Monthly Archives: June 2008

You can bet that the issue of qualification will come up often in the presidential race. Partisans will focus on Barack Obama’s paper-thin résumé, and John McCain’s years of service marred by the Keating Five scandal. They’ve already talked about Hillary Clinton’s supposed experience as co-president, and Mitt Romney’s tenure with the US Olympic Committee, and the governorship of Massachusetts.

No doubt, any excursion into the realm of what constitutes “qualified” has to be subjective. On the one hand, the ultimate qualification for any job would be that you have already done it—and this is the classic argument that incumbents will use. This breaks down, of course, if the person may have already done it, but did it poorly, or if the opponent promises a better or novel approach to a particular facet of the job. Yet, even these notions of “poorly,” “better,” and “novel” are themselves subjective.

More than that, because of the foolish convention of having history decide who was a good president—thus imposing anachronistic standards that in many cases trump the contemporary evaluations—even the criteria by which we can judge a president are skewed.

With that preface out of the way, let’s continue…

There are many who believe that James Buchanan (1791-1868), our fifteenth president, had the best résumé of any man who has assumed the office. Buchanan was actually born in a log cabin, and his family operated a frontier trading post. James worked in the store, acquiring practical business experience, undertook a typical undergraduate education and was admitted to the bar in Lancaster, PA.

He practiced law for two years before seeing some voluntary cavalry action, defending Baltimore during the War of 1812. He served in the Pennsylvania legislature (1814-1816), and then returned to his law practice.

In 1819 he became engaged to the love of his life Ann Coleman, a Lancaster iron works heiress, although the union was opposed by her father Robert. As it happened, when Ann discovered that Buchanan had returned from a business trip to Philadelphia and first stopped at the home of another woman before seeing her, she emotionally broke off the engagement. Shortly thereafter, she went to Philadelphia specifically to avoid seeing James, but fell ill and died in what many scholars feel could have been a suicide.

James took her death very hard, and was barred from attending her funeral by her cruel father. Biographers agree that this experience caused Buchanan to eschew romance and throw himself into his legal and political career.

In 1820, he was elected to Congress, leaving in 1831, but then became President Andrew Jackson’s ambassador to Russia. Upon his return to the US, he served in the Senate from 1834 to 1835. Buchanan had sought the 1844 nomination, but gave his support to James K. Polk, who made him his secretary of state. He tried again in 1852, but lost to Franklin Pierce, who made him ambassador to Britain.

Finally, in 1856, he became the Democratic candidate and defeated the Republicans’ first candidate John C. Fremont as well as Millard Fillmore. In those contentious times, Buchanan was seen as the perfect compromise candidate, for the apparent majority of the country who wanted to preserve the Union, with a careful balance of power between pro- and anti- slavery interests. After all, presidents going as far back as Jefferson believed that slavery would eventually end in a peaceful manner.

Taking a page out of today’s modus operandi, his inaugural address noted that the Supreme Court would soon decide the issue of slavery in the territories, and the matter would be settled. The case was Dred Scott v. Sandford, which stated, quite logically, that Congress had no power over slavery in the territories. In his zeal to achieve this verdict, which on the surface represented a compromise of sorts, he jaw-boned a northern justice to vote along with the southern justices, and expand the case beyond the fate of a single slave.

Many historians condemn Buchanan for this manipulation of the Court, but to assert that the Court is above politics is patently absurd.

His biggest mistake leading up to the Civil War was not recognizing the growing power of the free soil group, who mostly were indifferent to the plight of the slaves, but felt that slavery was a threat to free labor in the newly admitted states. There was surely a synergistic effect when this faction was combined with the radical abolitionists and mercantilists of the North. With this, the Democratic party would split in two, assuring Lincoln of the election and secession of the southern states.

Perhaps his second biggest mistake was to maintain a pretzel logic legalism in that he refused to recognize the right of any state to secede, but said that he had no power to prevent them from doing so. This soon morphed into his vow to commit no act of aggression against the seceded states, as he was looking for a constitutional convention (that he felt he could not call) to finally settle the slavery issue. But then there was that nasty business at Fort Sumter, taking place a month after Lincoln assumed the presidency in March, 1861.

History has not been kind to Buchanan even if Lincoln first attempted to follow his conciliatory strategies, saying that if war were to come, the South would have to fire the first shot. And, indeed they did, although Lincoln’s effect on this was hardly benign.

Poor old James Buchanan, possessed of the best résumé, but that would not be enough to overcome the turbulent times in which he lived.

Have you had enough yet? By the time November 4th rolls around, we will have been subjected to nearly two years of nonstop campaign mode. It’s hard to see who benefits in this scenario save the media, and vendors to the candidates—although they often get stiffed by the ones who drop out. True, there is some entertainment value in that “sure thing” Rudy Giuliani never launched and Madame Hillary’s every utterance dripped with the sound of entitlement, until she finally conceded to Obama.

My take on Hillary’s concession is that he promised to pay off her massive campaign debt, in exchange for her endorsement, and summary disappearance and silence (except when some remarks are requested by him). Perhaps this will all come out in a few years.

But besides going on for a nauseatingly long period of time, the presidential campaigns focus on attributes that have absolutely nothing to do with selecting a leader.

The two left standing have been able to…

• Raise the most money


• Offend the fewest people


• Repeat the best speeches—written by others


• Get the best photo opps


• Inspire the media (and that’s not terribly difficult)


• Commit the fewest gaffes, or become so beloved (like Obama) that nothing you do matters at all

If, as Hillary Clinton kept insisting, that it all comes down to who is answering the phone at 3 AM, how does any of the above find us the best person? But, Hillary is the last one to speak of sound judgment at 3 AM, or any other time during the day, since her campaign was sunk from the beginning. Imagine! She actually thought that Blacks would reject one of their own, in favor of an obnoxious, unattractive, marginally articulate, and far less clever than she thinks white woman.

