« Guns on the Wall | Main | Debating Bloomberg »

Private Lives, Public Duties

09 May 2007 12:01 pm

Emily Bazelon, writing in Slate, makes the case that Rudy Giuliani's mistreatment of his wife and children should be a political issue. "It's not only the religious or the uptight that can be put off by an utter lack of personal morality in a presidential candidate," she writes. (Glad we cleared that up.) She goes on:

A past like Giuliani's betrays a level of self-indulgence that, if nothing else, suggests that more fireworks are in store and that the show will be long-running. We'll all be strapped into front-row seats. Giuliani's psychodramas may or may not tell us about the sort of leader he'll be, but we've already been forced to think enough about the sort of man he is. (The prospect of President Hillary Clinton and four more years of her marriage leaves me with a similar sense of dread.) All elections are trade-offs. But when a candidate starts off with a loutish and loathsome past, chances are good that his time in office will be marked by missteps and distraction and that he'll be more irritating and less effective as a result.

I seem to recall a few conservatives - okay, maybe all of them - making precisely this argument about Bill Clinton without very many liberals joining the chorus, and I'm sure that Bazelon's discovery of the character issue in Giuliani's case has nothing to do with his party affiliation. (Perish the thought!) That said, I don't think having liberal voices as well as conservative ones making the case that character counts contributes all that much to our understanding of the issue. Of course character counts: The question is how it counts, and there we see through a glass darkly, if at all.

In hindsight, for instance, it's clear that certain of George W. Bush's personal attributes - his intellectual incuriosity, his sense of personal calling, his abiding loyalty to friends and allies, his stubborness when challenged - have led his Presidency into disasters. But it's perfectly possible to imagine a Presidency in which those same qualities in the chief executive turned out to be great advantages that led to great successes. Loyalty, stubbornness, a sense of mission - all of these can be positive attributes in the right circumstances, and even Bush's incuriosity could have proven a better quality in a wartime President than, say, Bill Clinton's obsessive-compulsive intellectualism. That these traits worked out badly for the country is apparent, but only now, just as the only way to know for sure how Rudy Giuliani's various personality traits will affect his Presidency would be to elect him President and see what happens. Sure, his psychodramas might engulf the country, as Bill Clinton's often did - but electing Presidents without obvious inner demons gave us Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, while a morbid, moody depressive was arguably our greatest Chief Executive. The pressures of high office work in different ways on different temperaments - alcoholics and philanderers sometimes rise to the occasion and sometimes don't, and the same seems to go for tee-totalling, uxorious, psychologically well-balanced types. At certain junctures, a self-consciously normal guy like Gerald Ford is the man you want; at others, you want a hard-drinking romantic like Winston Churchill. It's just tough to know what sort of character will suit the times until the times are over.

:: Comments (61) ::

Share This

Comments (61)

Ross, this intellectually sloppy post was unworthy of you. President Carter's was not a largely unsuccessful presidency because of his strong work ethic. President Bush's commitment to loyalty even over competence, and his stubbornness -- that is, his willful blindness to or rejection of verifiable facts -- are never good leadership qualities. Any success such a leader has comes in spite of these deficiencies. President Clinton was sometimes too indecisive, and President Lincoln's depression may have interfered with his productivity. I don't see what any of that proves in this context. Again, when they were successful, it was because of other qualities.

Mayor Giuliani should not be judged by his stormy personal life, per se, any more than President Clinton should have been judged by his. That the president might be "irritating" to some people is a remarkably superficial concern for the usually sharp Bazelon to raise. Given that the private matters at issue have not been legal problems but merely interpersonal ones, the relevant sorts of questions to ask in both cases are, Does the candidate have a record of taking his public responsibilities seriously and of producing good results in that domain? Does the candidate seek relevant information and corrective feedback? Does the candidate have the interpersonal skills to bring out the best in people?

Posted by jason | May 9, 2007 1:53 PM

For Emily,

I give you Lyndon Baynes Johnson.

Personally, and sometimes politically, something of a lout.

But he was quite progressive on civil rights and economic aid for poor Americans.

If the liberals can have him, why can't the conservatives have . . Guiliani?

Posted by David | May 9, 2007 3:44 PM

"Presidents without obvious inner demons gave us Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush"

You're making some fairly ridiculous generalizations here, but just one point. How does being a recovering alcoholic (to say nothing of the widely rumored affection for a certain white powder) not qualify as an 'obvious personal demon'? I'd say it's, at very least, on par with a penchant for philandering.

