When Bill Clinton got his BJ, everyone said that it was ok for the president to be a little human. Then George Bush got elected and now I’m having my doubts. Sure presidents can act like common men and make mistakes, but we should not actually elect the common man. They are naturally human but have to be held on a higher standard than normal people are, underwise there is no point in electing them as the symbolic leader of our country.
Clinton was impeached for the lies he told about his affair. I wouldn’t exactly say that everyone said it was okay even if he wasn’t removed from office because of it. I also think it’s extremely safe to say that everyone is not okay with how Dubya is running things.
Until the PrezBot 9000 is ready for beta release, yes, we should humanize our presidents. A president should be well above the average Joe in intelligence and in personal ethics. But beyond that – saints make poor leaders. India would not have thrived if Mahatma Gandhi had been made its first prime minister.
I think you’re talking about two different things here. Bush has always exercised a folksky charm to connect with people. He’s not the first Presiden to do so, though he probably goes further with the act than most. When people said that about Clinton, they meant we shouldn’t expect leaders to be perfect, which is fair enough. Maybe they should be better than Clinton, who lied under oath, but perfect is asking too much. This probably all comes down too trust. A lot of people are wary of candidates who are too smart or who come across as superior.
I agree.
They’re politicians. “Human” would be three or four steps up.
America should be run by Lord Vetinari. He’d have it running like clockwork. With perfection as standard.
The problem is if a president is treated as a normal guy he will get less respect. Think about how much respect all the presidents before Clinton had, and everyone after. I think it might of started with Nixon though, but Clinton made it worst. Now we have Bush.
Notice how Bush’s policies seem to be the root of all the Bush jokes?
This is highly debatable at best if you look at political campaigns throughough history. Plenty of other Presidents have gotten absolutely savaged.
Not quite. His youthful indiscretions have also given us some material to work with. 
I thought they were elected to be the actual leader of the country. You want symbols? Buy a flag. Remember - virtually every great leader in history had an erratic private life. They’re not a little human, they’re a LOT human. They do everything bigger than the common man, and that includes screwing up.
Winston Churchill would not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected president, would he ?
The root of the problem is the idea of having the head of state being the leader of the government, as well. A head of state almost embodifies the country and can’t be seen dirtying his hands or betraying his ideals. An effective leader of government, on the other hand, has to be willing to make deals and compromises. This does not combine well.
Bizarrely enough, constituional monarchy makes way more sense. The monarch is the national symbol who is larger than life while the PM can kiss babies and steals their candy. Everybody can respect the monarch and despise the PM at the same time. (If monarchy is too far, look at the German model. The official German head of state is the president (Horst Köhler - I had to look that up), but the government leader is the somewhat better known chancellor Schroeder.)
Funny how that works. British royals have not always been exemplars of moral and noble behavior, have they?
Based on the past few human presidents, the PrezBot 9000 will probably be a Bender model.
Not a chance in hell Churchill could be elected. An overweight alchoholic who’s been part of the political machine for 30 years, having been forced out of office at least twice… can you see that happening?
Our Presidents are already human; the danger is in deifying them.
I totally agree. Nothing in the presidential requirements states that you must be all of the following: a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, a harvard grad, a business major, and a christian…
To be honest, I’d rather have the common man in office rather then what we have for choices now. The common man is what I relate to. I just cannot relate to rich lawyers, top school grads and religious fanatics. (Oh, and that goes for the common women too!).
I don’t care how common or uncommon the President is, so long as he’s (or she’s) good at his (or her) job. Background isn’t nearly as important as abilities.
Remember, the most socialist President the U.S. ever had was also about the most upper crust - or would you call FDR a “common man”?