On Running For President …

Posted on by under Election 2024, Free Press Issues, History, Humour, Political commentary, Social commentary

I’ve joked about running for president, but I know I’m lacking many of the qualities necessary – not necessarily qualities necessary for doing the job, but for getting the job.  I’m extremely introverted – back in the days of my career as a management accountant, I had to give a presentation to the corporate Board of Directors once a month, and just speaking in front of a group of 8-12 men (no women on that Board!) caused me to stutter and stumble and lose sleep the night before.  No way I could speak in front of thousands of people!  In today’s column, Robert Reich tells us why he is not running for president and he does so with both humour and insight …

Why I’m not running for president (or anything else, thank you)

What I learned about running for office in America

By Robert Reich

29 June 2023

Several of you have written asking if I might consider running for office. Well, I have an announcement to make. Brace yourselves.

I’m not running — for president or anything else.

I’ve run once before (for the Democratic nomination for governor of Massachusetts in 2002) and learned I don’t have what it takes.

Before I ran, I thought I knew everything there was to know about getting elected — which made me think I could get elected, too. I’d been involved in dozens of campaigns. I’d advised candidates running for governor, senator, and president. I’d worked for three presidents.

I was wrong. It takes several unique personality traits to successfully run for a major public office. I don’t have them.

First, you need to be sufficiently narcissistic to be able to sell yourself to voters (and anyone you need to help bankroll your campaign).

In 2002, so many Massachusetts residents urged me to run that I thought voters (and funders) would flock to me once I announced.

But the moment I said I was actually running, the burden of proof instantly shifted onto me. Even my most ardent supporters wanted to know: What made me think I would be a good governor? Many of the people who I assumed would be generous with their dollars in support of my campaign became skinflints overnight.

Sure, I could promote policy ideas — I’d done it all my life — but I was terrible at promoting myself. It felt excruciatingly embarrassing. Telling complete strangers why they should be enthusiastic about me made me want to crawl into a hole and disappear. Dialing for dollars was the most humiliating experience I’ve ever had.

Donald Trump is a masterful self-promoter because he’s a pathological narcissist. He boasts about himself nonstop and has probably done so since he was an infant. No matter that his bragging requires dangerous lies, vile smears, law-breaking, and a grandiosity that would cause normal people to cringe; he does it all without moral constraint. It’s all he does.

He’s the extreme. But you’ve got to be big on self-promotion to get anywhere in electoral politics.

Second, you need to be wildly extroverted.

By this I mean you get more energy out of every encounter with a total stranger — every handshake, pat on the back, morsel of conversation — than the energy you lose in such an encounter. So by the end of a day of such encounters, you end up more energized than at the start.

Bill Clinton lived off this contact energy. If he didn’t get enough, he’d see people standing along the side of a road and order his driver to stop so he could get out and shake their hands and get more. Al Gore, by contrast, seemed to lose a bit of energy with each encounter, so by the end of a day of campaigning, he was depleted.

I was drained after a few hours.

Trump is not a typical extrovert. He doesn’t get energized from just any contacts. He gets energized when he dominates and others are submissive.

Third, you need to be a method actor.

You have to be able to will yourself into feeling whatever a situation demands, so you come off as authentic.

Ronald Reagan was a master of method acting, presumably because it had been his career before politics. Clinton was almost as good. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, far less so. Trump is fairly good at this. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were lousy method actors; even when they told the truth, they seemed to be lying.

I was awful at method acting. On St. Patrick’s Day 1992, I was supposed to give humorous remarks in several of Boston’s Irish enclaves, but the family pet had just died, and I came off as strangely somber. On another occasion, I wanted to show indignation about the war in Iraq, but my best friend was clowning around on the fringe of the crowd, and I burst out laughing.

Fourth, you need a thick skin.

Your political opponents and the media inevitably will find your vulnerabilities and go after them. Thick skins are a necessity. Joe Biden has one of the thickest; Trump, the thinnest.

