Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What is the “Presidential Presence”?
On Judith’s thread yesterday about Tom Cotton, talk of the Arkansas Congressman one day pursuing the Oval Office led member Mike H to write:
Just going on his pictures, he doesn’t have the presidential presence. I don’t know if this is a deal breaker, but it can’t help him.
My knowledge of Cotton isn’t deep enough to meaningfully comment on that observation, but I think there’s something to that notion of the “presidential presence.” It’s similar (though distinct) to what is referred to in the military or law enforcement as a “command presence” — that certain je ne sais quoi that causes you to accept the idea of someone as a leader (and likely causes them to abjure phrases like je ne sais quoi).
This is one of the reasons that, talented as he is, I have a hard time with the idea of Bobby Jindal as a viable presidential candidate. When I talk to people who identify as Republicans but aren’t immersed in politics the way those of us here are, I always hear the same comment: “I just can’t picture him as president.” And you can sort of see their point: the slight build, the floppy hair, the voice that earned him comparisons to Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. It doesn’t really fit the template. I’m sure some lefty blogger will take this as a dog whistle for the fact that Republicans won’t vote for an Indian-American, but does anyone really think we’d be having this conversation if Jindal looked like Shahrukh Khan?
It may all be completely unfair. In fact, it probably is. But like it or not, we have seem to have a presidential archetype floating around in our collective unconscious.
Of course, conformity to that schema is no guarantee of success. On our side, the two most recent examples of candidates dubbed suitably “presidential” were Mitt Romney and Rick Perry (apparently, a lot of us think “presidential” translates roughly to “ready to appear in a menswear catalog”). So this bearing may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient.
What do you think are traits that are a necessary part of the “presidential presence”? What would your ideal candidate be like in terms of temperament, personality, and appearance? And how do you think our crop of potential 2016 candidates does according to those standards?
Image of silhouetted president via ShutterStock
Published in General
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Farm Subsidies, no-bid government contracts, TARP, GM Bailout, Obamaphones, etc., etc.
Oh, I am sorry – you said Presidential Presence. I thought you said Presidential Presents…
Ability to communicate ideas clearly and persuasively; a certain boldness in manner (i.e., “swagger”) and the reputation (earned) of someone who really likes people either individually or as part of a group. He or she must know when to indulge in a selfie and when to be somber, when to laugh.
There are two types that are acceptable to the general electorate:
The Statesman: Ronald Reagan comes to mind. Comes across as a trusted father figure that would be tough on our enemies but warm hearted toward our citizens. Looks toward a higher goal for everyone.
The Good ‘Ole Boy: Bill Clinton did this very well. Comes across as “one of us.” He understands and empathizes with “me.” Caters to the lowest common denominator and as a result is easily understood. We know he’s probably a rascal but we still like him because well, we’ve all been a little rascally too.
I loathe this question, because I love Bobby Jindal and I would love to see him as our next president. Troy, you are probably right. But let me continue in my denial and say that I would like to see voters trust the presence of a person with sterling academic credentials, integrity, and a long record of accomplishments over any qualities of appearance.
Considering the current guy, isn’t the bar pretty low now?
That’s what a century of Hollywood will do to a country.
It’s funny when I would have prefered Paul Ryan last time around, and he has about as unpresidential of a look as they come.
Also, there are probably some counter-examples. For those of you who were around (and trying to ignore the politics of it), was Carter very presidential? Bush II strikes me as a borderline case of the quality.
I think confidence has a lot to do with it. You must be sure of yourself when you speak, always be able to find your words, and know that what you’re saying are strong arguments (unless you’re Obama, in which case you just say things confidently and assume that makes them true).
In my mind, examples of confidence would be: Cruz, Paul, Christie, and yes Ryan (VP debate notwithstanding). There are probably others. I’ve had no direct exposure to Cotton, he may have it, though you need more of it when you don’t have that “thickness” (interpreted as strength?) in your favor (this includes Ryan.)
The country seems to always vote for the better looking, taller, more fit, candidate (sorry Christie!). Let’s stop finessing and quickly enlist Tom Selleck before they throw Clooney at us.
Oh, I am sorry – you said Presidential Presence. I thought you said Presidential Presents… ·27 minutes ago
And that’s the truth.
Obama, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and many other Democrats demonstrate that “presidential presence” is a construct of good PR.
God help us if we, as conservatives, fall for that crap.
As for the race in Arkansas, let’s just say that it’s been a long time since the GOP was in high Cotton.
ADDENDUM – You have to catch Cotton in the right light and the proper setting:
Like pornography, you know it when you see it.
