It's been said by many people on both sides of the aisle that one would have to be crazy to run for president, or any other high political office. The demands of the job, the lack of private life, the dealmaking, the divided and often hostile electorate, the glare of the media, etc etc. all suggest an incredibly stressful life with little but ego gratification as a reward.
So what kind of person runs for office? I've been thinking of this a bit in the aftermath of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. Here in Minnesota, we had a similar Attorney General who ran for the Governorship, a crusading, controversial, tightly-wound politician who had an excellent chance of winning in Nov. 2006 until his famous temper got the better of him and he said some things that turned people off.
Mike Hatch, like Spitzer, was the champion of the consumer and the underdog, and he certainly got his share of headlines taking on HMOs and other big corporate interests. But from my experiences with his office, I never felt very comfortable about the prospect of him as governor. Hatch was pleasant enough to me in the few times we spoke, but his staff was the most difficult I have ever worked with in the political sphere, with the possible exception of President Bush's re-election team (another story for another day.)
If Hatch had won, I really question how well he would have governed. It's a big change going from a chief prosecutor to a chief executive. I think Hatch would have continued in his crusader mode, which in itself is not a bad thing, but if his attack dog style had remained the same, I think we would not be seeing as much of a Democratic resurgence in this state. A lot of people would be angry with Hatch as governor, I believe, and Hatch's attitude was always pretty much "Bring it on." Not a recipe for effective government, I believe.
I don't mean to suggest Hatch would've suffered anything like Spitzer's fate. But still, there's something to be said for a calmer, more centered--and more centrist--approach. Better for the sanity of the politician, if not the voters.
3 comments:
What kind of person runs for national political office is a very good question to ponder. The excurciating pressure that politicians face from the media, the electorate, other politicians (domestic and foreign), etc. likely keeps many good candidates out of the race, especially the presidential one.
Like Izzy, I've wondered about what might have been in regards to politicians who fell from grace before being elected or were permanently damaged ratings-wise by forces beyond their control. What would a Gore presidency have been like if he hadn't succombed to the Clinton taint? How would that have impacted 9/11? What would Kerry have been like as a leader if he hadn't been Swift-Boated? What kind of president would the Italian-muttering lunatic pictured in the documentary have made? Would his connections with the ketchup empire have been better than the oil connections that GWB has? Would that have kept gas prices at bay but raised the price of hamburgers? So hard to say.
Career-ending scandals and nasty behavior aside (a la Spitzer), it would seem that EVERY person has a temper as well as things in their personal lives or histories that they wouldn't want shared on TV or anywhere else. This makes me wonder if these outbursts from Hatch, McCain, etc. are truly bad tempers or just spontaneous and natural reactions to events, albeit caught on tape and replayed ad nauseum on the Internet and news channels.
Personally, a person who never gets angry would be more worrisome than one who does and it's caught on tape. Bottled up anger results in bad things-personally and physically, so why are we so horrified when somebody shows that anger? Obviously, it's not polite to blow up in public but, if you were constantly being followed by photogs and camera crews, eventually something is going to get caught on tape that's unpleasant. Frankly, I respect a person more if they do show a bit of a temper. It makes me believe they'll fight for what they're passionate about.
Unfortunately, I don't see much fight in any candidate right now except McCain, and he's always been a fighter. Obama is more human than Clinton. He's made mistakes and admitted to them, but she's the Ice Queen. Perhaps it comes from years of fighting off Clinton taint.
And Izzy...you must share your story involving President Bush's re-election team. I cannot fathom a rational scenario in which you would be associating with such a group.
I totally agree that it's only human to have a temper, but I would say that maybe that's the problem, we don't allow our politicians to be human.
Not that we should excuse bad behavior, but things like the Dean Scream, Al Gore's sighs, GHW Bush's glancing at his watch, we focus on this stuff and THAT becomes how we judge candidates, rather than their actual abilities, experience, etc.
(Or muttering in Italian, although I don't get the reference...)
Believe me, if you lived in Minnesota, you'd know a little more about Hatch's persona and how it affected people's perception of him. I think we only saw the tip of the iceberg as far as his temper, but that was enough to wreck his chances. Or maybe I'm overestimating the impact of that incident. Hard to say.
So I agree that bottling it up is bad; it does tend to come out at some point. But no matter when it does, we as the voting public are quick to judge and slow to forgive. And we never forget.
I think we agree, that makes being a politician a very risky prospect.
The GWB thing, I'll tell you sometime. It was related to my work, as was my interaction with Hatch.
Post a Comment