Presidential Style
not JUST art-deco, but yeah, lots of it
Function should always trump form in politics, but form matters too, mostly for setting examples of behavior to emulate.
You live in a democracy. You’re a voter. Demand better style.
Transparency
There should be a full time TV crew following the president around and broadcasting anything that isn’t classified. You all voted for him, he works for you, you should be able to see what he’s doing, and how.
What candidate could possibly be opposed to this? What do they not want you to see?
Morality
The president doesn’t have to be a paragon of moral virtue. But it helps, and relatively speaking, one who is, is better than one who is…. less so? There are 300 million people in this country. Surely you can find someone who is actually an upright person? At least, perhaps, one who can more accurately conceal their lack of moral standing? “Successfully concealing flaws” is at least is a trait that any national leader requires.
To be blunt, and specific, no one actually cared about the details of what Bill Clinton did, what mattered in reality was:
People who can’t control their urges are obviously bad people to have run nations, because every single minute of their lives they are presented with opportunities to indulge those urges at our - the citizens - expense. Is it morally wrong to take one marshmallow when you could have two later? Of course not. But we should definitely not vote for you if you consistently do that.
People who can’t conceal that they lack that self control also can’t conceal a lot of other things that we want them to conceal.
Doing something that makes such an obvious, likely target for media/popular outrage or scandal, means that you’ve created a situation where you’re undermining support for your (theoretically) actually good policy agenda. “But voters should focus on real policy goals instead of sex scandals!” Of course they should, but “realizing that is an unrealistic goal for millions of voters in the world we live in, and therefore avoiding doing things that let them indulge in that desire for scandal over objective things” is a skill leaders should have.
What candidate would disagree with this? What does it say if a candidate won’t agree to “the most moral candidate is better?” Isn’t it obvious?
Certainly, a candidate could have really good ideas and policies that outweigh those flaws, but they are absolutely signals to take into account, particularly at a stage in the selection process where you are not restricted to “the lesser of two evils” of the general election.
Sleaziness
The president - and anyone associated with them - should not hang out with sleazy money managers/fixers, they should not exchange sleazy emails with them, they should not give or receive money from them, they should not travel to their sleazy islands/clubs/parties, and they definitely not have sex there with people who have been brought for that purpose. Apply these rules to all applicable situations that even remotely resemble this one, not just the one you’re all thinking of, that I’m not naming because I reject clickbait on ideological grounds.
“But… that’s how modern politics is done! Nothing criminal happened! How else can I raise money for my campaign!”
Yeah, maybe that’s even true, but sorry, this is just going to have to be a loss the political community has to take. Life will go on. Yes, I really believe that regularly doing stuff that average people find to be disgustingly decadent by public servants - even if the true deep down reason is those proles are jealous, or envious of the dominance you’re asserting, even if it’s perfectly fine if other private individuals do it - is reflective of you, the candidate, being Not A Good Candidate.
I do not care how completely legal and totally not immoral snorting cocaine off hookers and eating lots of caviar and traveling to exotic islands in your monopoly man top hat and having lots of rich people sex is, you are gonna have to not do it. And a big part of the reason that you should not do it, is because Norma from Ohio thinks it’s really sleazy. And maybe if you did a lot of it in the past, that may indeed exclude you (in the eyes of the voters) from public office. These are the sacrifices one must make. My deepest apologies for your loss.
“You’re just jealous, because you’re not rich/powerful/influential/sexy/awesome enough to be able to do that stuff!”
No, unfortunately for your strangely defensive comment, I am. I actually do have enough money and power (mostly because it doesn’t actually take that much any more!) to physically do all that stuff, I just… choose not to.
Because, frankly, I am better than you, sleazy candidate defender. I am morally superior to you, and those candidates, for this explicit reason. I am also better than all the candidates out there who have done these - or similarly decadent - things in the past, because that is what being morally superior means: it means not doing those things. Why do I keep having to repeat this? This is Baby’s First Book Of Morality level stuff.
This is not me bragging, this is just me noting that I can put my pants on all by myself in the morning. It does not mean that I am some moral paragon at the far end of purity and light, it means that I am slightly above some ridiculously low threshold of dignified behavior. A threshold that is so shockingly low that defending people who don’t meet it is itself extremely suspicious behavior! Yes, this is the witch hunt I endorse, the stake at which you shall be burnt is labeled “you don’t get to be elected to public office.” Unleash this Inquisition.
Now, on one point, you’re absolutely right. I’m not … something… enough to get invited to do those things alongside other rich/powerful/influential people by an influential someone named Jeff. Definitely, I lack that something trait, you’ve got me there. Though, I wonder how many people think that is a bug or a feature.
Physical Prowess
Yes, I think this matters. Yes, if you are going to lead a country, you should have at least a little - the more the better - personal, physical toughness. Yes, I am running for president. Yes, I think I could take every single person in the Democratic primary in hand to hand combat. Yes, I would particularly love to fight Gavin Newsom. Yes, I think it would get great ratings too.
No, I don’t think anyone who can beat me up should get the nomination instead. But if they can, then I happily admit you should count it as at least one or two points in their favor.
Does this automatically disqualify geriatric 80 year olds? Yes! Of course it does! Are you not paying attention?
Non-partisanship
No matter his party affiliation before being elected, the president should not act like a Republican or a Democrat party member. The president should not know what Democrats or Republicans are. If asked by a reporter, they should pretend to have never heard of them. Every time someone says the words “the Republican party THIS” or “the Democratic party THAT” about national politics, the country loses 17 collective brain cells.
Political parties absolutely have a good role to play, in ensuring that members adhere to the good political policies that the party believes in. Now that you’re all done laughing at that joke, we can recognize that they aren’t actually doing that role at all, so let’s establish a principle of separation of party and (federal) state.
Even if you believe your party (and perhaps the one the president currently is a member) is the best and the other is nothing but horrible people, they still get to vote, and unless you have a veto proof majority, then actually enacting your party’s brilliant ideas will require some of them to cooperate. In today’s hyperpartisan world, how can you do that if the presidency is just a weapon to wield against the other party? You can get more of the real things you actually want, with real actual benefits for you, by ensuring that the accomplishments of “your” party aren’t seen as PR failures for the other side, and that your failures aren’t seen as their wins.
Accountability
Every single statistic about the country should be broadcast every day on a publicly accessible website from the White House, and every single national news outlet. Employment, labor force participation, inflation rate, GDP, soldiers deployed abroad, quantities of trade, rates of death, births, new companies formed, bankruptcies - everything.
What kind of candidate wouldn’t want you to know this? People who vote for a president believe that he will make the country better. What does it mean when, once they are president, they don’t loudly proclaim all the things that are better, but also explanations why the things that aren’t getting better, will as a result of his great policies? Isn’t it obvious? If you go to buy a used car and notice that the salesman has removed the odometer, what information do you now know?
Competence
Every month the president should complete a (variable, randomly selected by voters and the nation’s doctors on an unpredictable schedule) cognitive fitness test, with the results being publicly accessible. Hell, wake him up in the middle of the night and make him take the test, because I’m pretty sure if there’s a nuclear emergency I don’t want his judgement to waver just 'cause he’s a little sleepy.
What possible motive would any candidate have for opposing this, unless they couldn’t pass the test? If your current president is not doing this, isn’t it obvious why?
Why would you ever tolerate candidates who don’t live up to this standard?
To repeat: You live in a democracy. You’re a voter. Demand better style.
Demand…. more. Demand… okay, sorry, I can’t do it, because another thing a candidate should have is the personal dignity to not make politically convenient puns.