Posted by Benjamin | May 9, 2007 4:16 PM

I have to agree with Jason on this one, Ross. It's a cop-out to say, "we'll never know until we try." I can agree that we need to be more sophisticated about the character issue than just looking for a clean-living type, but being more sophisticated means pretty much the opposite of throwing up our hands and saying, "nobody knows anything."

Here are some things we know about our major candidates:

- Rudy Giuliani is a man of wide-ranging passions and enormous ego, an opera lover with an operatic temperament. He has a powerful thirst for attention and a tendency to engage in operatic gestures that backfire completely, and yet somehow never destroy him. He fires subordinates he thinks are stealing too much of his limelight and picks huge fights over petty issues when he doesn't like his opponent. He is not merely unafraid of controversy and political conflict - he actively seeks it out. But he has no patience for losing; he loves to win. He is difficult to intimidate. He takes his own opinions very seriously, and considers himself both a man of ideas and a man of action. He has a powerful command of detail when he is interested in an issue. He does not second-guess himself. He is the only one of the four major candidates who almost never seems motivated by resentment. He expects total loyalty from others but does not believe he owes loyalty in return. Personality-wise, he is a classic megalomaniac.

- John McCain is still, at heart, a juvenile delinquent. He has a habit of "winging it" in both rhetoric and policy, and then backtracking sheepishly when he realizes he has blundered. He has a strong penchant for repenting and asking forgiveness. He is an extrovert and interested in the world, but not fond of study nor particularly attached to policy details; he prefers to judge issues by his understanding of the motives and character of the participants than based on the facts of the matter. He also has a thing for refusing to abandon lost causes and going down with the ship; he is happiest when he is losing in a good fight. He seems to delight in making enemies of people he does not like who might have been his allies and, on the other hand, trying to make allies of people who one would think would be his enemies. He is obsessed with his own honor. Indeed, he cares far more about honor than he does about law. He inspires profound loyalty in his closest supporters and returns that loyalty. He has by far the biggest family of any of the major candidates; he is also the least domestic. He is an egomaniac, but not a megalomaniac. He is in both good and bad ways very reminiscent of his hero, Teddy Roosevelt.

- Hillary Clinton is the bastard child of Bobby Kennedy and Richard Nixon. She inspires a degree of loyalty comparable to John McCain, and returns that loyalty. She is deeply patriotic. She is cautious to a fault and prepares exhaustively for every encounter. She hates to improvise. She has a passion for policy and is obsessive about detail, but she is not an intellectual - she is not interested in ideas as such in the way that, say, Al Gore is. She has a paranoid and vindictive streak; she divides the world into friends and enemies, and she remembers her enemies. She has a profound sense of her own entitlement to rule, because of her talents and because of her commitment to the public good (as she sees it). She has a Stalinist's ability to rationalize any politically-necessary compromise as justified by the long-term good of remaining in power. (I am not in any way implying that she is a Stalinist, or morally comparable to a Stalinist or to Stalin.) Ironically, as Obama is the candidate viewed by the public as a kind of messiah, Hillary Clinton is the one with a bit of a messiah complex.

- Barack Obama is the candidate we know the least about, he having spent the least time in the public eye. He appears to be the candidate with the best control over his own emotions. And yet he seems to judge very nearly everything based on how it fits in to his own narrative of himself. He has the temperament of a writer rather than an actor. If one side of Hillary Clinton resembles Bobby Kennedy, Barack Obama resembles Jack - cool, aloof, glamorous. Obama's political career has been marked by audacious haste in moving up the ladder and extreme caution in political positioning. He has made a fetish in his campaign so far of bridging divides, bringing people together, finding common ground; his thin legislative record is similarly a record of small accomplishments and consensus. This is a not-uncommon predisposition among children of divorce. Obama is too new to have a clique of loyalists or to have much of a track record of leading people; we do not know if people will follow him when he comes under fire. It is striking that Obama identifies strongly with President Lincoln, because they appear to have some personality traits in common: relative to other politicians, they are loners, introspective, depressive. Unlike his hero, however, Obama is not identified with any particular political cause or mission; fundamentally, we do not know why he is running for President, other than it would perfectly fill out the arc of his biography. (And by that, I don't mean that he's running for President because it's the logical next step, the last rung on the ladder, the way Bush Sr. did. Obama hasn't been climbing ladders and strikes me as ambitious rather than competitive and status-conscious in the Bush family mold. He's been writing a narrative, a story about himself, and how he became President. If he doesn't become President, the story won't be nearly as powerful nor make as much sense.) I am coming to the conclusion that Obama is a solipsist - not a narcissist who cares only for himself, nor an egoist who views himself in outsized terms, but a solipsist, someone whose points of reference are almost exclusively internal to himself. If nothing else, you have to be pretty solipsistic to write two autobiographies before you reach the age of fifty.

