They’re both smart and capable, and have the capacity to govern reasonably. Neither candidate will diverge radically from the governing agenda (the menu) and stance (choice) that the administration has taken thus far. We have checks and balances to ensure that, at least in the domestic realm, the executive is not the key. I’d like to examine here the essence of each candidate, demonstrating the impressiveness of their mind.
Let us take a look at Barack Obama, in his brilliant and lucid Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Recognize first that Obama is dealing here with torrents of public opinion throwing around his public image. “Did he deserve it?” “No!” “He has barely governed!” and the like. People are not likely to read or listen to what he had to say, and yet he comes out with this gem:
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
Such a statement is unlikely to be found in diplomatic discourse, much less practice. It is far too nuanced and prying to be from the notepad of a political speechwriter. Indeed, as Michael Lewis illuminates, Obama himself wrote these words, along with the rest of that speech, in an all-nighter worthy of the summa cum laude undergraduate who has too much on his plate. Such precision of mind and courage in critical thinking is the arch-qualification of a President: a person who must endure a schedule showing no regard to the emotional or physical health of a normal human being, while formulating and being instrumental in executing policy solutions to problems that may have none in the short term.
Mitt Romney’s intellectual capacity is demonstrated by his career path: management consultancy, followed by an impressive J.D./ M.B.A. from Harvard. While his success may have been padded by his strong family life and the support of the Mormon community, his results are hard to ignore. The man is intelligent, and, most likely, thoughtful. His background should also tell the reader that he communicates concisely–which sometimes comes across as tersely–and prefers action to deep reflection. But, then, he did not grow up on the Hawaiian beaches, watching the waves crash onto the shore and pondering the meaning of it all. He was devoted to a life of worth, a life of service, and a life of advancement.
In the end, the President has to be critical, reflective, active, and human. Managerial skill as well as intellectualism combine for decision making skill in situations where there is often no formula for success. So why thoughtful? Perhaps, from a university setting, that is how I parse the value of a statesman. But the real reason is more concrete: how does the decision maker know he or she is on the right track? How do they keep themselves honest? Constant reflection, critiques, and rethinking. Many may start thoughtful, but by the time they reach the precipice of the presidency, especially after a long campaign, the process of reflective, constant critical thinking is out of their rhythm. I hope that the next President can be strong enough to be thoughtful on the job. I want a well-led country. I want a thoughtful President.
The View from the Bell Tower 