While catching up on some back reading recently I was intrigued by an editorial in the NY Times by Ross Douthat, whose columns are often interesting. In his November 22, 2009 column, Douthat wrote that Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, in particular, seem unsuited for the presidency because they do not have the gravitas required for the office. In Huckabee’s case, Douthat was concerned that the former governor owes his popularity “more to personality than to substance” and that his primary interest is to “cash in on (his) celebrity.” He wrote that “Huckabee spent the last year hamming it up on a weekly talk show, and the last month hawking a book of inspirational Christmas stories” and that “Huckabee’s gabfest is a weekly reaffirmation of the rap that he’s too lightweight for the Oval Office.” Douthat then posits the need for a Republican leader who is “serious” about the economy, trade, and health care, and one who will “become the voice of an intellectually vigorous conservatism.” He closed with his knockout punch: “If Republicans are lucky, though, it will be somebody who shares their (Huckabee and Palin) charisma — but who prefers the responsibilities of leadership to the pleasures of celebrity.”
How is it that so many intelligent and articulate members of the media consistently misunderstand leadership as well as the political process? A non-negotiable truth of leadership is that people must trust the individual before empowering them to lead. Should Huckabee be disqualified as a “serious candidate” because he has an accessible weekly talk show? Is it inappropriate for him to dispense political perspective in ways that the average voter finds more appealing than the mind-numbing and audience-repelling exercises that typify the content on Meet the Press and This Week in Washington? Should he be spanked because he does things in an unconventional way? Is he wrong to believe that Americans do not want a four-year presidential campaign? Was Ronald Reagan a lightweight because he had personality? Can we name a president in the last 40 years who has not had a book that he was “hawking” while he was not in office? Is it accurate to argue that to be a serious Republican contender one must be “the voice of an intellectually vigorous conservatism”? If a viable candidate must discuss serious proposal regarding the economy, why doesn’t Huckabee’s oft-mentioned support for the “fair tax” qualify, along with his weekly statements on his talk show and his daily radio program regarding unemployment, taxation, trade policies and federal bailouts? He has written extensively about his views on such matters as well.
Mr. Douthat describes President Obama as an example of a leader who “prefers the responsibilities of leadership to the pleasures of celebrity.” Really? It strains credulity to label Mr. Obama an effective leader at this stage of his presidency. Roughly one year into his reign millions of Americans have already lost their trust in Mr. Obama because of a string of broken promises. Among other campaign promises, the President told voters that he would allow five days for public comment before signing bills, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401(k) and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, reform earmarks, bring all combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months, sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” give Americans $4,000 in credits for college, and run a “transparent” administration. (Of course, there were over 400 other campaign promises made, but fairness requires us to give him time to implement all those promises. It shouldn’t require more than two decades…) Great leaders are honest and transparent, qualities which millions of Americans hoped were part of the man they voted for. Sadly, the President has turned out to lack the strength of character to make good on his promises and to transform the political process.
So, what do you make of Mr. Douthat’s allegation that candidates like Ms. Palin and Mr. Huckabee are lightweights and are unqualified for the presidency because they are operate effectively within the mainstream of pop culture?
January 20, 2010
In my opinion, Mr. Douthat has confused leadership and politics. Governor Palin and Governor Huckabee are making very wise decisions in their possible pursuits of the White House. They are establishing platforms (viewership, listeners, audiences, followers, and ultimately voters) that will propel them into the Presidential candidacy if they so choose. We don’t need more politicians, who make promises they can’t keep and cater to unions and special interests; we need leaders, visionaries who can continue to lead this great country in triumph and success.
January 22, 2010
I think he is right about Palin and don’t know enough about Huckabee to go one way or the other.
As a politician, Palin’s leaving her governancy in her pursuit of the limelight has ruled her out of ever getting a shot at the Presidency in my mind.
January 25, 2010
During the 1992 Presidential Campaign, Bill Clinton made a surprise appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show — wearing dark sunglasses, he played “Heartbreak Hotel” on his sax. But of course, that is the description of “gravitas”… enough of the double-standards.
January 25, 2010
Actually, I agree with him. I don’t think talk show hosting or charisma disqualifies one from being an excellent leader and/or politician. However, I think that both Huckabee and Palin are partly popular because of a current American fixation on folksy personable personalities. I don’t think either of them posses the right combination of consistent philosophy of government and foreign policy along with the gravitas and quiet steely resolved that would be needed to be an effective President.
January 28, 2010
I think Mr. Douhat is correct; the real problem for Huckabee, Palin and any of the Republican candidates is that they hide under a narrow and incorrect view of the Bible and the responsibilities it requires us to fulfill. Republicans will win when they start leading on the economy, stopping all wars(and admitting Iraq was a mistake), increase wages, stop protecting big business and stop pretending to be pro-life but not leading on post life issues such as foreclosures, health care, jobs etc.
January 30, 2010
Let me emphasize that my posting was not partisan; I was simply responding to Mr. Douthat’s article, which addressed two Republican figures. My argument would have been the same had he focused on Democratic, Independent or Socialist candidates.
More importantly, while I appreciate your point of view, I’d take a different tact than you have, “Matthew.” First, I would not judge the beliefs and biblical interpretations of either Mr. Huckabee or Ms. Palin or other unnamed Republican candidates. I am willing to bet that neither you nor I are well-versed in their respective views of various biblical passages and how they relate those to present-day responsibilities. Such inclusive dismissiveness and intolerance on your part is unfair to them and does not contrinute to healthy discussion. It only hurts the political process itself.
Second, it is not very becoming of a follower of Christ to accuse other Christians of choosing to “hide under a narrow and incorrect view of the Bible.” I fail to see how those allegations advance the cause of Christ.
Third, I think your prescription for Republicans is certainly what surveys are showing people want – more focus on the economy – but it is a strategy that neither Democrats nor Republicans have followed in the past few years. Why criticize one party? Both parties need to be chastized for losing sight of – or ignoring – what the people elected them to do.
I doubt that Jesus would have registered as a Democrat or Republican. His interest was always in people, not self-perpetuating organizations. Hopefully both you and I can follow His example and stay focused on the things that matter and engage people in productive dialogue.
February 3, 2010
I am afraid that our emphasis on politics is idolatrous. I mean, when we put our trust in politicians and not God that is idolatry.
I know of my own struggle with this matter. What then does it mean to trust politicians/politics vs. trusting God with the direction of our nation?
I know for myself that it is easier to listen to talk radio, give to the party/politician of my choice, and engage in debate with friends on Face Book than to maintain constant communion/prayer (relationship) with God during my day.
I have found that as a fruit of my relationship with God I actually have an impact, not simply an opinion, upon those around me for Kingdom purposes. Vs. being politically minded, earthly oriented, and powerless with no influence but negative at all.
This communion, multiplied by the Body of Christ the nation over, what kind of influence will the “Church” have in directing the nation? We have no power apart from the abiding presence of God, which is a choice we make.
We should vote rightly, but if we put our trust in man and not God we will suffer shame. Isaiah 30.
Perhaps Obama and an uber liberal government is God’s will. “How could that be?” That question is a question I asked when an old prophet told me that he believed Obama was God’s will. His reply to me was, “That means you know God’s will.” What if God wanted a fool to govern so as to bring judgment on America- more specifically, judge the “church” for it’s idolatry of the $$$?
February 8, 2010
Perhaps the underlining issue should be character. A real Christian must represent Christ in all things (he or she will have no “private life”.) Can a candidate’s non-political personality withstand the test of his or her belief ?