I may be right or wrong about the profiles above; most of what I've written is pretty much conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom is conventional for a reason: because it's probably right. But it seems to me the point of the "character issue" is not just to predict what pointless distractions will interrupt the next Presidency, but to try to predict how well this or that candidate will perform on the job and what decisions he or she is likely to make. And, in that regard, it seems clear to me that the above profiles, if accurate, tell us something about how different candidates will likely react to certain policy questions, irrespective of their expressed policy preferences.

For example, I am convinced, largely on the basis of his character, that John McCain is far less likely than many people think to push us into war with Iran; indeed, I think he might be more likely than any of the other candidates to navigate us to a peaceful resolution on decent terms. By the same token, I'm convinced that he will never, ever leave Iraq, not because he believes so strongly in the war but because he loves a lost cause, and will not abandon it. If you liked the Harriet Miers mess, you will love a Giuliani Presidency; Giuliani has appointed many hacks and yes-men in his time in public life - anything he wants done well, he does himself, and he can't appoint himself to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, he is the candidate most likely to have the balls (and the chutzpah) to cut the Gordian knot in Iraq and just leave. If you want to see some kind of entitlement reform, and you don't care so much about the details so long as it leaves the country more solvent, then your best bet among the four candidates is probably Obama, because he's the only one who probably genuinely would care more about getting a deal than about how favorable the deal was to one side or the other (assuming the issue got tackled at all). By the same token, Obama is probably less-likely to rebuild strong overseas alliances than people think he is, because he has no history of building strong political friendships, and successful alliances are significantly facilitated by such friendships. (More generally, I think the gap between expectations internationally of what an Obama Presidency would mean for American foreign policy and what it would actually mean is probably dangerously wide.) And if your big issue is illegal immigration, I strongly suspect that your best bet is . . . Hillary Clinton; Giuliani won't probably be intimidated in that direction (and he's hard to intimidate), McCain considers restrictionism to spring from dishonorable motives, and Obama is not going to take on entrenched interests who favor open immigration. But she's also likely to surprise people with how belligerent she turns out to be on Iran.

George W. Bush ran on a platform of compassionate conservatism, restoring honor to the White House, and a humble foreign policy. This platform did not turn out to be a good guide to his Presidency. But before he was elected, we knew he was stubborn, incurious, had a penchant for macho strutting and had daddy issues. We knew that he had a mean, even cruel streak ("please don't kill me") and also a sentimental streak (which is not at all a contradiction). We knew that he preferred to make decisions quickly and with his gut, and on the basis of his assessment of the emotional qualities of his interactions with different players rather than on the substance of the issues. We knew that he found politics a lot more interesting than policy and that he demanded total loyalty from subordinates. Some things about the Bush Presidency have worked out pretty much as expected; he appointed conservatives to the courts, cut taxes, passed a big expensive education reform bill, etc. Other aspects worked out differently; Bush was a relatively bi-partisan, consensus type in Texas, which raised expectations that he would govern similarly in Washington, but the Washington context was very different in terms of where the policy center was and in terms of the relations between the parties, and what happened was close to the opposite. But the biggest failures of the Bush Administration spring substantially from the character flaws that were, by and large, known before his election. So it behooves us to think about how this batch of candidates' flaws - and virtues - might matter decisively in what reasonably-forseeable future circumstances.

Posted by Noah Millman | May 9, 2007 4:38 PM

Take my personal assessment of Giuliani for what it's worth, but I'm very wary of electing a US president whose most glaring character defect seems to be sadism, or at least a penchant for inflicting and excusing casual cruelty. Especially since we'll be electing a president who will preside over a foreign policy adventure in which we engage in torture and many of our nominal allies are guilty of even worse.

I'm also worried about electing an egocentric authoritarian to the presidency at a moment when the trend is towards unsettling expansions of executive power. Then there's Giuliani's weakness for installing mobbed-up toadies in vital law enforcement positions, at a moment when cronyism and incompetence in the executive are significant national concerns and an effective national/domestic security administration is a high priority.

I agree that it's tough to tell how a person's vices and virtues will play out in the White House, but Giuliani's case seems easier to pre-judge than most.

