Because Solon has made the statement several times that Hillary Clinton would make a better Senator than she would a President, I've been wondering what are the qualities that we value in a President versus the one in a Senator. I freely admit that I haven't given this a lot of thought myself, and I daresay that most people don't entertain what it means to be a Senator rather than President. Following are a list of qualities I would like to see in a Senator and a President. I'm interested to see what those in the blogosphere think about this issue. Please note, however, I do not intend this to be an analysis of Hillary Clinton per se (although I know it will end up there) but rather a consideration of what it means to be a Senator vs. President. Also note that I tend to use feminine pronouns in my writing and that my use of them doesn't reflect anything other than a personal preference for feminine pronouns.
President
1. Thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human being
2. Aware of national and international issues
3. Able to surround herself with equally thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human beings
4. Able to know when she needs to listen to the advice of someone smarter than her
5. Creative, innovative, and open to change
6. Able to define what that change is rather than simply saying we need to change
7. Willing to challenge the status quo when it is necessary to do so
8. Willing to maintain the status quo when it is to the advantage of the country to do so
9. Able to admit a mistake without seeming to admit weakness to the rest of the world
10. Willing to use any diplomatic means to avoid any type of military conflict
Senator
1. Thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human being
2. Aware of national and international issues
3. Able to surround herself with equally thoughtful, tolerant, well-spoken, intelligent human beings
4. Able to know when she needs to listen to the advice of someone smarter than her
5. Creative, innovative, and open to change
6. Able to define what that change is rather than simply saying we need to change
7. Willing to challenge the status quo when it is necessary to do so
8. Willing to maintain the status quo when it is to the advantage of the country to do so
9. Able to admit a mistake without seeming to admit weakness to the rest of the world
10. Willing to use any diplomatic means to avoid any type of military conflict
3 comments:
While I think that you focus on personal characteristics, what are the constitutional and institutional differences between the two positions?
Second, how do the characteristics of the current presidential candidates reflect those institutional and oonstitutional differences?
You raise good points, and frankly, I don't know enough to say much about those differences--not enough about the candidates, but enough about the finer differences you would base your decision on. And in all honesty, Solon, I think you're in the minority of Americans who actually consider these things when deciding who to vote for.
M:
While oftentimes people are not nearly as smart as we think we are, the inverse is also true: We are not Nearly as dumb as it is sometimes Conventional to think (Damn, is Harrogate catching a version of the Obama bug here?)
It might be fair to suggest that the average American voter has a more or less accurate idea of Constitutionally-grounded distinctions between the Senator's role and the President's.
To wit: Senators are known in the popular lexicon for their love of Debate, and zest for "vote counting" and "forging coalitions." On Fox News in 2004 they had much fun with the Kerry/Cicero comparison, and if you went to network message boards, you could tell people thought it was funny. Actually, given Kerry's bland patrician ethos, it WAS kind of funny, in a "John Kerry and Drew Berrymore walk into a bar and the bartender asks them, why the long faces?" kind of way.
Anyway, there is something accurate to Americans' sense that Senatorial effectiveness involves high debating skills and a knack for striking compromise among colleagues with whom they worke closely. The Senate, precisely by virtue of its Elite Collegiality, also serves as something of a bulwark against high passions that might emanate from the House.
Since Harrogate has already waxed a little Obamaesque in this long comment: he might as well go whole hog and second Solon's claim that Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent Senator--by all accounts she seems to immensely enjoy being there, and has, indeed, earned the respect of many Republicans in the chamber who before working with her knew only the caricature that all decent people disparage.
Harrogate could imagine Harry Reid soon stepping down as Majority Leader, and Hillary Clinton emerging as the new, more energetic, and infinitely more effective, Senate Leader.
With a President, we might suggest that the Constitution requires, and indeed that the People want, something less like a gift for debate and compromise, and more in the area of the quality of Vision.
Look at what Obama said in one of the debates, that by his own admission he is disorganized and not a micromanager--he therefore prizes surrounding himself with competent, intelligent people (something you persuasively cite, in this post, as a quality we want from all federal officials)--such people would remove the minutia from hbis platter, and allow him to fulfill his primary role of setting the broad Agenda.
Post a Comment