In commenting on the Krauthammer piece over at QandO it occurred to me that the basic premise of the Krauthammer piece is really quite flawed. That is to say that I am not so sure one can credibly argue that the campaign is a humbling and humiliating experience that therefore can do the souls of candidates some good prior to assuming power (should they win).
Think about it: are these campaigns really about humiliating the candidates, or is it about them going around the country being treated like rock stars (or, at least, mid-level celebrities)?
Sure, the campaign trail may be humiliating for the third tier types who never had a shot to begin with, but is Obama being humiliated at his public appearances? Is Rudy really being humbled by the experience of campaigning?
I think not.
Really, the campaign is a big ego-boost, and this is especially true for the winners of the nomination and the eventual president.
Think about it: you see your name in huge letters everywhere you go, crowds cheer for you at every turn, and people are hanging on your every word. Is it exhausting? Yes. Do you have to repeat yourself a lot? Yes. Might you have to do silly things (like flip pancakes)? Yes. But, is any of this really about bringing one down to Earth in advance of becoming one of the most powerful persons in the world? No, no it isn’t.
Indeed, the more I think about it, the worse Krauthammer’s argument is.
Also, Matthew Shugart takes on the whole Madisonian argument in the piece and notes the flaws therewith.
June 8th, 2024 at 5:52 pm
The idea that there is a humiliating process for these candidates is absurd. I am guessing that not only has Krauthammer not read much Madison, but he also has not ever really paid much attention to campaigns elsewhere.
Watch a debate of British or Canadian party leaders some time. The moderator will not be kind to candidates who try to dodge questions or give pat answers. I am speaking of campaign debates, but of course they also have to answer (or ask, if the leader of the opposition) questions regularly before parliament in televised sessions. That gets to the point in the earlier post about campaign length. In Britain or Canada, sure the formal campaign is short. But it actually is a permanent campaign, because there are no term limits on the head of government, nor does the opposition wait till election year to pick a leader. So they are constantly in the public eye having to answer tough questions from the other side and from a media that is vastly more aggressive than ours.
The rock-star analogy Steven uses is a good one: presidential candidates are treated as celebrities.