Who can be President of the United States?
By Chuck Hyde, Editor of StandBesideHer.com
There are several factors determining who can be President of the US, legal requirements, personality, party affiliation, and financial means. Unfortunately, competency is not one of the requirements.
THE NUMBER 1 RULE
Legal requirements for being President are set forth in the US Constitution. Article II, section 1. It states that a person must be a natural born citizen of the US and must be 35 years old. What this means is that a person has to have been born in the United States. An example of a couple of people who are not eligible are Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan and Arnold Schwarchenegger, Governor of California. Both have been mentioned as being potentially electable but while both are citizens of the US, both were also born in another country, Canada for Granholm and Austria for Schwarchenegger, making them both ineligible. There has been some discussion about changing the constitution through amendment to allow foreign born citizens to be eligible for the Presidency but to date there has been no real effort to start the process.
PERSONALITY OF A CANDIDATE
Personality, while not a legal requirement, is very important for a presidential candidate. A candidate has to make himself likeable to voters. This has been especially important for the last 40+ years because of the advent and subsequent prevalence of television. We now take television for granted but before the 1960 election it was not an issue in presidential campaigns. We have gotten to a point in which we see the candidates on an almost daily basis on the news. This has become even more significant in the last 20 – 25 years with the growing popularity of 24 hour cable news channels. Because of this constant exposure everything about a candidates demeanor is magnified for all to see. Candidacies have been harmed by television throughout the last four decades. We have seen candidates damage their chances from Richard Nixon sweating during his televised debate with John F Kennedy in 1960 making him look nervous through Al Gore smirking during his debates with George Bush in 2000 making him look cocky. Making the minefield even more treacherous is the relatively new medium of the internet. While the internet has been around for awhile, it has only been recently that political campaigns are starting to understand the potential, and potential risk, for them. A good example of the risks of the internet and how personality matters is the 2006 campaign of George Allen, Senator of Virginia. Allen was winning handily when he was filmed using an obscure racial slur. The film was placed on the internet site You Tube and Allen never recovered his footing, losing a narrow race.
WHAT PARTY DO THEY BELONG TO?
Party affiliation plays a major role more in which party you don’t belong to than in which party you belong. The reality has been that if a candidate is not a member of one of the two major parties (Republican, Democrat), there is virtually no chance of being elected in the general election. The two main reasons for this are resources and the fact that the two major parties essentially make all of the rules for campaigns. The two major parties far outpace the other parties in resources such as money, man power, organization, and members already in power at the local, state, and national level to make rules that tend to favor the major parties. Because of already having members in power and having more muscle to flex, the two major parties are able to make the rules to favor themselves. Rules on how names are placed on ballots, who participates in debates, and how campaigns are funded are controlled by members of the two major parties, setting up self-perpetuating power for themselves. This makes it very difficult for so called third-party candidates to make any inroads in elections with the occasional exception of local elections. Some notable exceptions are Jesse Ventura- former Governor of Minnesota, Ross Perot-former candidate for President, and Ralph Nader-past candidate for President. Jesse Ventura, a former wrestler, used a gimmicky, colorful campaign and voter unrest to score a major upset as a Reform Party candidate and served one term as Governor. Ross Perot used a populist message to garner a significant amount of votes in the 1996 election and, while it has never been definitively determined, may have helped Bill Clinton beat George Bush Sr. Ralph Nader ran a leftist campaign in 2000 and 2004 and may have siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore to change the course of the 2000 campaign.
WHAT ABOUT MONEY?
Last but certainly not least is financial means. Unfortunately it seems elections have become more about money than about serving the public. Money buys advertising, pays for travel, supports large campaign staffs, and pays for organization such as get out the vote operations. The ability to raise money is intertwined with party affiliation and personality. Donors give money largely based on personal party preference. If a donor leans Republican, they will likely give their money to candidates who share their views as a Republican. The other way money is disbursed by donors is by the way they think it will benefit them. The basis for this is electability which is largely defined by personality, or character. These donors are attempting to buy influence to receive favorable treatment for something after the candidate is elected. They will then give their financial backing to the presidential candidate they think is more likely to win. Their money is then a speculative investment. Is this right? No, the case could easily be made that this is nothing more than legal bribery but unfortunately it is the current reality.
OTHER FACTORS THAT FIGURE IN
Finally, as mentioned at the beginning, competency is not on the list. There has been an argument, possibly legitimate, that the most qualified people do not run for president. Depending on your political leanings, these arguments have been made in recent history about Presidents from Jimmy Carter to George Bush and all of the men in between. There have been several reasons offered as to why the most qualified candidates do not run. Low pay, there is a strong argument that the pay of the President of the US is too low for the demands of the job. The argument is that these men can make considerably more money in the private sector. Living in a fish bowl. The President of the US has his life and the lives of his family on display constantly. There is no privacy and any slip up is broadcast on the news and is political fodder for the opposing party. Sadly, this often extends to the children of the President. Presidents have often had children in their teenage years, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and twins Barbara and Jenna Bush. These children have all had to live their teenage years on display and this has been viewed as a strain on their formative years.
Finally, it has often been commented that the Presidency of the US, while an honor, is a thankless job. Between the lack of privacy and the inability to make everybody happy, it takes a person with thick skin to manage the pressures of leading the US. It has often been said that these reasons combined may have kept some highly qualified people from running.
About The Author: Chuck Hyde is editor of StandBesideHer.com. He is also a husband and father of two teenage boys and a younger daughter. His family lives in the northern Midwestern rural United States, where they enjoy camping, fishing, and other outdoor activities together. Chuck is a Registered Nurse in an inner city emergency room and has had a lifelong addiction to politics.
COMMENTS: Do you have a comment about this editorial?
Email Chuck here
to share it.
