In a recent article, Time’s Nancy Gibbs wonders which of the two candidates has the ‘temperament’ a president should have. Although most would automatically assume this to be Obama (I actually think it is), it’s not as easy as some think.
Temperament also has something to do with being able to endure hardship, without losing one’s sense of reason, wrong and write, purpose in life. In this regard, one can say that McCain has shown, especially during his time as a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, perfect temperament.
But temperament is also about something else: it’s about being able to remain phyisically and mentally calm when someone behaves aggressively to you. It’s about defending your views when they are attacked, without becoming overly aggressive and angry. It’s also about not considering a (political) opponent evil, or being unable to seperate opinion and professional behavior from character and personal issues.
With that I mean the following: McCain seems to be unable to consider his opponents “good people.” When Mitt Romney was his main rival for the Republican nomination, it was clear that McCain took Romney’s criticism very personal. He did not merely disagree with Romney, he hated his guts.
And the same is happening now with Obama. He doesn’t just disagree with the Democratic candidate, he deeply dislikes it and does no effort to hide his dislike.
Lastly, having a good temperament means you do not get angry easily. You get angry when anger is required, not when it is counterproductive and not called for. Obama has shown it is virtually impossible to make him angry (publicly at least), McCain, on the other hand, has quite a long record of reacting angrily to people who do something wrong in his eyes.
To me, Obama wins on this issue. If a voter should only take temperament into account, Obama should – and would – win.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
OK lets pursue this temperment issue: Reagan: not easily ruffled Bush 41: not easily ruffled Clinton: known for his temper behind the scenes Who were the better presidents? Could it say more about our times (i.e turbulent) and our desire for calmness and stability. Sen. Obama is calm (and cool and collected). Stability, to me, implies wisdom and experience. IMHO the jury’s out on that one for Sen. Obama.