As for the race in Arkansas, let’s just say that it’s been a long time since the GOP was in high Cotton. ·27 minutes ago
I’d get the Stuttaford vote at least: “If you like your E-cig, you can keep your E-cig.”
Presence is important; a fact that bothers me. I don’t want a charismatic leader, but a quiet employee whose primary job is staying out of my way. A Coolidge, not a Kennedy. I realize this puts me in the distinct minority of voters (even conservatives).
Like EJ said, you know presence when you see it, but it’s hard to define. A good way to measure it is to watch debates: Do the candidates confidently assume that they are the ones in charge (Romney, Gingrich) or do they complain to the refs and act as if the moderator is in charge (Santorum, Ryan)? Reagan didn’t politely raise his hand; he thundered, “I paid for this microphone!”
Despite all the progressive conceits of the last century, looks matter. For all but a stubborn few style will always trump substance.
Critics of our current POTUS believe he got his position based solely on how he was depicted in media portrayals. His supporters dispute that — even as they cite the man’s looks (complexion, really) as a bar to criticizing his behavior.
I like a no-nonsense candidate who easily sees through the BS and navigates it. I don’t necessarily care if the candidate is one of those types that expertly works both sides of the aisle but I do care whether said candidate has the ability to pick a good staff to negotiate the important stuff.The candidate also needs to have to ability to ask members of his staff to leave when/if they cannot perform their job.
There has to be substance. Anyone can stand in front of a teleprompter and read speeches. I want someone who can easily handle the stuff that’s not on the screen.
There has to be strength and compassion and the ability to know when to use both and not overplay your hand nor forgo opportunities to make a difference if warranted.
Finally, we need someone who is proud of the USA and shows it. I’m tired of apologists. Yes, we have warts but what country doesn’t?
Alas the culture has embraced this. And maybe part of it is engraved in human nature: many people want a king. They want justice bestowed by a benevolent despot. They want to be hangers-on at the royal court. They want life to resemble the soap opera — because quiet competence without rancor is boring.
We here at Ricochet emphatically do not want to be ruled by a king — because we’ve thought it through and we prefer republic. But as much as we admire a brave and competent leader like Jindal, even we can’t see him wowing the crowds… or seducing the cameras.
Our candidates need stage managers as much as they need speech-writers.
In 2011, I made a lot of people here mad when I said that the broader electorate that votes in the “general” would never go for a short guy wonk, a comb-over, a smart-aleck, a cowboy, or a jr high algebra teacher.
That ruled out Jindal, Daniels, Newt, Perry, and Santorum right off the bat.
Of the guys on our side who can project what is needed- reasonably empathetic, reasonable gravitas- Cotton does reflect it, the hayseed look is countered by height and resume. So does Rubio, so does Walker (though he will never get past the unions screen, he needs to be in the cabinet), so does… Martinez. More will emerge.
But visual charisma is a reality. Philip Seymour Hoffman is probably one of our very greatest actors. He will never be tapped for Tom Cruise or Daniel Day Lewis roles. The presidency is, like it or not, a role.
Upon reading Troy’s headline, a feeling of dread crept into my consciousness as I suspected this piece was going to be about Bobby Jindal. Yes, we all know that by every standard except the one Troy brought up Jindal stands higher than the other potential GOP nominees. So, what’s it gonna be? I suggest we dump the “ready to appear in a menswear catalog” standard (so aptly stated) and other “electability” attributes and select a candidate based on performance and leadership attributes.
Americans have demonstrably grown weary of the current “cardboard cutout” president and are perhaps ready for substance. Besides, if the Democrat candidate turns out to be that much-talked-about Clinton, I’m certain that neither Jindal, nor any of the other potential GOP nominees would face a “presence” deficit.
This makes a point I’d first thought of as a kid, watching Superman II (1980). Remember the scene when General Zod captures the President and makes him kneel before him? When the President revealed himself, even as a kid, I thought, “That guy doesn’t look like a President!”
Rewatching the scene today, I put it down more to the unfortunate hairstyles of the 1970s—did Carter or Ford really look like your idea of a President today? But I was thinking that when I saw it in the theater, even back then, when that hair was the norm. The guy looked a little goofy, even to me. He didn’t seem to have the presence.
In the 20th century, who’s looked like your idea of a President? Appearance only. For me, T.R., Wilson, F.D.R, Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan. Maybe I go for the senior statesman look.
Winston Churchill is the personification of “presence”, and he was just a dumpy little man. Chris Christie has Presidential presence and he’s morbidly obese. …………………..
