PSU Magazine Fall 1988

measure up. Some people never do. Who would have thought Jimmy Carter had such a propensity for shooting himself in the foot? The moment he became presi– dent he was constantly doing things that undercut himself." Which brings up the question: what do the American people want in a president? Recent history shows us Americans are fickle, or at least adaptive to changing times. Smeltzer gives the example of Dwight Eisenhower: somewhat laid back, plays golf (but really works harder than he's given credit for) followed by John Kennedy - young, active, patrician. Both well liked and extremely different. James Barber, in his book The Presidential Character wrote: .. .the Presidency is much more than an institution. It is a focus of feelings. In general, popular feelings about politics are low– key, shallow, casual. For exam– ple, the vast majority of Ameri– cans know virtually nothing of what Congress is doing and care less. The Presidency is different. The Presidency is the focus for the most intense and persistent emotions in the American polity. The President is a symbolic leader, the one figure who draws together the people's hopes and fears for the political future. And the people look for this symbolic leader in the candidates. One who is responsible, serious, and capable, par– ticularly, according to Heath, if the issues are not strong enough to dominate an election. "Not looks; that's overdone," he said. "It helps to not appear ugly, but you don't have to be terribly good looking to convey sincerity, trust, common sense. That's what people are voting for unless they are going with a straight party ticket." uch has been made in this election of each candidate's M resume. Bush backers love to call attention to their man's lengthy and diverse history of public service: con– gressman , United Nations ambassador, Republican National Committee chairman , envoy to China, director of the CIA. And at the same time they deride Michael Dukakis for his lack of foreign policy experience. But Heath is skeptical . Looking back, he sees presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, who had long years in the federal government, but in Vietnam launched a foreign policy debacle that ultimately destroyed his career. Woodrow Wilson, who had no experience in foreign policy, is now remembered for his dip– lomacy during the end of World War I. Heath's review of Jimmy Carter is mixed: a man with no foreign policy experience who scores a triumph by bringing to– gether Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin - heads of two countries that had hated each other for years - but who misreads the Soviet Union and who, rightly or wrongly, is blamed for the Iran hostage crisis. "I think whether you are a sophisticated diplomat and know your way around may not really matter that much ," said Heath . No president before 1952 had much in the way of foreign policy experience, he added. What may be more important is an ability to organize policy, have an overall design , and find a way to get the State Depart– ment to react the way you want. So if voters are not to be turned off by Michael Dukakis' lack of foreign policy experience, are they to be turned on by George Bush's eight years as vice presi– dent. Heath's answer is a resounding "no." "The vice presidency,'' he said , " isn't worth a bucket of warm spit." After all , the vice president's real duty is to wait for the president to die, and that can be a long, boring wait. Heath said Teddy Roosevelt used his time as vice president to study for his law degree. "' UJ PSU 5 z 2 "' UJ ~