Hopeless Hopefuls

Far too many Presidential candidates have declared their interest in winning the White house at a time that is far too early for my tastes. I suspect that many other Americans feel the same way. Despite our probable mutual disgust for the early Presidential campaign season, many questions have already arisen about the qualifications these First Executive would-bes might have. Are they fit to be Presidential candidates? Can they win their party's nomination? Can they win a general election? And, the most important question of all: do they have what it takes to be President?

Not everyone agrees on which qualities make a good President. It would seem that one Presidential quality sorely lacking in today's crop of candidates is the ability to set a clear, cohesive, and concise agenda independent of outside influences. A good President should not only be able to set his (or her) own agenda but inspire others to follow that agenda. In this respect, effective Presidents have marshaled broad support for causes that fall outside of the usual liberal or conservative plans for action. Right or wrong, Presidents who are effective leaders not only unite people behind a cause but exemplify said cause by being a principal founder.

In contrast with effective leadership, our current Presidential hopefuls seem to have all the leadership skill of a rusted hobnail. Every candidate, with the possible exceptions of the one-dimensional Tom Tancredo and the not-yet-running-for-President Al Gore, have carefully crafted "positions" based mostly on polling data, party platforms, and political analysis generated by talking-heads or think-tankers. In this context, a politician's position is meant to convey to the public what they would do in response to a given situation. Politicians who adopt positions are reactionary in nature in that they suspect the modern political climate of the day to be a fixed, known set of situations and conditions clearly defined by numerous two-sided issues held to be of importance by voters. A pro-active Presidential candidate would see the office of the Presidency (or even any high office in Congress or the Senate) as the opportunity to enact new initiatives aimed an guaranteeing American prosperity without being specifically beholden to existing political viewpoints. A true leader can, and often does, establish his own plan of action backed by his own policy of leadership. In contrast, we have a soon-to-be-outgoing President who rather obviously championed causes that were not of his own creation; Bush could hardly be considered the progenitor of any great modern political movement which is likely the reason why his own policies seem beyond his understanding, a bit like luggage he's borrowed that is too large for him to carry alone.

For an example of a strong leader who was able to set a clear agenda that fit his own vision for the future of the United States, we could look as far back as President James K. Polk. Polk effectively seized upon the vague Jacksonian notion of "manifest destiny", which called for continued American expansion in North America, and transformed it into tangible action both of a diplomatic and military nature. During Polk's Presidency, the United States annexed Texas; purchased the Oregon Territory from the British; defeated the Mexican army in numerous conflicts arising from land disputes; acquired the states of California, New Mexico, Arizona; and acquired parts of the states of Colorado and Wyoming. There was, of course, far more to his Presidency than that, but the expansion of American power during his administration was clearly made possible by the cunning and vision of Polk himself as he carefully managed strife within his own party (the Democrats) and the opposition party (the Whigs) while coping with stubborn and hostile foreign forces vying for territory that was, in Polk's mind, destined to be American. For better or for worse, Polk was able to set an agenda for the nation and was able to pursue it to successful completion. He accomplished more in one term than our two most recent Presidents have accomplished in four.

Not one soul among our current Presidential candidates can claim to have a platform based on a distinct plan for America. Tancredo has been pushing his relatively unique (in Washington, D.C. anyway) anti-immigrant position for years, but he has no clearly defined agenda of his own creation outside the realm of immigration issues. Gore, were he to become a candidate, could push his environmentalist agenda, though his only true contribution to the Global Warming debate has been to make more noise from a larger soap box than have others. As for the others candidates, they all have positions crafted by staffers, think-tankers, supporters, and talking-heads. They are bought-and-paid-for politicians whose sole purpose is to push someone else's agenda while wrapping it in a pleasant package of solid values and political gravitas meant to win campaign contributions and votes. To put it simply, they are the status quo. In a day and age when we need decisive action based on masterful planning and dedicated national loyalty, off-the-shelf politicians won't cut it. Who will be our next president with the will to hold power, the ability to use it wisely, and a decisive plan of action? Unless I mistake these men and this woman to be less than they are, it most certainly will not be a current Republican or Democrat candidate for President.