Assessing the candidates

BY GEORGE R. GOETHALS
Professor of Leadership Studies

The dynamics of the 2008 presidential election are unusual, even historic in some respects, but very familiar in others.

This is the first election since 1952, and only the second since 1928, where neither presidential candidate will be an incumbent president or vice president. It is historic in that one of the two major party candidates will be either a woman or an African-American. It is also historic that if John McCain is elected, he will be the oldest first-term president ever, and if Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate, the age difference between the two major party nominees will be the largest ever.

Some of the dynamics will be familiar. Obama's campaign slogan, "Change," is a familiar one, especially for the candidate of the party out of power. Bill Clinton spoke repeatedly of change when he ran to unseat President George H. W. Bush in 1992. John F. Kennedy made change an implicit theme in 1960 when he said it was time to get America moving again. Similarly, in 1980, Ronald Reagan implied change by asking whether we were better off then compared to four years before. Promising change is more difficult for the nominee of the party in power. In 1988, then-candidate and Vice President George Bush promised a "kinder and gentler" presidency. Supporters of the then-current president, Ronald Reagan, wondered what that pledge meant.

In the overall mix of continuity and change, there are three important, distinctive features of this election. First, it has had the earliest set of primaries and caucuses. Second, it has featured more televised "debates" and third, one of the candidates, Obama, is among the most charismatic and eloquent candidates ever. All three elements, I think, challenge people's capacity to think carefully about the candidates.

First, the calendar. In 1968, the New Hampshire primary, the first contest in the presidential race, was held on the second Tuesday in March. This year, by the second week in March, the Republican race had been over for several weeks. The Democratic race would have been over too, except that it has been unusually close. Are people really ready to pay attention to the arguments and issues of a campaign so long before the actual election? Will a fatigue factor set in as Election Day approaches? Will people have stopped paying attention to the candidates and issues? It is reassuring that the turnout has been so high this year, but front-loading the primaries and caucuses may not be the best way to engage much public thought.

A second worry is the number of intraparty debates and the media coverage of them. Especially in the early going, with large numbers of candidates on both sides, it was difficult to get much more than a superficial sense of each candidate. This was compounded by the media's focus on sound bites and punch lines. Those one-liners provided entertainment, but not much substance.

The prototypical instance of superficial debate coverage occurred last summer when Democratic candidate Joe Biden was shown repeatedly giving a one-word answer to a question. He had developed the reputation for being too verbose, at least by network standards, and was asked whether he could assure people that he could sufficiently exercise control over his loquaciousness as president. His response, "Yes," made big news. Surely the media ought to be able to find ways to convey more information about candidates than that.

Obama's gifted oratory and magnetic presence raise questions of a different sort. Charisma such as his is extremely appealing, in part because it makes those sympathetic to him and his policies feel so good. His speeches engage people emotionally, but it is not clear how well we can think and feel at the same time. The emotional impact of charismatic leaders may not foster the kind of intellectual engagement and critical thinking we try to teach our students. On the other hand, simplistic criticisms of Obama's style, such as Clinton's emphasis on "solutions not speeches," do not encourage deep thought either.

What are we to do? One approach is to study both the problems and potentials facing the nation as carefully as possible and then examine the candidates' responses to those problems and potentials as fully as possible. This counsel probably isn't much help for the average voter. But we can watch the candidates as carefully as we can in debates and in other forums, even paid advertisements, and try to assess their competency, integrity and judgment. It does not seem that either the candidates or the media want to help us much in this endeavor. But we can make a genuine effort to assess each candidate's essential personal qualities, as well as policies, as thoughtfully as we can.

Students and politics
Read about how UR students are engaging in 2008 presidential politics.