During my tutorial today, Dr. Hurst brought forth a curious observation. We were discussing figures in pre-WWI British Politics such as Lord Salisbury, Landsdown, Chamberlain, Duke of Bedford as well as other less prominent figures from the Liberal, Conservative and Whig parties. He pointed out the strengths and weaknesses in these men as political leaders, but also brought up definitive characteristics that came through in their personalities. As he articulated about their lives and position in society, the portrait of each of those men became much more clear to me. For example, Salisbury was one of the best foreign office ministers and could work through international complications to the minutest detail. He could not, however, remember simple facts of life very well and was often portrayed to be a rather maladroit person. One particular instance, he accidentally sent to his son, a welcome note inquiring if accommodations were adequate at the Cecil family country estate, and had mistaken his son for a guest.
Concluding this discussion, Hurst made a final comment that stuck in my mind and I brooded on it for a short while. He mentioned something along the lines that "personality can truly define how an individual can adequately fulfill a leadership role in government". I then began to review familiar historical Prime Ministers and Presidents in my head, and found that Hurst's comment had a great deal of support. Sir Winston Churchill was a very independent and contemplative personality but also was willing to pursue passions like watercolor, writing, and travel, but also attempted new challenges such as bricklaying and following dangerous adventures in war. Margaret Thatcher had a dynamic personality though often cloaked with refined words and proper social etiquette. Many of her conversations with journalists reveal an educated but fiery rhetoric that exhibits her strong and affirmative character.
If you look at some of the presidents of the United States, one could analyze their leadership similarly. Ronald Reagan had the bright and spirited personality of an actor, but also displayed the reason and moderation necessary in politics. Years before his 1980 presidency, Reagan was a leader in many circles from social, and artistic to small government. Even then, his easygoing nature made him come across as a person one could look up to and respect but also someone you could comfortably approach or look to for assistance. These are qualities, I believe, are necessary in a successful presidency. As the chief leader of the nation and not the decider on all issues, it is the President's role to be a public servant and be capable of communicating with society so that he or she may adequately represent what "We the People" want in our government. A personality such as Reagan's easily meets those needs in leadership. If one were to look at an opposite disposition, such as Jimmy Carter, the need for strength in character becomes even more obvious. Carter was a casual people pleaser, and never exhibited any qualities that would instill any sense of respect from a judgmental society. In other words he was weak, and when that translated through to his role as President, our government was seen as weak also. Without some sense of leadership and control, society will in turn, disrespect the government. The exact same holds true for state governments also, such as what occurred in the recall of California Governor Grey Davis.
So to conclude this thought, I will now pay even more attention to the personalities and personal history of our current politicians and diplomats. With a more thorough observation of the qualities of political candidates, I hope to make my citizens' vote a more wise contribution to the benefit of my dearly beloved United States (despite all it's current shortcomings).