It seems really obvious but I don’t think it really is. Knowing the limitations of Congress and the limitations of the office, what would a presidential candidate have to do once in office for you to be satisfied with him/her? What would they have to do for you to look back and think, “You know, that Was a good run we had, I’m glad I voted for him/her”? Does somebody have to be truly exceptional to be “good” or “Not unfavorable?”
Someone who’s extremely successful as a businessman with billions of his own money ? Someone willing to tell it as it is ? Someone unsullied by Washington and the Beltway ? Someone with lots of TV experience, unfased by questioning ? Someone with both left and right credentials ? Someone beloved by the masses ? Someone who loves this great country of yours ? Someone with awesome hair ?
Someone…classy?
hahaha
No, seriously, it depends on how high a bar you set to be “good.” Who isn’t going to make mistakes at an impossibly hard job? And yet, how can we excuse those mistakes at an important and influential post?
Maybe I’m a perfectionist, but I’m not sure any US president yet was entirely “good.” “Good” is to be pursued, but it will be only mostly attained at best. If I tell you a previous president was really “good,” maybe my sights are too low.
Maybe instead of trying to be “good” as in “better than a hypothetical average;” try to be “better” than the last several louts. Be an example of progress.
What do I mean by that?
A general principle: Jesus is not going to come back and clean up your messes. Your successors will live in what you leave behind, so take responsibility for the environment you leave behind. That principle speaks in various specific ways to conservation & environmental law, political corruption, rule of law, fiscal policy, education & culture, *and *the world stage.
Two things:
Somebody who is able to perceive the correct direction the nation should be moving in.
Somebody who is able to get the nation moving in that direction.
To Little Nemo’s list, I’d add:
Somebody who’s more interested in the good of the country than the good of the party.
To me, the whole election process brings out the worst side of us vs. them. You don’t just govern the United States of Conservatives or the United States of Liberals…
A President should have
- the morality to emphasize human welfare and peace,
- belief in science,
- the confidence to make important decisions,
- the humility to seek a variety of advice (sometimes at conflict with the preceding),
- the caution to avoid mistakes.
Avoiding mistakes is important! Some people complain when Ike is called a great President (“Nothing happened! He didn’t do anything but build some highways.”) Precisely. Leading the U.S. for 8 years without a major foreign crisis is why Ike was great. His successor suffered the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and wrong direction in Vietnam, all in less than 3 years.
Ideology (sincere difference about what is best for the country) is not the same as Party. The U.S. has largely managed to avoid electing the worst partisan hacks to the White House (though a few surround themselves with hack advisors). Partisan hacks often run for nominations, but usually don’t get too far.
This phrasing really bothers me. I don’t care if a president believes in science. I want a president who understands the scientific method (which ideally should cover every American over the age of eight), and who understands how to access scientific consensus. Whether he personally believes the results or not should be entirely irrelevant, unless he too is a scientist. What he should do is be able to distingish an expert from a non-expert, and to trust the experts.
never mind
Frankly I’m not sure anyone could be a good President today. In order to make good decisions all around, a President needs to be an expert in:
[ul]
[li]Foreign policy[/li][li]Diplomacy[/li][li]War[/li][li]The military[/li][li]World trade[/li][li]Tax policy[/li][li]Economic policy[/li][li]Constitutional law[/li][li]Law in general[/li][li]Environmental issues[/li][li]Health care[/li][li]Business issues and labor law[/li][li]Transportation[/li][li]A bazillion other things[/li][/ul]
No one on the planet is an expert in all those things. Obama is a smart man, and has expert knowledge in many areas, but not all the necessary ones.
When George Washington was President, he didn’t need so much expertise because his authority was much more limited. He didn’t need an educational policy, a health care policy, or an energy policy, since the federal government played no role in any of those things. He didn’t even have to organize a standing army because there wasn’t one. He just called an army together when he needed one. He ran a ferry service across the Potomac in his spare time.
-The “correct” ideological orientation
-Reasonable level of intelligence more geared towards political maneuvering than simply policy knowledge
-A certain touch of ruthlessness but not excessively or openly so as to create the potential for scandal
-A penchant for demagougery and reading the popular mood
-A realistic understanding of politics and the world in general as one of competing interests
An atheist.
Mike Rowe
I can see Trump only being good in one of those.
Come to think of it, so are almost all of the other Republican candidates; they have confidence, that their decisions will be good is a different thing.
As others pointed, no one can be an expert on anything, but they should demonstrate IMHO the ability of being good at identifying the best experts to consult when the need arises.
Someone who won’t just tell us what we want to hear. Someone that can keep it real and talk us into taking concessions and making the necessary sacrifices to pay down our debt. To curb our militaries spending habits, their need for control and our governments paranoia like irrational fears. Someone that will stop forcing our culture, way of life down other countries throats.
The OP asked, “what would a presidential candidate have to do once in office for you to be satisfied with him/her?” Nothing you’ve mentioned goes to that. And in this election cycle, there is no candidate whose name begins with “T” and who tells it like it is.
Bear in mind that the situation JFK faced in Vietnam arose only because Ike disregarded the Geneva Accords and refused to allow all-Vietnam elections. The CIA-sponsored coup in Iran also happened on his watch – it overthrew an independent-minded prime minister who wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry, and installed the Shah as an absolute monarch, and that came back to bite us later. No, Ike was not the greatest at “avoiding mistakes.”
No, he doesn’t. He has to have experts on all those things, and listen to them. Such experts are not all that hard to find.
Here’s what you don’t want to hear.
You don’t want a better President. You want a country with a different national character.
Barack Obama shares your foreign policy goals. And he’s competent. But he doesn’t have dictatorial powers.
As for telling people what they don’t want to hear, if you do this at all often, it destroys your ability to influence. Good politicians like Barack Obama know this. Hillary Clinton knows it. Even Bernie Sanders mostly knows it. Donald Trump is learning it, although I hope he turns out to be a very slow learner 
It’s not even close to that simple. Ask LBJ. He inherited most of Kennedy’s “best and brightest” and had some pretty disastrous results. In the end, the things he accomplished that were good were things HE knew how to do well(like get legislation passed), not what his “experts” knew. Second hand information is always inferior to first hand knowledge. And since we’re all human and fallible, sometimes the less educated get it right where the more educated get it wrong. Intellectual hubris leads to things like thinking you can micromanage a war from the White House.
You need a combination of intelligence, experience, decisiveness, and moral confidence to be a good President. Having great people around you is useless if you don’t know how to manage people. GWB had Colin Powell on his team. Hard to beat that. Now if only he’d listened to him more. And no matter how smart Presidents or their advisors are, almost all succumb to the tendency to prioritize politics over good policy. Especially since most Presidents understand politics better. That’s where an outsider might be a better choice.
So much for “not carrying water” for guys like Trump.