I thought I was impervious. After all, I’d been a Cabinet official at a time Republican lawmakers had turned into attack dogs. But I was wrong. When one of my opponents accused me of lying about getting Bill Clinton’s endorsement, I was livid. When another said I became a professor because I couldn’t make it in the real world, I was furious. I lost several nights’ sleep over these and other equally bogus accusations.

You need to be respectful of the media and not become incensed by their “gotcha” reporting.

I considered myself media savvy before I ran for office, but the moment I declared I was running, I was in the shark pit.

It seemed like the only thing the media wanted to report about me was my short height.

I couldn’t give a speech without The Boston Globe running a photograph of me standing on a box so I could see over a standard-sized podium. The Boston Herald even ran a story headlined “Short People Rise Up in Anger Against Reich,” claiming vertically challenged people across Massachusetts were upset with me for making self-deprecating jokes about my height.

***

Needless to say, I didn’t become governor of Massachusetts. The experience taught me I was terrible at being a politician.

Yet it also put me on the other side of a great divide separating those who have run for office from normal people.

And it allowed me to understand something I had never understood before: It is impossible to shake thousands of hands at a bus stop, or to phone thousands of strangers asking for their support, or to knock on thousands of doors — and do it well — without being driven by a force beyond narcissism, beyond extroversion, beyond method acting, beyond the thickest of thick skins.

To be good at running for office, you need to be driven by an ambition that’s both pathological and inspirational, grandiose and generative. It’s an ambition that, like Trump, craves attention and power — but also, unlike Trump, occasionally seeks the common good.

Discover more from Filosofa's Word

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

68 thoughts on “On Running For President …”

  1. Jill, one of the challenges we face is we are looking for the wrong skill set to be president. With the complex nature of multiple business organizations, many have been looking to more introverted, analytical types to be CEO. Running a country is a complex assignment requiring study and analysis. Warren Buffett once said President Obama was the best editor of information he has ever seen. That is what we need, someone who can compile and understand information.

    Not that extroverted folks cannot be good presidents. Bill Clinton had several faults, but being unable to understand financials was not one of them. He was analytical as much as he was communicative.

    Yet, while is wife was even more analytical, Bill had one trait she did not have. He could connect with everyone in the room. I have friend that spoke with Bill at a fundraiser. He said Bill could make you feel that you were the only one in the room. That is a talent.

    Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • PS – By being so focused on the extroversion, we missed out on some good candidates – Republican Congressman Jack Kemp was one of the more learned elected officials around. He was also a former pro football quarterback. Democrat Senator Bill Bradley was a lot like Kemp, a former pro basketball player and Rhodes Scholar. And, Democrat Paul Tsongas ran for president in 1988, but was considered too boring, so we ended up with a lesser candidate. .

      I would love for some boring competence in the White House. Keith

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tsongas was considered too boring, eh? Like you, my friend, I would so love to have boring competence! Actually, Biden pretty much fills that bill … the problem is that he has so many hurdles surrounding him that it’s hard to find a path to do anything. That said, he has accomplished more than I would have expected, given the obstacles he’s faced with.

        Like

        • I remember Paul Tsangas being my first pick, in my first election, until he went out of remission and had to leave the race, if I recall correctly. This is yet another reason that many people argue for a sortition, or rotation pool of candidates, without voting, such that every citizen would end up in the pool and possibly serving, at some point. But that requires that we educate people to be mindful of the duties of citizenship, and also to know how to think critically and speak logically. It wouldn’t be that difficult in a world where we all had guaranteed housing of some reasonalbe safety level, and health care, etc.

          Liked by 1 person

          • The idea of every citizen eventually serving in public office at some point is the stuff nightmares are made of! I lean in the opposite direction, of enhancing the requirements for public office to include educational and experience requirements. Too many citizens have an IQ of around 12, and have radical ideas that do not fit well in a democratic society … or any society, really.

            Like

      • P.S. I’d also like some of that boring competence in Congress, as opposed to the garish incompetence of the likes of Margie Greene, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, and the like!

