Political Studies: Presidential Characters - Literature review Example

Political Studies: Presidential Characters The lifestyle and thought pattern of every leader has a direct impact on hisleadership and the people he is leading. It is not in the title as in “president” but it is in the character and personality of the person in question. The rule of every president can be evaluated based on the kind of personality he has and his character. Character as defined by Webster’s II New riverside University Dictionary (1984) is a combination of emotional, intellectual, and moral qualities distinguishing one person or group from another. It is also a distinctive feature (characteristics), a moral or ethical strength (integrity), public estimation (reputation) etc. While personality is the totality of qualities and traits as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to an individual. According to Barber, “character is the way the president orients himself toward life-not for the moment, but enduringly. Character is the persons stance as he confronts experience. And at the core of character, a man confronts himself. The president’s fundamental self-esteem is his prime personal resource. Both traits are very essential qualities for leadership. Presidents in times past and present have been rated and their performance judged based on these qualities. In his book, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House,(4th ed.1992) Barber, J.D puts forth the theory that a presidents style of leadership and the way his presidency turns out is a result of his personality and pattern of thinking .King,S. presidential character(2004) Barber maps presidential character on two different lines: active vs. passive, and positive vs. negative. The first baseline in defining presidential types is activity-passivity. How much energy does the man invest in his presidency? Lyndon Johnson went at his day like a human cyclone, coming to rest long after the sun went down. Calvin Coolidge often slept eleven hours a night and still needed a nap in the middle of the day. In between the presidents array themselves on the high or low side of the activity line. Barber, J.D (1992) It is based on this theory and argument that we will carry out a study of some American presidents and how their personalities and character affect the presidency. We will look at the following character types: 1. Active types: - Active positive -Active negative 2. Passive types:-Passive positive - Passive negative. 1. Active types: a) Active-positive: Barber describes this type of president as one who has relatively very high self-confidence and usually works hard to better himself and the country. He uses power in a beneficial manner and enjoys his office and his power. From this definition Barber sites some presidents who possessed such traits. For example Presidents Thomas Jefferson, F. D. Roosevelt,  H. Truman,  J. F. Kennedy, G. Ford, etc. Delano in a Reading Analysis (October, 1997) retrieved online on the 22-04-08 from says: “An active-positive president chooses to act. But, in order to act, one must be able to prepare, which means one must be able to contemplate creative and strategic ideas. So, it is the contemplative life plus the active life. They must compromise. Because if one just has thoughts and refuses to act upon them, nothing is accomplished. "Actions speak louder than words." Roosevelts words still ring true today. So, perhaps confidence and initiation are the more contributing factors to an active-positive type. b) Active-negative: Barber says this type of president also works extremely hard to better his country but he finds no joy in his position or his power. It would seem as if he is trying to escape from something by plunging into hard work. He is often ambitious, perfectionistic, aggressive and ambitious. In present day leadership there are many leaders or presidents that fall under this Dean,w.J. in his article titled If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President.(2006), says American president George W bush has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is an active negative president. He says, “Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bushs fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation .Yet Bushs defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because "Im the decider and I decide whats best." He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: "Im the Daddy, thats why." As Barber explained, active-negative presidents “issue order after order,” without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until "nothing [is] left but the shell of the office." Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern. They are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required. He goes further to describe the source of their rigidity as an effect of their becoming “emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence”. Something they are not willing to do at any cost. Ross, I. in a review titled putting the American president in the psychiatrist’s couch, (May, 2001) indicates that Mr. Barber talks about the other active-negative presidents, all of whom have proved disastrous to the office. Each of these presidents had put much effort and personal investment into the performance of his duties, but without any enjoyment. For each of these men, life has always been a struggle and the personal rewards few. None of them could ever afford to rest on his laurels after some success, because if he did so, he would only have to re-double his efforts next time for fear of committing failure. This was despite all evidence showing that policy had long been proven a failure. He states that Woodrow Wilson would not compromise with opposition Republican Senators who had certain reservations about the U.S. becoming a member of the League of Nations. Herbert Hoover, sticking to his belief in "rugged individualism," would not modify his opposition to the governments stepping in to ameliorate of the effects of the Great Depression. Lyndon Johnson persisted in sending more and more troops into the Vietnam quagmire despite all evidence indicating that his persistent escalation of the war had long been proven wrong. Then, of course, there was Richard Nixon, who persisted in his lies and deceit in the cover up of the Watergate Scandal. 2. Positive types: a) Passive-positive: He describes this type of president as one that has weak self-esteem and is generally fairly easy to manipulate. He masks this lack of self-confidence with a superficial optimism, and a generally hopeful attitude. Their most important priority is generally a search for validation and affection. Ronald Reagan, James Madison, Harding and Clinton for example, were presidents who possessed such traits. Still, although passive-positive types help soften the harsh edges of politics, their dependence and the fragility of their hopes and enjoyments make disappointment in politics likely, Gunderson in Jurisprudential Character: the Typology of James David Barber in a Judicial Context published in the South western University Law Review (1983) asserted, quoting Barber. Barber said "the passive-positive type lives in a marketplace of affection, trading bright smiles in return. What threatens the fragile structure of that adaptation is conflict and particularly conflict at close quarters." (Remember smiling Ronald Reagans distaste for confrontations between staff and how he preferred just walking away?) "In drafting opinions," Gunderson said, "a passive-positive therefore may be expected to avoid language calculated to exploit or sanction other court members. (After all, this character type seeks affection, not personal aggrandizement or affirmation of personal virtue. Nor is any policy goal apt to seem worth even transitory loss of harmony.) Seeking not to offend either colleagues or members of the bar, a passive-positive is likely to be a cautious draftsman, using dicta sparingly, and deciding only what is necessary to dispose of the immediate case. Sensitive to everyones positions and views, it would seem consistent for such a person to be attuned to fairness and equal justice as values," Gunderson wrote. Distaste for confrontation and letting screw-ups go unpunished is classic Ronald Reagan. He and fellow passive-positive Warren Harding arguably ran the two most corrupt presidencies of this century. Passive negative: This president as described as Barber is generally in politics out of a sense of duty, because he feels he has to be. He generally is not a natural politician, and neither gains much happiness from serving as president nor puts a large amount of effort into his presidency. Such presidents are usually imposed on the people by others, especially western powers in what they describe as setting up a democratic government. As a matter of fact, these presidents are there as figure heads. You hardly see or hear about them. For example presidents George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George Bush,Sr. Andrew Barbana in an article retrieved online titled “Gov. Guinn: Nowhere Man as Likeable Ike and Silent Cal” Expanded from the 7-7-2002 Daily Sparks (Nev.) Tribune Updated 8-11-2006 quoting from Barber says: “Eisenhower is found asserting himself by denying himself, taking a strong stand against the suggestion that he take strong stand.Passive-negatives "hold back from powers exercise. In terms of their own motives, one wonders why they take the job, they are often popular in office. Witness "Silent Cal" Coolidge. God help them, and us, when they actually have to do something.” Barber states "The trouble with the passive-negative type in the presidency is that he leaves untapped the energizing, initiating, stimulating possibilities of the role. Eventually, some leader ready to shove as well as to stand fast, someone who enjoys the great game of politics, will have to pick up the pieces," Barber concludes. . From Barber’s analysis of personality traits in American presidents it is now evident why some of them were publicly acclaimed and loved while others were hated and highly criticized by the public. Their personality traits were and still are a source of judgment. Their leadership has been and still is being evaluated from this point of view. We could then conclude by agreeing with Barber that it is “the total personality of the person who occupies the white house that is the determinant of his presidential performance.”Barber, J.D (1992). MAIN REFERENCE: -Barber, J. D. The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992, retrieved 21-04-2008 from, http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/414%20presidential_character.htm and http://acad.fcps.org/ss/puch/apps/readings/barber.pdf Read More