Posted by
mpgerace on Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:00:25 PM
It isn’t entirely surprising to see candidates searching for leadership models during a campaign. Wrapping themselves in the suits of armor of esteemed leaders of the past is a way to claim ownership over a tradition that has some resonance with the public and to re-stoke old loyalties in the hope that they’ll transfer to the would-be progeny.
Attempting to appropriate the image and persona of past leaders may also hide chinks in a candidate’s own armor. A little borrowed charisma goes a long way. But the practice is also a shorthand way to distinguish oneself from an opponent and to communicate a style and possibly a policy direction.
Machiavelli, in his great work The Prince, tells the leaders of his day to emulate the great leaders of the past, especially if they lacked adequate amounts of their own greatness. He called it virtu (rough modern translation: capability in matters relating to statecraft and war) and thought modern leaders could learn to be capable by following the great examples of the past.
Machiavelli distinguished the man of virtu from the man who acquired his position through fortune or luck. The man of virtu was one who acquired his position as a leader through his own skill and retained his position accordingly. The man of fortune was dependent on others for his position. He thought Cesar Borgia, for example, acquired his position through the fortune of his father (Pope Alexander VI) and lost it the same way. When the Pope died, Cesar was out or luck and lacked the inherent capability to retain control over the state he ruled. Had it not been for the skill or virtu of his father, young Cesar never would have climbed to such heights.
This example of leadership by fortune might be applied to several current luminaries on the political scene. Might it apply to President Bush? But not for the political skill of his father, . . ., well, you know the rest. What about Hillary Clinton? If not for the skill of her husband in becoming president and remaining so for 8 years, she never would have had the platform to become a senator and the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party (a status she had acquired years before the actual election period had ever approached). It just so happens that another person came along, perhaps one with significantly more virtu than she, who took that position away from her. Her husband was no longer president, of course, and while he supported her, she had to sink or swim on her own. Did Hillary Clinton obtain her position though the fortune of her husband and loose it the same way like Cesar Borgia?
But what of Obama and McCain? Who are their models? They too are scrambling around for models of past leaders who had capability and skill.
There was early talk of how Obama was like John F. Kennedy. Obama is young, seemingly different, cerebral and inspiring to young people. This identification was aided by Caroline Kennedy’s assertion that she was inspired by Obama in the way people were once inspired by her father. The Kennedy image is apparently cultivated by Obama, but “channeling Kennedy” is a long-standing democratic tradition. Bill Clinton was a known practitioner of this art as well. Given how popular the JFK image is to current candidates, I suppose this means that JFK stands as the democratic leader with the most political virtu by far. It might seem peculiar and out of place if Obama tried to take on the mantle of FDR, for example, though it might be strangely appropriate in light of our current economic problems. JFK seems right on the money. He was an exciting guy, young, modern and unencumbered by old ideas. It’s not clear if Obama’s JFK-appeal implies a policy direction, though Obama has been doing a fine job retaining his JFK-appeal.
McCain, in contrast, is opting for the Teddy Roosevelt armor. He has done so to defend his conservative credentials while simultaneously distinguishing himself from other conservatives, such as President Bush and Ronald Regan. Reagan had become the much desired clothing for republican contenders like Huckabee and Romney early-on in the republican primaries. McCain, unable to appeal to the most conservative wing of the Republican Party, has effected a creative turn by invoking the image of Teddy Roosevelt, who was a trust buster and a practitioner of realpolitik. Does McCain mean to say he is going to walk softly and carry a big stick? Perhaps he’s trying to say that he’ll hammer away at the oil industry, like the Trust Buster once did to Standard Oil, while handling the problem in Iraq with skill and insight. McCain is a bit late out of the gate with his new-found identity, but it offers image possibilities that could help him fight off the association with Bush policies, which his adversaries have clearly argued.
Oddly, Bill Clinton invoked the image of Teddy Roosevelt during a speech in Philadelphia on Saturday. He closed his speech by saying that our problems today—inequality of wealth, immigration and energy—are much like those in the days of Roosevelt. If we face them, he said, then we’re in for an exciting time in history. Otherwise, he said quoting Roosevelt, we face a dark future.
Is Clinton trying to fit Obama with Teddy Roosevelt’s suit, odd tailoring for a democrat, or is he just thinking out loud? A poor fitting suit from a leader of the past is likely when that suit crosses party lines. Remember how poor Dan Quayle walked right into Lloyd Benson’s tremendous quip, and Quayle probably wasn’t really trying to wear JFK’s suit at all. He just dared to invoke the name of Kennedy from the wrong side of the aisle.