        Like

    • Good points, Keith! I hadn’t thought of it that way, but yes, analytical skills are essential to the job, as well as having a genuine interest in the future of the nation and its people. We often seem to gravitate toward the loudest voices, the most … effervescent … and those are not necessarily the most capable nor the most dedicated. I liked and respected Clinton despite the troubles he had with his zipper.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Times change, and the media eats candidates for breakfast. There are also the historical accusations that appear from long-closed closets, and detailed examination of everything you have ever said or done since you were old enough to stand and speak. Anyone who wants to put themselves through that is welcome to it.
    As for me, I would probably make a good dictator. Just suppress the media, and make all the rules to suit myself 🙂
    Best wishes, Pete.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Grim Hat warning…….Heavy Cloud coming in…..
    The thing about Democracy no matter how flawed a system is that a substantial amount of the population are willing to go along with whatever that might be wrong. This may be because they hear what they want to, or they think they are making the least worst choice. Which is why we get the less than satisfactory mix of choices.
    Unless folk are willing to buy into any message which says ‘This is a tough choice. This is not going to be easy. You are going to end some days up not liking me. But it’s the only way out,’ then this will go on, imperfect. A very good orator with a hide like several layers of leather could do it.
    It has to come from the baseline, turning backs on what is considered How To Get On- a mindset of the more money which is poured in the less you trust them.
    But folk choose popular options. Little known fact for some, the Nazis got into power in Germany through the Democratic system. And when it all fell apart, Gobbles and Hitler blamed the people.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I guess I’m expecting too much when I expect people … ALL people … to put the good of the nation ahead of their own personal desires. Expecting people to make sacrifices today to ensure a better world tomorrow for their children and grandchildren is a bridge too far. Sigh. Selfishness and ignorance will be our downfall, just as it was the downfall of the German people in 1933.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I said this just last week somewhere, not sure where, but anyone intelligent enough to run a government is too intelligent to even try. This is the biggest reason democracy gets such useless csndidates 99% of the time.

    Liked by 1 person

      • He was, and I freely concur. In my eyes, he was the greatest President the USA ever had. But still, he did not acvomplish ss much as I thought he could have, Was it the hired help? Or was he just too “lame duck” to be able to fight the GOP? I did say 99%. There is always someone who us good and capanle, but the odds are against them — literally.

        Liked by 2 people

        • No my friend! 97% are good, working hard to improve their own lives and the lives of those around them. What we are seeing is the incredible unbelievable ability of a little swill to pollute the ocean.

          Liked by 1 person

          • You and I define define hard-working and good differently. Until racism, including systemic racism, is completely stopped, until gun violence is completely controlled, until women’s rights are completely entrenched, and until every adult in America is free to vote their conscience witnout any interference or intimidation, politicians are not doing a good job. And those are just my top 4 requirements. There are many others, including free healthcare, free education including post-secondary, freedom to be whatever gender you feel you are you are free to be without interference, NOTHING IS BEING DONE.

            Liked by 2 people

        • Definitely among the best in this century, at any rate. He did as much as he could, given the obstacles he faced after his first two years. Yes, as Keith and I were just discussing, it seems that people will gravitate toward the loudest, not necessarily the most competent.

          Like

  5. I think I’d make a good (advisor to the) President because I have common sense, spiritual values, and am “critical thinker” enough to be both wise to myself and to the world. Of course, these qualities are anathema to Presidents who know everything or wouldn’t admit otherwise — so I needn’t apply to the next GOP President, which hopefully won’t happen anytime soon (like in my lifetime).

    BTW, I’m also a dreamer.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’m with you on that, mm! I can see you as an advisor, but like me, I think you’d have to give up who you are in order to run for the office. And I couldn’t be on any GOP ticket anywhere, for I’m a terrible liar … my face gives me away every time! Lying is requisite in the GOP, y’know! Yeah, we can dream … we have to have that to cling to.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. That is the biggest problem in my eyes, that a candidate needs financial supporters to campaign or has to be rich. Private wealth or the supporters decide who can have a successful campaign. It is not the people who decide. This whole process has developed into something grotesque.

    Liked by 4 people

Comments are closed.