Why no great candidates?

By Robert M. Alexander

When was the last time voters went into the voting booth and could not make a decision because they were faced with so many phenomenal candidates? I have yet to hear someone exclaim: "I just can't decide. There are too many great candidates to vote for!"

In graduate school, I was exposed to the work of James Bryce, an English academic and later ambassador to the United States, who wrote The American Commonwealth at the turn of the 20th century. Bryce's observations were poignant then and continue to be salient today.

Perhaps one of Bryce's most interesting observations concerns why the "great man" would never become president in the United States. Each year, I share this passage with my undergraduate students, and it seems particularly fitting to revisit it as the 2016 campaign commences.

Bryce tells us that the great man (or woman) would not become president for several reasons. First, he suggests that the great man would make more enemies than the obscure man. His eminence would cause too much fear and conflict among the establishment. Donald Trump has banged this drum particularly hard in recent weeks.

Bryce further reasons that the great man would not want the hassles of a campaign. The tawdry business of soliciting money and asking for votes isn't for everyone. Of course, we also see that not all candidates are particularly adroit in their fund-raising.

Lastly, having one's life become an open book is not a prospect to which most would look forward.

So what would the great man or woman look like?

Public opinion polls consistently find that Americans want leaders who are strong, decisive, and effective managers who have good moral character and the ability to unite diverse people. In our current political environment, being strong and decisive works to divide the country. Likewise, our political system was designed to prevent quick, definitive action by the chief executive. What we refer to as gridlock can also be seen as checks and balances in action.

Political scientists Thomas E. Cronin and Michael A. Genovese consider these contradictions in their book The Paradoxes of the American Presidency. They note, for example, that Americans want a common, ordinary individual they can identify with, while at the same time they yearn for someone who is extraordinary. Similarly, we want an honest, amiable person we can have a beer with, and at the same time we want someone who can act with guile and cunning toward those who wish to do our country harm. A president should be willing to rip the heart out of an enemy's chest with his or her bare hands if the situation calls for it.

Finally, we want someone who is above politics and unites diverse people. President Obama's "postpartisan" rhetoric and President George W. Bush's oft-quoted "I'm a uniter, not a divider" quickly come to mind. Yet bitter partisanship and division marked much of the presidencies of these chief executives. This is because, as Cronin and Genovese note, there probably isn't a more political position than that of the president of the United States. Taking action means that one will likely draw the ire of many who resist policy prescriptions made by the president.

And this takes us to the status of the 2016 campaign. Outsider candidates have had a nice run over the past several weeks. Businessman Donald Trump, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and former CEO Carly Fiorina have dominated much of the discussion regarding the Republican field. Likewise, although Bernie Sanders is a sitting U.S. senator, he has staked a claim as the populist insurgent running against the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Americans' contempt for Washington makes running as an outsider an easy proposition. Just 14 percent of Americans currently approve of the job Congress is doing. Too much bickering and few accomplishments are often cited as the main reasons so many disapprove of their representatives' job performance. Running from the outside to change Washington has been a standard of the American political process, and the current political environment feeds demand for the outsider.

Yet simply being an anti-Washington candidate or someone who has not held public office does not make one great. Recently, the editorial board of USA Today lamented that "a neophyte president who has never spent a day in public office seems an unlikely source of salvation."

Having a vision and the ability to resonate with a vast array of voters is a good start. However, there has been little vision and unity espoused among the nearly two dozen candidates running for the highest office in the United States.

Although it is still early, I have little confidence that such a candidate will be on the ballot on Nov. 8, 2016. With more than 300 million Americans, it is difficult to believe that the current field of candidates represents the best the country has to offer. It is no wonder so many voters will likely choose "none of the above" and simply stay home on Election Day. I only wish we could prove Bryce wrong.

Robert M. Alexander is a professor of political science at Ohio Northern University. r-alexander@onu.edu