Why do people want to be president? And more specifically, why did Barack Obama want to be president and why does Mitt Romney want to be president?
I think that people do not go through all that it takes to become President of the United States out of narcissism or to harm the country. Yes, perhaps there is an element of narcissism in every politician, and certain some presidents have harmed the nation. But I believe that each person who makes it to the final round of the presidential elections has a specific reason why he or she believes that they should attain that office. And I believe in every case, it is something that they believe they have to offer the country, something the country needs.
First, let's go backwards a notch. Why did George W Bush run for president? It's so easy to make fun of the man, but let's step back for a moment and try to understand it from his point of view. He said that he believed in compassionate conservatism, and that he was a uniter, not a divider. I believe that he assumed without any real examination of the issue that conservatism was an essential part of Americanism, but I also think that he was aware of how conservative political action had harmed many Americans. And he believed that if he could just speak to what he believed to be shared, conservative, Christian principles, that he could bring people together around them and get them to focus on how those principles could benefit everyone. Before September of his first year in office, he had accomplished two things in this program: he had started the process of dispensing federal dollars to religious organizations that did charitable work, and he had passed his law permitting limited research on stem cells. These were not random acts; these fit right into the center of his agenda of applying conservative principles in a compassionate way to solve the nations problems. We'll never know how this all would have played out had the attacks by al Qaeda not have occurred. Perhaps this was all playing out in his mind when he was first told of the attacks in the famous story-reading session. It is painfully obvious that his original plans were never going to be completed once those attacks happened, and at that moment, his entire approach to the presidency became obsolete and irrelevant. But that doesn't change the fact that he did have a specific approach that he wanted to apply and that he thought it would be of great benefit to the nation.
Now let's move on to Barack Obama. Why did he want to be president? Again, I believe it is pretty simple. He had had considerable success bring people who disagreed deeply with each other together to reach shared solutions to problems facing them. He saw the residuals of George W Bush's presidency all around him, people bickering endlessly, great problems going unsolved. He believed that as president, he could bring these factions together and, using the same pragmatism that had worked in so many other situations, reach compromise solutions that may have been impure ideologically, but that would benefit the nation and resolve longstanding problems. This was precisely the change that he believed in, and that he thought we all believed in.
Although he was in fact able to use this approach successfully in the case of healthcare reform and in one or two other matters during his first two years in office, it was only within his own deeply divided party that it really worked. The Republicans, of course, understood the weak point in his approach: all they had to do was to be absolutely recalcitrant, never compromise, never agree to anything, and run out the clock. They didn't allow the slightest wavering on this: they have never voted for anything backed by Obama, even things that were Republican ideas in the first place or that had wide bipartisan support. I don't believe that Obama or anyone else believed that the Grand Old Party would really hold that line even when it harmed the nation, but they did, and it worked. They slowed down matters tremendously right from the outset, and blocked President Obama's entire program once they controlled one of the chambers of Congress. In the real world, this never would have worked because the parties would have been hurt too much to hold out as long as they did. But in the America of today, it was completely successful. In spite of great harm to the nation, they held their party line, and they made the President fail.
I am now very afraid to ask President Obama whether he really even wants to be President for four more years, if the Republicans will still have the House and will continue their obstruction. Why would he want to? What does he think that he has to offer now? You can't negotiate all by yourself.
Can the GOP keep it up for four more years? Perhaps. There are some mutterings in the ranks: I've read that some young Republicans now running for office claim they want to work with Democrats. I'm pretty sure I don't believe that. If they keep the House and gain the Senate, why would they bother? And if they lost, why wouldn't they continue to use the successful strategy of No? And, if they did use that strategy, or if they controlled both chambers, what does Obama offer to counter it with?
Now let's consider Mitt Romney. Once again, we Democrats mock and belittle him, yet, clearly he thinks he has something unique to offer the American people as president. What is it?
Once again, I believe that it is very clear. He has a very strong faith in the principles of American big business management. He believes that the problems he sees around him are due to the fact that the country is not being adequately managed, and he believes that he has the ability to correct that. He bases this on his success running Bain, and he sees his experience in the Olympics and as governor as confirmation of this. It is important to understand that the criteria that he sees as relevant and important are considerably different from those usually used to evaluate success or failure in politics. He takes a balance-sheet approach. He sets specific goals and works toward them; success is defined in terms of how close he gets to them at the end of the cycle. His belief is that this approach will automatically solve all of the problems we have: unemployment, inequality, poverty, poor education systems, and so on; either that, or in certain cases, that the problems are completely irrelevant to the government. He believes this because he believes that those problems have been caused by poor management of the government, or by inappropriate dependence on government. This account of Mitt Romney's ideals explains many things about his campaign. Why does he seem to waffle so much? Why does he say he doesn't care about poor people and other insensitive things? It's because of his fundamental belief: he really, truly believes that there wouldn't be poor people if the government were properly managed; therefore, if he is allowed to apply his management approach to reaching the goals he would set, he wouldn't have to worry specifically about poor people; they would sort of blend into the working class as the balance sheet gets into proper equilibrium. He waffles about things he doesn't care about: he'll just say what he thinks will serve to give him the opportunity to give his special gift to the American people.
There's an ironic conclusion that follows from this analysis: I don't think that the majority of the people in either party actually understand what drives either candidate. How many Democrats have complained about Obama always trying to get the other side to sit down to talk? Yet, that is the essence of the man. That's what he was elected to do, according to how he undoubtedly sees things. And it should always work, eventually. Yet, it didn't, or at least, hasn't so far. Can Obama go against his core identity and stand up for his party, working for victory rather than a negotiated peace? Can he avoid trying to give something to the other side even as it diminishes his own? I think it will be very hard and unsatisfying for him personally to do that, and what's worse, he may not be very good at it.
How many Republicans really understand what kind of president Romney wants to be? They want someone to make sweeping social and economic change, yet, many of those changes would wreck the balance sheet. Will Romney be able to go against his core identity better than Obama? I don't think so. I think Romney sincerely wants to be America's CEO and that he really doesn't care about abortion or Iran or gay marriage. He wants to eliminate things that are costing too much and to build up things that are efficient and cost-effective. He wants to lower our sights toward more realistic goals and to accomplish those goals instead continuing to increase the deficit while striving for the unobtainable. He wants unsuccessful programs and people to fail, and successful programs and people to succeed and prosper. He doesn't want to spend his time in office trying to push through a constitutional amendment against gay this or that, or that life begins whenever. Doing that would be as uncomfortable for him, I think, as being the defender and advocate of the Democratic Party would be for Obama. Not because it would offend his ideological or moral principles, but because it's simply not why he's going through all this trouble to be President.
I personally think that if President Obama were re-elected and if the Republicans started negotiating in good faith, even hard negotiations, we would have a spectacular four years. But if the Republicans continue to say no to everything, OR if Romney is elected, then I think things look pretty grim for the nation.
That's just my 2¢ worth.
Greg Shenaut