Posted by Charlie | May 9, 2007 4:49 PM

it's practically impossible to intelligently base a vote for president on a candidate's perceived character.

for one thing, there is almost never a contemporary consensus on a candidate's character, even among people who deal personally with the person in question.

then you add to that fog our distance from the candidate. it's tough enough to gauge the true character of friends, let alone cardboard cutouts viewed via a TV or PC screen.

and of course we do not know what issues will arise during the upcoming presidency, and so cannot gauge what kind of person is best suited to meet them.

what we can know is a pol's track record in public life, and how much they've stuck to their proclaimed stances on relevant issues.

given this, if you're a liberal, you vote for LBJ over Goldwater, even if Goldwater was the better man. and vv.

Posted by chris | May 9, 2007 4:58 PM

Regarding "Bush's incuriosity" and the fact "That these traits worked out badly for the country is apparent, but only now", I have to scream "ONLY NOW!?!?!?! What have you been smoking? People noticed Bush's incuriosity (and worse), WAY before now. You and your entire side of the ailse, in fact, were very busy dishonestly denying it, from 2000 to now. So please spare us the "How could we have known?" act.

Since you now recognize that you were all such poor judges, whadya say you and all your ilk just sit the next two elections out, and let the honest people do the voting?

Posted by alwsdad | May 9, 2007 8:20 PM

Yes, it’s possible to imagine circumstances in which incuriosity might bring a President advantages that lead to success. That’s true of any trait, no matter how irrational or evil. Under some contrived circumstances, a madman in authority may prosper, but that should be of little consolation to you. The more relevant question is whether the traits are likely to lead to success, not whether you can imagine some benign remote possibility. And whether some other trait like overintellectualism (which isn’t the obverse incuriosity), in some other candidate, might pose its own dangers is a separate question, which, however relevant in a two-candidate race, doesn’t alter the utter predictability of the disaster that faces us now.

Of course different circumstances may call for different temperaments, but do you mean to say that voters lack enough information about the circumstances a President will face to form any rational judgments about candidates’ temperamental fitness for office? That there was no warrant in 2000 or 2004 for concluding that George W. Bush’s evident character flaws were likely to bring us to grief? How perfect must our knowledge of the future be before you'd be moved to take a man’s character into account before entrusting him with the enormous powers of the Presidency?

Posted by KH | May 10, 2007 1:51 AM

But it's perfectly possible to imagine a Presidency in which those same qualities in the chief executive turned out to be great advantages that led to great successes.

Wow.

Just wow.

Posted by salvage | May 10, 2007 9:52 AM

"intellectual incuriosity" (aka stupidity)
"sense of personal calling" (aka irrational and delusional)
"stubborness when challenged" (aka pigheadedness and lack of critical thinking skills)

Please give one example where these are valuable assets that lead to good outcomes (apart from sheer luck, of course).

(I recognize that these are the qualities that get Republicans elected all the time. Was that what you meant?)

Posted by tgb | May 10, 2007 10:44 AM

Face it you and the rest of the GOP put the petulant incoherent moron in office (twice) and it is going to destroy the GOP brand name for generations. Try to back off that fact all you want but it isn't fooling anyone.

Posted by Ted666 | May 10, 2007 12:56 PM


Ross:

I dont' think it is proven that Bush is "intellectually incurious" nor do I think the Iraq war is a lost cause, especially in its anti-Al Queda-promote democracy-aspect. So many of your assumptions seem like the same-old MSM stuff to me.

However, I agree with Bazelon. Rudy did not have a "stormy personal life." He chose adultery with one woman and then another. He chose to march his mistress down 5th Avenue in the St. Patrick's Day parade. He chose to get rid of a great Police chief, Bratton because he stole the limelight. He chose to announce his second divorce at a press conference. He chose to spurn the Conservative Party and go with the Liberals. He chose not to support the Republicans in 1994. Apart from his "slaughter the unborn" politics his character is such as to disqualify him from the Presidency.

I do not know who Noah Millman is but that post was a tour de force, and I don't agree with some of it but have to express admiration.

It comes down to this. Are we in a war? With who? How do we win? I think McCain answers 1. yes. 2. Islamic radicalism and Iran and 3. by demonstrating an unshakeable resolve to chase the radicals to the ends of the earth regardless of cost.

GWB spent to much money. He should have put the hammer down in Iraq and pressured Iran and Syria with being toppled early. But he has pulled in harness, mostly in the right direction, despite a united opposition in every opinion forming forum in the Country besides talk radio. Like Lincoln he is facing an opposition, many of whom would see America lose if it would hurt him and aid them politically.

When I see this "intellectually incurious" etc.. clap trap I think "You can take the boy out of Harvard but you can't take Harvard out of the boy."

