounds like an endorsement of a particular candidate. But I’d like to know who disagrees with me about the criteria. “Proven experience” may be a lock for John McCain. “Policies that make sense on close inspection” will be matters of principled disagreement among those who take pains to understand proposed policies thoroughly, know what to look for in sensible policies for times like these, and have the disposition to embrace those policies.

Do you reckon you’re one of those people? I’m not sure I am. Remember that “zen-like” question the candidates had to answer at the end of the debate? “What is it that you don’t know now that you’ll have to learn after you become president?” Maybe those of us who plan to vote in November should be asking ourselves a parallel question: “What is it that we don’t know now (about the candidates) that we’ll wish we knew after one of them becomes president?” Something tells me that tonight’s debate did little to dispel our dangerous ignorance.

Our democracy is threatened by a glib populism. I suppose that’s always been true to some extent. But greater access to modern media by more people, and the dumbing down of America, is cause for concern. This can’t be what the Founding Fathers had in mind, though I’m sure they feared the possibility of its emergence.

Let’s at least think as hard as we can before we “pull the lever” (to use a quaint expression).

About Doug Geivett
University Professor; PhD in philosophy; author; conference speaker. Hobbies include motorcycling, travel, kayaking, sailing.

6 Responses to “At Least He Looks Presidential”

  1. Doug Geivett says:

    Me, too, Brent.


  2. Brent says:

    With regards to that “zen-like” question, I really wish one of them would have given the audience Meno’s Paradox. Now that would have livened things up a bit. At least, it probably would have made me snap to attention.


  3. Doug Geivett says:

    But I don’t agree.


  4. lucidlunatic says:

    Given that, we should be able to agree that nothing justifies the retaliation to those attacks which we, America, perpetrated and continue to perpetrate.


  5. Doug Geivett says:


    Nothing justifies the terrorism of 9/11—nothing.


  6. lucidlunatic says:

    First I’d like to say that I believe knowledge is more important than experience. As far as I’m concerned, if some one has been an aide on Capitol Hill for years, or in the White House, and knows exactly how things work, they can run for President and earn a few votes. Should they win? Not necessarily, but that should be decided by their policies. Otherwise a governor running for president (and we’ve had a number of those) would automatically be disqualified. What experience at running the country do they have? That, however, is up to debate.

    I agree that policies should make sense, and that the voter should agree with the policies.

    One thing, however, that I feel I have to add is that the president should be of good moral character, and intelligent. Perhaps this is just my excuse for the media rush of personal details from politician’s lives. But my reasoning is this: we cannot know what will happen during a presidency. 9/11 is the perfect example. And in my opinion is that if it were possibly for something to be justified after the fact, our response to the attacks on our nation would have justified that terrorist action, though it pains me to say it. Much of this is not Bush’s fault directly, but he has his fair share of blame as well. Beyond that, he would have been in the best position to stop numerous reprehensible actions.

    Sorry, I’m driving this off topic. If anyone wants examples they can read any number of books, such as ‘The Dark Side’ by Jane Mayer (which is available on Kindle). My point is this; with a different, more moral set of people in power, our actions as a nation would have been less reprehensible. Maybe even laudable, though I’m not sure if such a thing could rise out of that situation. Man is not phoenix to rise from the ashes of it’s demise; we are always darkened by the injury we sustain.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: