The Limits Of Our Campaigns

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

2164

Abstract

this was italicized, rather tragi-comically, when Donald Trump, a hundred or so days into the job — in a rare display of candor — admitted as much when he told Reuters News ``I thought it would be easier.’’For all the distinctions made between candidates on ideological grounds, a far starker difference emerges when we note certain patterns over time. The patterns are clear. On the one hand, there is the peerless glad-hander who is fantastically bad at the actual job — think Reagan, both Bushes, William J. Clinton, and, of course, the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.Compare and contrast them with ostensibly lackluster campaigners who are stolid, able, leaders and thinkers, actively and actually interested in the actual workings of the actual job. Think Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry… and Hillary Clinton. There is little doubt and less debate that such people would surely have made better Presidents than those who got — or were given — the job over them. They all were harshly criticized, from pillar to post, for being dull and unexciting wonks and technocrats… When, clearly, those are exactly the skills and temperament required for the call.The question is begged: Are the skills necessary to run an effective and competent administration not just different from but actively in conflict with the skills necessary to campaign for the job?It sure looks that way. George W Bush, to take just but one example, was perhaps the best campaigner who attacked elections with zest and brio and took a nap on the actual job. At other times we’ve seen otherwise engaged and seemingly able public servants dismissed as ‘unelectable,’ for no other reason than unappealing campaign styles, which would tend to support the theory.It seems plausible that, while one must be a relentless narcissist to campaign for the job, such attitudes are poor substitute for actual competence. We now have empirical proof in the form of Donald Trump that such relentless narcissism is not what the actual job of President calls for… The advert

Options

isers and political professionals expend so much effort in first, getting the electorate to ‘fall in love’ with some candidates — often at the expense of a critical view of their abilities — and, secondly, getting the electorate to hate the other candidate, no matter the strengths, skills, experience or abilities. None of this sort of campaign styling has much to do with actual administrative competence.It is at this point in the discourse where veteran political junkies trot out the old saw that you “campaign in poetry and govern in prose,’’ as if this adage, though it admits to the distinction between campaign and governance, excuses it or simply waves it away. Our present pass, however, and the repeated patterns seen leading up to it, testify to, at least on the one hand, ‘campaigning in poetry and governing in gibberish.’On the other hand, that is to say, the left hand, we have, essentially, campaigning in prose and not actually getting to do the governing part. This is true whether you lose the election fair and square, as in the case of Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry, or if you lose on an electoral college technicality as in the instances of Hillary Clinton and Al Gore (with an assist from a partisan Supreme Court, in his case).One might even make the case that even if you win, the continuing, effective campaigns of smear and character assassination, can severely limit the ability to govern, as in the cases of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.Whatever the answer to the question is, it’s clear that the Right wants to make it all, and always, about campaigning. Trump, especially, seems to particularly enjoy the campaign-style rallies while distinctly falling down on the job of actual administration.Hillary Clinton, in her 2016 acceptance speech, which was all about competence, experience, and temperament in the actual role, offered a prescient rebuke to this notion of campaigning by administratively incompetent morons, with a dramatic concurrence from then-President Obama. The current situation only underlines her point.</article></body>

Inform The Limits Of The Administration

Four years and at least one full lifetime ago, at the 2016 Democratic Convention, in Philadelphia, then-President Barack Obama made the case for electing former Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady Hillary Clinton based upon her experience.

Like I said, it was a lifetime ago.

The 44th President said straightforwardly that Hillary Clinton was someone who had been ‘in the room,’ on more than one occasion and in more than one capacity. He continued by pointing out how one can not really be prepared for the job. He said that you think that you can ready yourself by reading, seeking advice, and by study. Then, a barely detectable ruefulness at his own, earlier, naivete creeps into his speech alongside the less than subtle jab at Donald Trump.

Now, as we careen towards the 2020 vote in earnest — the 20 Democratic candidates whittled down to Joe Biden and his newly minted running mate Kamala Harris — amid the continuing dumpster fire that is the Trump Administration, we should revisit these questions.

After Barack Obama spoke, Hillary Clinton, in her speech accepting the nomination, made the equally remarkable distinction that to run for the office and actually be ready to do the job, are entirely separate things. In saying, “Donald Trump can’t even handle the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign,’’ Clinton underlined Obama’s distinctions and perhaps offered a subtle hint of rebuke in regards to her husband, the 42nd President, who implemented what came to be called the ‘permanent campaign.’

All of this was italicized, rather tragi-comically, when Donald Trump, a hundred or so days into the job — in a rare display of candor — admitted as much when he told Reuters News ``I thought it would be easier.’’

For all the distinctions made between candidates on ideological grounds, a far starker difference emerges when we note certain patterns over time. The patterns are clear. On the one hand, there is the peerless glad-hander who is fantastically bad at the actual job — think Reagan, both Bushes, William J. Clinton, and, of course, the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Compare and contrast them with ostensibly lackluster campaigners who are stolid, able, leaders and thinkers, actively and actually interested in the actual workings of the actual job. Think Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry… and Hillary Clinton. There is little doubt and less debate that such people would surely have made better Presidents than those who got — or were given — the job over them. They all were harshly criticized, from pillar to post, for being dull and unexciting wonks and technocrats… When, clearly, those are exactly the skills and temperament required for the call.

The question is begged: Are the skills necessary to run an effective and competent administration not just different from but actively in conflict with the skills necessary to campaign for the job?

It sure looks that way. George W Bush, to take just but one example, was perhaps the best campaigner who attacked elections with zest and brio and took a nap on the actual job. At other times we’ve seen otherwise engaged and seemingly able public servants dismissed as ‘unelectable,’ for no other reason than unappealing campaign styles, which would tend to support the theory.

It seems plausible that, while one must be a relentless narcissist to campaign for the job, such attitudes are poor substitute for actual competence. We now have empirical proof in the form of Donald Trump that such relentless narcissism is not what the actual job of President calls for… The advertisers and political professionals expend so much effort in first, getting the electorate to ‘fall in love’ with some candidates — often at the expense of a critical view of their abilities — and, secondly, getting the electorate to hate the other candidate, no matter the strengths, skills, experience or abilities. None of this sort of campaign styling has much to do with actual administrative competence.

It is at this point in the discourse where veteran political junkies trot out the old saw that you “campaign in poetry and govern in prose,’’ as if this adage, though it admits to the distinction between campaign and governance, excuses it or simply waves it away. Our present pass, however, and the repeated patterns seen leading up to it, testify to, at least on the one hand, ‘campaigning in poetry and governing in gibberish.’

On the other hand, that is to say, the left hand, we have, essentially, campaigning in prose and not actually getting to do the governing part. This is true whether you lose the election fair and square, as in the case of Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry, or if you lose on an electoral college technicality as in the instances of Hillary Clinton and Al Gore (with an assist from a partisan Supreme Court, in his case).

One might even make the case that even if you win, the continuing, effective campaigns of smear and character assassination, can severely limit the ability to govern, as in the cases of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Whatever the answer to the question is, it’s clear that the Right wants to make it all, and always, about campaigning. Trump, especially, seems to particularly enjoy the campaign-style rallies while distinctly falling down on the job of actual administration.

Hillary Clinton, in her 2016 acceptance speech, which was all about competence, experience, and temperament in the actual role, offered a prescient rebuke to this notion of campaigning by administratively incompetent morons, with a dramatic concurrence from then-President Obama. The current situation only underlines her point.