HOW WE CHOOSE OUR PRESIDENTS: It's All Wrong

Brainwashed to Consider the Superficial

From the Superficial to the Flaws: How We Choose Presidential Candidates

By Jan Halper-Hayes, Ph.D.

7 September 2023

In recent weeks, two seasoned politicos have shined the light on our injudicious criteria used to define how we determine who is fit to be president. The second most powerful Senator, John Thune (R-SD) endorsed Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). The ex-Trump campaign advisor, Steve Cortes declared his allegiance to Governor Ron DeSantis.

The primary reason Senator Thune decided to support Senator Scott instead of former President Donald Trump: “Thune made it clear he did not think Trump’s STYLE was suitable for the party.” https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/21/john-thune-tim-scott-endorse-00098071

Mr. Cortes presented a 3-point rationale void of objectivity and full of absolutism. He claims: No one wants a rerun of the Biden-Trump film. Victory predicts future success.  Discipline supersedes chaos.

The history of assessing presidential candidates by an imprudent criteria began more than 60 years ago.

The heir to the McConnell legacy, and the second most powerful senator thinks “STYLE” is the criteria which determines if someone is the right or the wrong nominee for president. The Senator’s one-dimensional criteria of STYLE implies experience, capability, and the direction the candidate intends to lead the country is secondary or even tertiary to “style”.

Senator Thune is a member of the Old Republican Guard. These Elites have always believed they know what the country needs. Put another way, the electorate is not qualified to determine who should be president.

Mr. Cortes’s emphatically declared a rerun of the Biden-Trump film is something No One likes. This authoritative declaration gave me pause. One, Biden’s mental decline might prevent him from rerunning. Two, I am sure a percentage of voters would enjoy watching a rematch as Biden cannot hide in his basement in 2024. Three, absolutism is never a convincing strategy.

Although Mr. Cortes declares his point as fact, it is solely his judgement. If we want to include voters in the process, then stating an opinion by making it sound as fact is a disservice. No confirmed polling or research has supported Mr. Cortes’s claim.  Yet, stating, with absolutism that no one wants a repeat of the two battling it out, simply rings hollow.

Mr. Cortes makes an obvious point: there is no substitute for victory. Yet, to make his point it means he has blamed Trump, and Trump alone, for the EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING results that the GOP has suffered losses in ‘18, ‘20, & ’22.

It is true, certain candidates, peddled by specific GOP pundits, claimed they were heavily favoured to win. They didn’t. Yet, 90% of the Trump endorsed candidates won their seats. Using the GOP losses in significant senate and governor races to support the premise that Trump doesn’t help candidates win is based on cursory reasoning.  It ignores any other factors such as how the candidates ran their campaigns or if it was realistic to assume they would win.

Regardless of whether it was a large margin or small margin, who cares. The GOP took control of the House.  The House controls the “purse”. The Republicans are leading House investigations. The Speaker is slowly bringing transparency to the people. The Oversight and Judicial Chairmen have launched public investigations and hearings. Whistle-blowers have publicly come forth.  McCarthy released a portion of the hidden January 6 tapes that possibly contradicts the Democrats’ suppositions.

Since 90% of Trump endorsed candidates won, why should the analysis be based upon the 10% who did not win? A mindset that centers on “either-or” thinking falls into the false dilemma fallacy. In other words, it is logical manipulation used as a means skewing the public’s perception.

Mr. Cortes contends that DeSantis’s smashing runaway victory (by +\- 20 points) which lifted the entire Florida GOP slate ushering in sweep of state-wide offices foretells DeSantis’s ability to create the same results throughout the country. One stand out victory does not portend the future. Just ask former President Trump.

According to Mr. Cortes, Gov. DeSantis’s record truly shines; elevates him as a proven executive; asserting DeSantis operates with laser-like focus on goals, process, & personnel. The governor has driven the success of Florida via policies and laws.

It is not a given that the success of one State based on its population, on voters’ preferences, or on the Legislature’s enacted laws would translate with the same success in other States. The same factors apply to the population, voter preference, and which party leads the legislature.

Equally, DeSantis is not the only governor who led his state through strength and conviction. Governor Kristi Noem, of Senator Thune’s home state of South Dakota, rose to prominence over her refusal to issue a state-wide mask mandate. They each of displayed strength, conviction, and a sharp vision of what best suits their constituents. More governors would benefit from how both Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem have led their States.

In my mind, the most erroneous and unrealistic assessment is Mr. Cortes’s point that Ron DeSantis governed with discipline and policy.  Is he inferring that chaos is a bad why to lead?

To repeat, “either-or” thinking leads nowhere. To say one way to lead is better than another is ill-informed reasoning. It does not factor in the problems and issues a leader must address. The fact is change requires chaos.  Real discoveries come from chaos. When people clench on to the status quo, when they resist change it thwarts progress, creativity, and innovation.

Since 1999, Republicans have governed Florida. Oppositely, both the federal government, the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives have been in a perennial state of whipsaw.

