Training to be President

Week Ending 10/24/08:

During the closing days of this presidential campaign season, I can’t help but think about how the American people reach their conclusions regarding the candidates. During the first half of the 20th century trains became a big part of gaining public exposure. Remember, these were the days prior to easy airline connections, cable news, internet blogs and cell phones. Radio, almost non-existent TV and print newspapers were the only mediums to project a message, and all of those mass communications were controlled by a few media titans.
Trains became the way to traverse the country to see the people, making stops in both large metro areas as well as rural stations along the way. At one time, the private Pullman car on a special train was for the president what Air Force One is today, allowing him freedom to make important trips, campaign for re-election, and to do the nation's business wherever he was needed.

John Quincy Adams was the first to ride a train and Harry Truman became the last “railroad president”, although Bill Clinton decided to do a little barnstorming of his own and created several photo ops reminiscent of FDR. Truman’s successors learned to depend on the automobile and airplanes to travel.
The issues, too frequently, become a secondary consideration for many voters. When asked, these information-intolerant ballot casters have responded “I just like him.” Likeability, however, can be overcome by other qualities or circumstances, as demonstrated by Hoover, LBJ and Nixon. Some folks base their decision on a candidate’s military service. Examples such as Washington, Jackson, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower come to mind. Others weigh public service as a critical experience factor, i.e., Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan , and Polk. Communicators carry the day as well with Reagan, FDR and Clinton being the best. How about academics: Jefferson, Madison and Wilson . Sometimes it’s just plain speaking “common sense” that resonates with the people: Lincoln, Coolidge, Truman and Carter. For others, it’s good looks and charisma, witness Kennedy and Pierce.

Picking a president should be serious business. It should represent the elevation of the candidate that wins the most electoral college votes. It should not be a subverted or corrupted outcome, where ineligible voters are allowed to cast an invalid claim, or where the candidates themselves, camouflage their real identities and agendas. I’d prefer each pretender, I mean, contender, to clearly define what they believe and let each voter decide based on a transparent platform.
Whoever wins, somewhere between 45 -49% of the electorate will be unhappy, a number much too large for the winner to claim an overwhelming mandate. The party that comes out on the short end of the stick will believe that their horse was robbed, cheated and disenfranchised and will have to bear the emotional scars for four long years. Let's hope that the political process has not degenerated to a point where large blocks of voters will not acknowledge the validity of the election results, when each state’s tally’s will be called into question and will resort in lawlessness and anarchy.