Posted by jjv | May 10, 2007 12:58 PM

Ross, I have to call you on this all too persistent practice in the blogosphere of making a somewhat obscure point and turning it into a hot link that we must click on to educate ourselves. Sure, I guessed that the "morbid, moody depressive" was Abraham Lincoln (though for a moment I wondered about Washington), but why do I have to guess? Why not just say, "Lincoln, a moody, morbid depressive" and let us go to the link for further education?

I see this kind of thing all the time. Could you and your fellow bloggers stop playing "Where's Waldo" with your points and just say them? Add a link, sure, but don't make clicking the link an absolute necessity for following what your point is.

The lecture is over.

Posted by santamonicmr | May 10, 2007 3:46 PM

Wow, this is dumb. First, Bush is a "wartime" president because "his intellectual incuriosity, his sense of personal calling, his abiding loyalty to friends and allies, his stubborness when challenged" got the United States into a war of his choosing.

There were many ways to respond to 9/11. A land war in Iraq was probably the least wise of the conceivable alternatives.

He can go on all day long about how God or History or Fate brought this upon him. But the fact is that, he brought it upon himself and the country.

Second, you are one damn idiot if you think ceteris paribus choosing the incurious, stubborn, and loyal, is better than choosing the curious and broad-minded who understands that loyalty is owed to Kings not presidents of a democratic republic.

Posted by Joe Strummer | May 10, 2007 6:10 PM

The school paddle is, is not an effective instrument to deal with bad students

Posted by dopornstars | January 31, 2008 11:15 AM

Ilamar poker net geld null natürlich zeichnen Rank Plattform www everes poker net Distanzhülse Rank fassen Multispieler Abweichung poker spielen anleitung schwellung Kratzer Reisen lappen Spiel!

Posted by poker online spielen ohne anmeldung kostenlos | February 1, 2008 11:30 AM

Now free ringtones to download for cricket phone video fold string cricket free music ringtones outdraw game face overplay cage music tones da vivo toke poker hand second?

Posted by free real song ringtones | February 2, 2008 1:49 PM

Now free ringtones to download for cricket phone video fold string cricket free music ringtones outdraw game face overplay cage music tones da vivo toke poker hand second?

Posted by free real song ringtones | February 2, 2008 1:50 PM

Similarly info remember ringtones samsung t100 river game clubs four live alltel from info personal remember ringtones drop live ball wheel pair true tones ring tones quads catch horse jolly.

Posted by samsung x427 ringtones | February 2, 2008 2:07 PM

Similarly info remember ringtones samsung t100 river game clubs four live alltel from info personal remember ringtones drop live ball wheel pair true tones ring tones quads catch horse jolly.

Posted by samsung x427 ringtones | February 2, 2008 2:08 PM

Begin with baixar toques vivo vegas crown complete circle baixar um ringtone celular tilt empirepoker layout earn rank edge celular baixar ringtones player horses management bullets handicapper?

Posted by midi soittoäänet | February 2, 2008 3:01 PM

Begin with baixar toques vivo vegas crown complete circle baixar um ringtone celular tilt empirepoker layout earn rank edge celular baixar ringtones player horses management bullets handicapper?

Posted by midi soittoäänet | February 2, 2008 3:02 PM

Quattro ringtones maker dessous gaule éraflure incisif [fém ringtones maker for nextel progressif affaire saisir mp3 ringtones motorola serrer se redresser profiter tricher glossaire dénomination!

Posted by design business logo | February 3, 2008 2:01 AM

Maintenant muerte blackjack entrega empuje natural bote lento black jack gratis caneria no jaula cantidad ronda empujando casinos la­nea cubierta riesgo dice abajo fanfarronee casa!

Posted by roulette black jack | February 3, 2008 12:39 PM

Uniforms should be, should not be required in public schools

Posted by streaming video fetish | February 3, 2008 5:09 PM

MilfThing Models! All In One Place! :)

MilfThing | http://google.com/group/milfthing-girls/web/

Posted by MilfThing | March 29, 2008 2:10 PM

PurePov Models! All In One Place! :)

PurePov | http://google.com/group/purepov-girls/web/

Posted by PurePov | March 29, 2008 7:55 PM

I haven't been up to much today. Such is life. My life's been basically dull today, but that's how it is.

Posted by gaybears | March 31, 2008 11:05 PM

All Vagina Videos In One Place! :)

Cute Vagina | http://google.com/group/cute-vagina/web/

Posted by Vagina | April 2, 2008 12:35 AM

All Taboo Videos In One Place! :)

Taboo | http://google.com/group/taboo-videos/web/

Posted by Taboo Videos | April 2, 2008 1:09 PM