Obama, meanwhile, has no résumé at all, and many people find this to be his biggest attraction. If Reagan was the Teflon president, Obama is surely the Teflon candidate, since gaffe after gaffe, and foible after foible generate scant reaction in the mainstream media, even if they are heavily commented on in cyberspace. For his part, Barack wins on all but the second bulleted point, but this certainly did not matter in the primaries, at least.

And, speaking of primaries, why do we have them in the ridiculous state-by-state format? Hillary kept touting the fact that she received 18 million primary votes, as if that really means anything. Lest we forget, the only statistic that is important is how many electoral votes one receives. And, in the presidential election, this is winner take all. Seldom, are many states actually in play.

This time, though, all bets are off. In California, with its large Hispanic population, we can speculate as to how well a Black candidate will do. Generally, there is considerable animus between the races. On the other hand, Hispanics are not big voters. Will this be enough to put this traditional Dem stronghold in play for McCain?

Other tough questions are whether Obama’s race or extreme left-wing politics will be the greater burden, as well as if McCain’s too liberal for prime time Republicanism or his scandal-ridden early career will be enough to trump his war hero image.

Note that all of the candidates could have just as easily been vetted by a much more merciful system—more merciful for both the candidates and the public: Schedule a single national primary for March of the election year. The winner for each party is determined by counting up the number of electoral votes assigned to each state they win—winner take all. By all rights, campaigning should not start until January of that year, but this is left to the discretion of the candidate.

The compelling advantage of this system is that it is much shorter, and much less expensive, since it eliminates the need for the candidates to campaign 19th century style with whistle-stop appearances in hundreds of locations. Is there anyone in the US who does not have access to a TV, radio, the Internet, or print media? How can it possibly matter if a candidate makes a personal appearance somewhere since the vast majority of people will never see the candidate in person? Why worry about a tiny fraction of the electorate? And, this method is much more environmentally friendly.

You might disagree with my recommendation, but I doubt that you disagree with the premise that the presidential election cycle must change.

What better time to talk about the “mother’s milk” of politics? And, why would anyone give money to a political candidate?

I can help to change the world

This is a biggie, and explains why Obama can generate tons of money on the basis of such platitudes as “change” and “hope.” Many people, including most politicians, will find it difficult to articulate their specific positions on anything. Real issues are too complex, after all.

LBJ, capitalizing on the notion that nearly everyone is against poverty, for example, was able to launch a hideously expensive and vastly incompetent war on poverty. The devil, of course, is in the details, but the details almost never get discussed until too late.

Thus, for a large number of Dems, especially those under 30 and those who are Black, Obama represents change, and that is enough. Moreover, by merely clicking on a website, funds can be directed to this new hero, and the clicker becomes part of the campaign and part of history. A scintillating superficiality in the electorate helps here, in that while Obama is forever touted as a great speaker, he is actually nothing of the kind. Rather, he has a good voice.

In fact, he does rather poorly if forced into extemporaneous situations, and tries to cover for this by deflecting all dissent as “cynical.”

Most candidates can take advantage of their celebrity status much the way movie stars do—and with somewhat greater justification. Many with empty lives follow those of film stars, even to the point of rooting for them to win an Oscar. Logically, it should make no difference to the fan if their favorite wins or not, since there is not present here even the sort of shared destiny whereby a championship for a city in a sporting event is felt to some extent by all residents. Clearly, in a political race, there can be a sense of shared destiny.

The point is that by sending a candidate $100, if he wins, you can claim a share in the victory. Depending on how empty your life is, this can be a major event. It helps if you don’t consider how insignificant your share actually is. Likewise, it helps if you don’t think too much about how the President—no doubt portrayed as all powerful—, is anything but.

These days, all the president can do is start undeclared wars, veto legislation, nominate federal judges, and start new cabinet departments. His power, such as it is, derives from the undeniable fact that he is the only office holder elected at large. In truth, his position is largely symbolic: If Clinton presides over a good economy that he had nothing to do with, he takes the credit. If Bush presides over a down economy that he had nothing to do with, he is awarded the blame.

Quid pro quo

This would appear to be the only rational purpose for giving contributions, and examples abound. The Clinton pardons include a number of big donors such as Marc Rich, and many office holders at the level of governor and representative have been convicted for taking bribes in the form of campaign donations (what’s the difference and how can they tell?).

A milder form of quid pro quo would be the gaining of access to influential politicos, but this might just be a distinction without a difference.

I can change the world all by myself

When it comes to those like George Soros, with virtually unlimited money at their disposal, and the intent to use it for political purposes, we have to create a special category. Perhaps Soros is guilty of the way he acquired his fortune, or about his oft-mentioned collaboration with the Nazis.

The oddest thing about Soros is that he is, as called by writer James Lewis, a socialist capitalist:

He has made it very big indeed, but he doesn’t want others getting rich in free markets. Instead, we are told, he wants “a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.”

The closest counterpart on the Right to Soros was Fred Lennon (died 1998), an Ohio-based billionaire, whose fortune was founded on a line of tube fittings invented by his partner Cullen Crawford. As it happened, Lennon bought out Crawford for a song, and grew the business to its present levels.

Lennon was as secretive as Soros is high-profile, and may have been more pragmatic in his donations, in that his businesses appear to have directly benefited, at least due to his involvement with local office holders and state supreme court justices.

Still, one wonders if the expense can be rationalized as anything other than a rich man’s hobby.