“Leaving aside the obvious, unanimous choices of Lincoln and Washington, who are the presidents you would name as your personal favorites, and how would they inspire your new administration?”
That’s the unexplored and crucial question that the candidates should have faced in the recent debate, and which they must confront in the seven weeks ahead of us.
It’s a line of inquiry that goes beyond the promises and plans of a political season and raises issues of temperament, character and a basic approach to the vast powers of the presidency. Given the unexpected challenges that every chief executive must face, those issues deserve more attention than planks in a platform or catchy slogans to mobilize the base. How can a prospective president succeed at his job if he (or she) can’t identify what success meant for some illustrious predecessors?
For Kamala Harris, it’s easy to speculate on who she might select as examples she means to emulate. All Democrats venerate Franklin Delano Roosevelt for raising the nation’s spirits in the depths of the Depression and then leading a mighty international alliance against the twin horrors of German Nazism and Japanese militarism. Not coincidentally, in the process he also assembled a durable domestic coalition that provided his Democratic party with majority support that lasted for more than 50 years.
Harris could also mention Harry Truman, the scrappiest and most celebrated underdog in American political history, who triumphed over the temptations of isolationism or appeasement when dealing with the Soviet threat after World War II. Most comfortably, she could cite her immediate predecessors (and personal friends) Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, each of whom survived two tumultuous terms with charm and personal popularity largely intact.
The best political choice she could make in choosing presidents to praise would be to surprise the pundits by hailing Ronald Reagan for his fabled ability to work with leaders of the opposition, and his stalwart success in rolling back the imperialist ambitions of the Soviet empire. At a time when a movie biography about the life of “the Great Communicator” is the surprise box office hit of the season, refreshing recognition for a conservative icon would be an easy way for the Democratic nominee to appeal to undecided moderates and independents who long for unifying gestures, at least, in this era of painful polarization.
And what about Trump? If Lincoln and Washington are excluded from consideration (as they should be, since their choice is so obvious and automatic), which previous Commander-in-Chief would the MAGA man choose to acknowledge as a model worthy of emulation?
Recent predecessors in his own party are out of the question, especially the two presidents Bush. Trump has treated both of them with undisguised hostility and frequent derision, especially the surviving Bush who has declined to support Trump’s current drive for the White House. Ronald Reagan (who granted amnesty to undocumented immigrants, supported free trade, and denounced Russia as part of an “evil empire”) disagreed dramatically with Trump on some of his defining issues.
Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower? For Trump, those long-ago leaders may as well have served in ancient Mesopotamia. When asked by the Washington Post in 2017 to name a presidential biography that made an impression on him, the president-to-be admitted he couldn’t think of one.
In fact, listening to the Manichean tone of the candidate’s most recent rally speeches, in which he portrays himself as a solitary force for national redemption confronted by unholy hordes determined to destroy the “once great” USA, it seems likely that if pressed to identify his favorite prior president, Trump would unhesitatingly name himself.
The lack of discussion about the prospective presidents’ evaluation of the worthy (and occasionally unworthy figures) who preceded them, prevents an examination of how current candidates would process the staggering demands of the job. In a perceptive column entitled Presidential Power is What Matters, Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times writes: “Americans deserve a much fuller conversation than they ever get about the actual job at hand. Yes, it is important to know the goals and priorities of the people running for president. They should, when appropriate, talk about policy. But the fact is that a successful presidency is much more about organization, vision and values than it is about the scope of a given legislative package.”
In almost every rally that he addresses, former President Trump insistently declaims that Joe Biden qualifies as “by far the worst president we ever had” and Kamala Harris (of course) represents “the worst vice president.”
In fact, were he able and willing to identify instead the best leaders who have previously occupied the White House he would serve the nation and his own campaign far more effectively.
A rather uncharitable offering today, seems to me.
As for Harris's likely response, I am reminded of a discussion one Sunday night when Rosselle Pekelis and Richard Sanders were hosted on a talk radio show during their campaigns for the Washington Supreme Court and asked who among all Justices did they believe they were most like. Pekelis went first and said something like " no-one because I am not like anybody else." Sanders said Felix Frankfurter, and offered comments about some of his decisions. After the commercial break, the host gave Pekelis another chance and she said "well I'd have to say Ginsburg because she is a Jewish woman like me."
Harris's responses during the two interviews she has given show an empty brain with no sense of time, place or history. Her choice would most likely default to the same identity ideology and choose new Justice Jackson because she is a black woman like me.