It’s definitely a hard quality to quantify. It reminds me of one of Bill Maher’s great lines about the difference between nice guys and great men, before he went all liberal-nutty:
“General George S. Patton was a great man. Dick Van Patten is a nice guy. But you wouldn’t send him to beat the Germans.” ·24 minutes ago
Yes- but in a world of visuals, the one-shot appearance is more important than ever. For example- Ted Cruz will never be nationally elected, because his baseline facial expression simply does not engender warmth the way, oh, Tom Coburn’s does. It is a present-day necessary-but-not-sufficient characteristic. Jeb Bush has it in spades if he had a different last name. So does Rubio, so does Cotton.
Max Weber’s term charisma is present in our political lexicon, but I dislike its connotations as a totally irrational, nearly indescribable quality.
I’d distinguish command presence from “charisma.”
Yes, command presence does have to do with body language and tone and confidence.
It also has to do with remaining calm under pressure, maintaining a firm and steady purpose even when things look grim (not pie in the sky, but soberly), knowing your subject matter thoroughly–technical and tactical mastery: someone who clumsily gets it wrong all the time lacks presence and respect. That said, this confidence is a mean between being a doormat and being hubristic: you delegate well to your subordinates, and listen to their expertise–nevertheless, you decide and you own the consequences. It further includes a mix of staunchness and temperance in disciplinary matters: one has to know, instinctively, how, when and why to turn anger on and off–how to command one’s passions.
It finally can be said to have something to do with knowing how to articulate all of these qualities in speech and deed in a way that is within the ken of the audience you’re addressing at any moment.
Spoken like a girl from Truman country, or Eisenhower country, or Lincoln country.
Height and square chins are the most common visual indicators of leadership in men.
If anybody looked the part it was Mitt.
Cotton has the height but not the chin.
Unfortunately, Troy is right and Jindal doesn’t have the presidential presence. I would vote for him, but I don’t think the LIV’s would give him the time of day.
And, just to be clear, I don’t like it any more than you do. Jindal is a first-rate talent. But there does seem to be a casting problem there.
Seconded. Maybe we should order a run of Coolidge/Cleveland ’16 stickers.
There has to be substance. Anyone can stand in front of a teleprompter and read speeches. I want someone who can easily handle the stuff that’snoton the screen.
Precisely. And, in a way distinct from virtually every other elected office in the nation, 95 percent of the job is not on the screen.
That ruled out Jindal, Daniels, Newt, Perry, and Santorum right off the bat.
Agree with this list with the exception of the cowboy. It’s a pretty enduring American archetype and one that wears pretty well politically. Now (putting Perry’s substantive deficits aside), I would agree that it was a non-starter in 2012, because there were broad swaths of America who would look at Rick Perry and see George W. Bush redux (which is a pretty atrocious misreading on the merits, but likely would have been an easy and enduring meme).
Of the guys on our side who can project what is needed- reasonably empathetic, reasonable gravitas- Cotton does reflect it, the hayseed look is countered by height and resume. So does Rubio, so does Walker (though he will never get past the unions screen, he needs to be in the cabinet), so does… Martinez. More will emerge.
Duane, I’m curious (delighted, but curious) about your inclusion of Walker on this list. He’s probably my favorite of the bunch for 2016, but I’ve long had to fight the nagging suspicion that it’ll be a replay of my Mitch Daniels obsession: a smart, thoughtful, substantive guy who plays like mayonnaise on Wonder Bread to a broader audience. Walker strikes me as more accessible than Mitch, but I wonder if it’s enough. Care to explain your thought process?
In the 20th century? I’d probably subtract LBJ and maybe Wilson (I see Ebeneezer Scrooge every time I look at old Woody) and add Harding and JFK.
For what it’s worth, I think the TR look is hard to beat. There’s a reason the folks at Parks and Recreation made Ron Swanson think like Calvin Coolidge but look like Teddy.
Winston Churchill is the personification of “presence”, and he was just a dumpy little man. Chris Christie has Presidential presence and he’s morbidly obese. Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler were all small men, but had ‘presence’ like crazy – showing that it’s not necessarily a good thing.
I think that’s precisely right. We shouldn’t overstate the importance of the visual factor relative to the others (as with most such analyses, it’s about the mix). Another good example of this: Dick Cheney. He doesn’t cut the most dashing figure, but he is, without a doubt, a commanding presence.
And, just to be clear, I don’t like it any more than you do. Jindal is a first-rate talent. But there does seem to be a casting problem there.
Convince me.
Let’s all take off our political analyst hats and ask ourselves a simple question:
Would Bobby Jindal’s “presidential presence” deter you from voting for him?
Set aside all other questions, such as who you think would be the best candidate, or how somebody else might vote. Simply address the question:
Would Bobby Jindal’s “presidential presence” deter you from voting for him?