The only consistent leadership in the federal government existed when the Democrats led the House from 1955 to 1994. Running the different branches of government has, at best, been a roller coaster ride of inconsistency.

Neither Senator Thune nor Mr. Cortes proffer substantive points that would help voters decide for whom they intend to vote. In a voter’s mind, a candidate’s style or governing with discipline is far less important than knowing the candidate has a backbone to counter disagreement and has a finger on the pulse of voters’ concerns.

To that point, the results of a Yahoo News/ YouGov poll from late July, 2020 showed that Republicans and Democrats are very much aligned on the most important quality that they want from a president:  85 percent of Democrats, and 80 percent of Republicans, believe that taking responsibility is very important. It the top characteristic for members of both parties.

From a voter’s viewpoint, elected politicians do not address the problems. A congressman once told me that if the Democrats or the Republicans remedied a specific political issue that would deprive them of a campaign issue. Perhaps our politicians should watch season 7 of the TV series, The West Wing’s 7^th episode, The Debate. In real life campaigns we hear the same topics in every debate.

Assessing former leaders’ characteristics and abilities could serve as a benchmark and hopefully guide voters and the MSM to discuss more substantive aspects rather than using character assassination to destroy any potential candidate. Let’s look at the more impactful qualities which have resulted in great accomplishments by past leaders:

Charismatic. The President must inspire each citizen. Could Bush 41/43, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barak Obama hold a candle to Martin Luther King, Jr., or John Fitzgerald Kennedy? Franklin Roosevelt’s confidence and conviction persuaded voters the economy would recover.

Vision. A well-stated direction of the country. A strong vision that voters can embrace. A plan bringing every citizen to the end goal. The goal of the journey must be forefront, constantly reminding people of the vision & goals. During WW II, PM Churchill plainly laid out plans exactly.

Perseverance. Setbacks are never obstacles. A candidate MUST have the ability to press forward thru adversity. Abraham Lincoln’s efforts from 1832 to 1858 brought failure, defeat, and rejection. He is the quintessential example of someone who never gave up or gave in. In 1860, Lincoln won the presidency.

Resilience. Setbacks are only temporary. Tackling rather than shying shy away from problems demonstrates that a leader will overcome obstacles and barriers. Great leaders do not listen to those that would degrade them or hold them back. Nelson Mandela played a critical role in ending apartheid.

Stamina and Intellect. A leader needs the intellect to synthesise/process information, observe and interpret actions, understand the spoken and unspoken words. Mahatma Ghandi, though jailed on several occasions, but he never swayed from his position of non-violence. Eventually Ghandi had awakened the spirit of fellow Indians and created a climate for Indian Independence.

Pragmatism. It takes courage and backbone to make tough decisions. We need leaders who put the total good of all people above the Donor Class and/or a vocal, loud minority. Knowing that achieving the desired outcomes might mean balancing priorities and taking risks.  While in office President Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons, forcing China to agree to a cease-fire of the Korean War.

Listening. President Trump was criticised for his revolving door of Cabinet members & Advisors. Good leaders listen to varied expertise/views. A good leader provides opportunities to prove competence & acumen; knowing if propensity/acuity lacks they cut them from team.

Communication.  Any politician must be an effective global communicator of vision, of goals, and know the appropriate actions to take. A good communicator knows how other countries can engage with the US while achieving beneficial outcome for both sides. Ronald Reagan was known as the great communicator.

Voters want a leader with backbone who puts the people first. Substance and results are measurable. Style and personal judgements are difficult to quantify. Making necessary changes in how our government functions will not be to everyone’s liking. As Winston Churchill stated: “If one has enemies, Good. It means one has stood up for something in their life.”

In 1960, the first televised presidential debate changed the way people perceived a candidate’s fitness for office. On television, John F. Kennedy appeared calm and affable while Richard Nixon appeared nervous. People who listened on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched on TV, thought Kennedy had won.

In 1992, the townhall meeting between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton solidified the move from substance to superficiality. Bill Clinton’s charm and public speaking ability were the qualities that led to his winning the election.

Social media changed the way people watch debates. Evaluating a candidate happens in real time. The Mainstream Media (MSM) deviated long ago from considering whether a candidate had the ability to influence policies, coalesce the 3 branches of government, or had the people’s best interest at heart. Over the past two decades the MSM moved from charm and speaking ability to character assassination.

About: Dr. Jan Halper-Hayes is an internationally recognized strategic change and leadership expert, media commentator, best-selling author, and sought-after speaker. Over the past 30 years, Jan has become the go-to expert working with Boards and senior executives to ensure their proposed mergers/acquisitions avoid the typical pitfalls–resulting in her clients becoming the leaders in their fields.

The international bestseller, “QUIET DESPERATION: The Truth About Successful Men”, is a provocative study based on interviews with over 4,000 male executives and 43 in-depth profiles spanning over two years. Her work challenges the very fabric of what we have believed to be the successful male prototype, as well as enlightened us about what successful men value in their personal and professional lives. She believes ‘Male Toxicity’ is a fabricated attempt to emotionally blackmail men.